Subject: From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST%sri-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY>

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 85 01:58:13 est

Received: from sri-ai.arpa by CSNET-RELAY.ARPA id a018351; 24 Nov 85 2:56 EST
Date: Sat 23 Nov 1985 21:50-PST
Reply-to: AIList%sri-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V3 #178
To: AIList%sri-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY
Received: from rand-relay by vpi; Sun, 24 Nov 85 05:44 EST

AIList Digest            Sunday, 24 Nov 1985      Volume 3 : Issue 178

Today's Topics:
  Humor - Confectionist Seminar & SARTRE & Advanced Learning Techniques &
    Proof Methodologies & Rinaldo's laws

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11/21/85 14:21:07
From: ELISHA at MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Confectionist Autumn Repast

                [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

[...]

------------------------------

Date: Thu 21 Nov 85 12:34:58-PST
From: Paul Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: A VALGOL-(un)like language......

         [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

------------------------------

Date: Mon 11 Nov 85 13:57:56-PST
From: Paul Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Advanced Learning Techniques....

           [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.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 1985 0026-PST (Tuesday)
From: Stuart Marks <marks@cascade>
Subject: Found! list of proof methodologies

         [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.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 85  2304 PST
Don Woods <[email-masked]>
Subject: Proof Methodologies

  [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.'

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 1985 9:37-PST
From: Soon Yau Kong <[email-masked]>
Subject: addendum to list of proof methodologies

         [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]

------------------------------

Date: Thu 14 Nov 85 02:24:47-PST
From: William "Chops" Westfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Humor: Rinaldo's laws

         [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 of AIList Digest
********************