HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ak@sol.cs.uni-sb.de (Alfred Kobsa)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Verification of Knowledge Bases
Summary: Index to literature on the Verification of Knowledge Bases
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:04:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.074547.13984@email.tuwien.ac.at>, harald@efads1.tuwien.ac.at (Harald Stadlbauer) writes:
> Can somebody give me pointers to literature and systems or summaries of
> techniques for 
> verification of knowledge bases?

The Knowledge Engineering Review 7(2) [June 1992] contains a short special
issue on this topic which also comprises a comprehensive bibliography.

- Alfred Kobsa -
-- 
Alfred Kobsa, Dept. of Information Science, Univ. of Konstanz, Germany
              E-Mail: kobsa@inf-wiss.ivp.uni-konstanz.de
              Phone: +49 7531 88 3593    FAX: +49 7531 88 2601
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: spw@gothamcity.uucp (Steve Weismuller [UNISYS])
Subject: Info on AI Techniques
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/Johnson Space Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:24:18 GMT


I'm am looking for sources of info with respect to various AI techniques
that are in use today for realtime monitoring and problem solving (i.e. 
belief networks, expert systems, pattern classification, di-graphs, Nueral
Networks, ...) In particular I am looking for papers that discuss these 
techniques with minor examples for their usage.  I would like to put 
together a collection of information on these techniques for our internal
use.

spw@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: mgv@cs.scarolina.edu (Marco Valtorta)
Subject: Re: How do I solve the 8/15... Puzzle (was (Is it connected))
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 15:51:17 GMT

nau@frabjous.cs.umd.edu (Dana Nau) writes:


>   From: matthew@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (Matthew McDonald)
>   Newsgroups: comp.ai,rec.puzzles
>   Date: 8 Sep 92 04:10:03 GMT
>   Organization: Psychology Department, University of Queensland

>	   I believe there's a very simple algorithm for these puzzles
>   that will reach the solution in a reasonable number of moves.

>	   Could anybody tell me what algorithm is? (Most puzzle books
>   seem to only use Loyd's 15 puzzle to illustrate parity, saying that
>   actually solving the puzzle is trivial...)

>It *is* trivial, provided that you are satisfied with a
>less-than-optimal solution (i.e., one that takes more than the least
>possible number of moves).  When I was a kid, I could solve the
>15-puzzle in a few seconds, using the following simple-minded
>algorithm:

>    for i = 1 to n (where n is the total number of tiles)
>	put tile i into its proper place,
>	    while preserving the locations of tiles 1 through i-1

>The only place there's any problem is that you have to temporarily
>disturb the tiles in the second-to-last row in order to get the tiles
>in the last row into their proper order.  But there's a simple
>procedure for that, too.  Try it a few times and you'll probably
>figure it out.

>I haven't taken the time to do a proper complexity analysis, but I
>believe the total number of moves for this algorithm is no worse than
>O(n^4).
>--
>	Dana S. Nau
>	Computer Science Dept.		Internet:  nau@cs.umd.edu
>   (I do have a serious reason for wanting to know...)
>	University of Maryland		UUCP:  uunet!mimsy!nau
>	College Park, MD 20742		Telephone:  (301) 405-2684

Since there is interest in this, maybe it helps to repost a recent message.

Marco Valtorta, Assistant Professor	usenet: ...!ncrcae!usceast!mgv
Department of Computer Science	internet: mgv@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu
University of South Carolina	tel.: (1)(803)777-4641
Columbia, SC 29208		tlx: 805038 USC
U.S.A.				fax: (1)(803)777-3767
usenet from Europe: ...!mcvax!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!usceast!mgv
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: generalized 15-puzzle is NP-hard (NOT!)
Date: 1 Aug 92 20:22:15 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

chan@tutics.tut.ac.jp (Chan Namkiu) writes:
>In the paper titled _Finding a shortest solution for the nxn extension
>of the 15-puzzle is intractable_ appeared in AAAI-86, D. Ratner and
>M. Warmuth have argued that finding an optimal solution for general
>nxn board puzzle is NP-hard.  Specifically, they have shown that
>the following decision problem (nPUZ) is NP-complete.

>     Instance:  Two nxn boards and a bound k.
>     Question:  Is there a solution for transforming the first board
>                to the second board requiring less than k moves?

       This does not indicate that SOLVING a generalized 15-puzzle
is NP-hard (it's far easier than that).  It indicates that finding the
OPTIMAL SOLUTION is NP-hard, which is something else again, and not
suprising.

       An approach to solving such puzzles is as follows:
	1) Solve the top row.  Never modify the top row again.
	2) Solve the left column (less the top element).  Never
	   modify the left column again.
	3) The puzzle has now been reduced from nxn to (n-1) x (n-1).
	   If n>1, recurse, solving the remaining puzzle.

Proving that this works is left to the reader.

					John Nagle
From: bhotvedt@gollum.uio.no (Tor Houghton)
Subject: Re: What has AI achieved?
Followup-To: comp.ai
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:23:29 GMT

In article <benanav.715424944@earth.njit.edu>, benanav@earth.njit.edu (Dan
Benanav) wrote:

> 6)Overall the best robot?

Hmm. I saw a videoclip from Bell Labs, where they had a robot arm equipped
with a colour camera, range finder (ultrasonic) and a 8 by 8 grid of
pressure
detectors. It was linked to 4 computers which in addition to making it see
and
feel, it could also speak and understand a normal human voice.  

E.g. the scientist (a nice looking fellow in a lab coat!) directed the arm
by
speech to a red beaker, by which the robot asked (in a HAL-like voice :)
what
the hard, round, red thing in front of it was. The scientist then said it
was a beaker, and the robot confirmed that it would remember this for
further
reference. The robot determined that it was round by moving the grip to
different positions.

It could also solve simple problems -

   A  B            X
     
      C

The scientist told the robot to move object A to position X, by which the 
robot first grasped object B and said "I cannot reach object A, I will try
to
reach object A by moving object B to position <whatever>." It then grabbed
object A and moved it to position X.

Of course there were problems - it SQUASHED one of the objects to pulp. :)

Cheers,

# Tor Houghton
  Please reply through mail to bhotvedt@usit.uio.no

PS: Is there any way of contacting Bell Labs? More information would be
    appreciated.
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
From: djasson@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Drew Asson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: AI Programming Languages
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:24:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

I just wanted to note that LISP has a full object oriented system
built on top of it.  Its called CLOS (Common LISP Object System).
It offers all that you would get out of C++ and Smalltalk, such as
abstraction, multiple inheritancy, generic functions, encapsulation,
etc.  Its very easy to use, and the ability to expand classes that
already exist (by attaching methods to these classes) is extremely
useful.

I've used C++ on a small project, and found it to be cumbersome to
deal with.  And this was before I got into using LISP for all my
work programming.  (I used to be a C type person.)

Just wanted to add that note and give some idea of my like for CLOS.

-- Drew

djasson@afterlife.ncsc.mil




-- 
djasson@afterlife.ncsc.mil
US:
  Mr. Drew J. Asson
  9305 Sombersby Court
From: adele@tls-cs.cert.fr (Martin Adelantado)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Anytime algorithms
Date: 9 Sep 92 10:20:16 GMT
Organization: CERT Toulouse Dept of Computer Science, FRANCE


     We are investigating execution models for intelligent
real time systems. These models are based on a mixed
synchronous/asynchronous programming approach involving a 
Synchronous expression (ESTEREL, LUSTRE) of critical real time
parts (reactive parts), and an Asynchronous expression of
reasoning parts.

     Expression of reasoning parts involves :

       -> ANYTIME reasoning algorithms that can produce partial
          or reduced-quality output when their execution is
          terminated before some complete solution is produced,

       -> APPROXIMATE processing solvers that will adaptively
          generate the most acceptable solutions which meet 
          deadlines.

    In this context, I should be grateful for information or
references to papers relating to these two subjects, ANYTIME
reasoning and APPROXIMATE processing.

    Please email to adele@tls-cs.cert.fr

Thanks in advance,

              Martin ADELANTADO
              ONERA-CERT/DERI
              TOULOUSE (FRANCE)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: sirothe@srv.PacBell.COM (Sheldon Rothenberg)
Subject: Re: Artificial Life References
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:25:22 GMT

>to read it yet.
>
>Lastly, Stuart Levine, author of _Hackers_ just put out a book called
>_Artificial Life_ which I've heard is a fine overview with a story.  I saw both
>Levine and the book at the ALIFE 3 conference last month and heard good

Except that the author's name is Levy. There are highly favorable reviews
of the book in this week's NY Time's book review saection and in this
quarter's Whole Earth Review, which has also printed a sizeable excerpt
and a bunch of Alife info.

Shelley

Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Re: Turing Indistinguishability is a Scientific Criterion
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:13:09 GMT

In article <Bu7oK5.BIK@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>, ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep6.200121.4383@Princeton.EDU> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:
|> 

|> One does not make machines that merely duplicate human function - they must
|> do it better.  If you wish to create a thinking machine, then it must think
|> better than a human (otherwise, I can tell you of a lot simpler (and
|> _definitely_ more fun :-) method of creating thinking beings).
|> 
|> Of course, the only thing that puts us at the top of the evolutionary heap
|> seems to be the fact that we outthink everthing else on the planet.  So, if
|> you still want to create a thinking machine, be prepared to become No. 2.

Can we say that computers are extensions of ourselves? When we use an
automobile to move our butts to point B, we benefit from the machine.
When a thinking machine tells us something that we didn't know, we benifit
from the machine. We could well have come up with the same knowledge
without the machine given enough time.


Let's look at the brain. It seems to have independently functioning
parts. There's something that handles sight and something else that
handles breathing. We can interface a computer to the brain. It'll
just be another functioning unit. Just like adding a boat trailer
to a truck. You just wind up turbocharging your brain.

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: AI Programing Language
Reply-To: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:54:11 GMT

In article <95957@bu.edu>, robrod@csa.bu.edu writes:
> 
> I am just starting to look at AI (I am a senior Undergraduate in CS).  I
> read that the new movement in AI programming was to move away from 
> Languages like LISP and Prolog and into Object oriented languages like 
> C++, Smaltalk, etc.  Is it worth studying LISP and Prolog anymore?
> What should someone concentrate on for AI programming?
> 

   I'm no expert either, but I think LISP is still the language
of choice for AI programmers.   Since so many people in AI
learned this language and probably know a lot of the intricacies
in LISP, they aren't likely to throw what they know away
just to learn a new language.  There are still many features
in Lisp that I'm sure are harder to carry out in other
languages.   I would personally say learn as many languages
as you can.  While I'm no expert in LISP, programming in LISP
was a far different experience than programming in C.

    In any case, I am guessing that the languages that would
be useful to you are C, C++, and LISP.  C because everyone
has to know it.  It is so widely used that that in itself is a
reason to know it.  C++ since OOPs seem to be getting more
popular and it's becoming more widely available.  LISP,
since it is still widely used in the US AI community.
Trends are very slow to come about.

   For example, functional language folks will tell you that
languages such as ML, Miranda, and Haskell are the better
"functional" languages (and say that LISP isn't even one)
and that these languages are better for learning programming
than some language like C.  Yet, the success of a language
has a lot to do with non-esoteric features such as
availability, having a fast compiler that makes fast code,
having a debugger,  having good references, having useful
features (such as dealing with files or good I/O), etc.

   You probably couldn't convince a functional language
purist to use LISP, but I don't see the AI community
dumping LISP in favor of something else.  

   Now you could be right, since I'm more of an AI novice,
so I'm curious to hear other opinions on this topic.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: stas@netcom.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Subject: POP11 question
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 01:11:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


And the question is... 

1)  what exactly does this system provide?
2)  is it a commercial or a PD product?
3)  if it's PD, is the source available, or only binaries?
4)  if binaries, then for which architectures?

I am looking for an environment that would allow for easy integration
of lisp-like and c-like code..  basically, I'd like something that would enable
the use of low-level code in conjunction with a lisp-based reasoning engine.
Is POP11 this system?


Thanks,

Stan
-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Malyshev		|    Open up the windows and let the fresh air out,
stas@soda.berkeley.edu	|    said the television to the shackled children..
stas@netcom.com		|		- King Missile
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: lou@cs.rutgers.edu (Lou Steinberg)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: AI Programing Language
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:35:34 GMT
Reply-To: lou@cs.rutgers.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
	08903
In-reply-to: robrod@csa.bu.edu's message of 14 Sep 92 17:41:51 GMT

In article <95957@bu.edu> robrod@csa.bu.edu writes:
   I am just starting to look at AI (I am a senior Undergraduate in CS).  I
   read that the new movement in AI programming was to move away from 
   Languages like LISP and Prolog and into Object oriented languages like 
   C++, Smaltalk, etc.  Is it worth studying LISP and Prolog anymore?

LISP is so much a part of AI history and culture that I cannot see
anyone getting into AI without some knowledge of LISP - both the
language itself and something of the way it is used.  (See, e.g., an
article "Programming in an Interactive Environment: The 'LISP'
Experience" by Erik Sandewall, Computing Surveys, v. 10 no. 1 March 78
page 35 for an old but still useful introduction to the flavor of LISP
use.)

The same (to a lesser extent, at least in the US) is true of PROLOG.

If you really get interested in AI you should also learn some rule-oriented
language, such as OPS5, and some object-oriented language, such as CLOS
(the object-oriented part of Common Lisp) or Smalltalk.

As far as I can tell, the main use of C and C++ in AI work is to
provide an implementation of ideas that were first worked on in more
"AI-ish" languages.  In other words, ideas are first implemented in
LISP, PROLOG, etc, and then later are used in a program which is being
implemented in C or C++ for reasons of portability, perceived
efficiency, availability of people who know C, integration into a
larger system being written in C, etc.

In other words, there is no "one AI language" - you need different
languages and, more important, the different ways of thinking about a
problem that are part of the cultures of different languages.  But
LISP is probably the best place to start for most people in the US,
with PROLOG a viable alternative.

--
					Lou Steinberg

uucp:   {pretty much any major site}!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!lou 
internet:   lou@cs.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets
From: tanaka@til.til.com (Yokichi Tanaka)
Subject: Fuzzy discussion in sci.engr.control
Organization: Togai InfraLogic, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:18:41 GMT

For those of you interested in discussion of fuzzy control,
I just found out that there is a new newsgroup called
sci.engr.control.  So far there's been 3-4 postings (25-30%)
on fuzzy, there.  So, in addition to comp.ai and 
comp.ai.neural-nets, you may want to check there.

-- 
Yokichi (Yoke) Tanaka      Togai InfraLogic, Inc.    "fuzzy"
tanaka@til.com             Irvine, California, USA
uunet!til!tanaka           714-975-8522
"The more you drive, the less intelligent you are."
Newsgroups: comp.ai,alt.religion.kibology
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: CAN WE REALLY BE SURE THAT...
Keywords: not quite sure...
Organization: Two rooms filled with typography, in downtown Boston
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:44:25 GMT

[comp.ai]
In article <BtuqED.GvB@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>                              I mean, I don't there's [sic] one individual on 
>earth who is INTELLIGENT enough to decrypt this. Well, there is that
>Steve Franklin guy, but he doesn't spend much time on talk.bizarre. Time
>will tell... Now if I could only get RICHH and KIBO to sign their soul
>over to me, I'd be happy to help them out with some of their posts..."

I'll trade you the LISP version of my soul if you'll fix it so it
doesn't make doctor.el dump core.
						-- K.
Xref: sparky comp.ai:3388 comp.theory:1896
From: bc@apple.com (bill coderre)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.theory
Subject: Looking for anagram algorithms
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:05:38 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


Once upon a time there was an excellent Macintosh program called "Ars
Magna" that did anagrams with speed if not grace.

I'd like to implement a new version that is more Mac-like, and
naturally I'd be glad to share full source.

Does anyone have a good algorithm or reference to one?

Thank you, and please excuse any etiquette errors I might have
accidentally committed,

bill coderre
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: Re: Turing Indistinguishability is a Scientific Criterion
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:36:36 GMT

In article <Bu7rCD.CMG.1@cs.cmu.edu>, sef@sef-pmax.slisp.cs.cmu.edu writes:
|> 
|>     From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
|>     
|>     If I can push a nail into the wall with my own hands, then why would I build
|>     a hammer?
|>     
|>     If I can pull a plough, then why would I make a tractor?
|>     
|>     To get into the domain of computers; if I can perform 50 Gigaflops then
|>     why would I need a Cray?
|>     
|>     One does not make machines that merely duplicate human function - they must
|>     do it better.
|> 
|> Nonsense!  We make machines all the time that do jobs that a person could
|> do, but doesn't want to.  Consider automatic pilots, automatic door
|> openers, automatic elevators, home dishwashers, or even dial-operated
|> telephone exchanges.  One could argue that a human can do each of these
|> tasks better than the equivalent machine, but the human would get bored,
|> want to be paid a lot, go on strike, etc.  So a machine that does these
|> tasks WELL ENOUGH is valuable, even if it's not nearly as good as a human.
|> Then the humans can spend their time doing things that humans like better
|> (or, in certain economic systems, they can starve).
|> 
|> -- Scott

Au contraire. We are always, well mostly, trying to improve machines that
do not do as well as people. The automatic door opener has to be careful
not to hit someone with the door. It has to be fast. It has to work in
the 40 below without a buffalo coat. The automatic pilot has to be able
to land the plane on short runways or with the afterburners on. Dishwashers
are more efficient with water usage and can take hotter water than hands.
The products we see now are stepping stones towards the future. We don't
always have to do it better than people on the first go. When tractors
first came out, they broke down much faster than any farmer would, even if
he did his gardening without a plow. The first electrical computers
needed paint by the gallon. Present computers need paint by the oil tanker,
but they ARE prettier. Future computers won't need so much cosmetics.
They'll rely on natural beauty.

It seems that in the end we won't starve. We'll have nothing purposeful to
do. And anyone can make a useless machine to be more useless than people.
Do we know something that everyone + machines SHOULD do, something that
could exhaust the resources of the universe?

Henry Choy
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: kean@cs.ubc.ca (Alex Kean)
Subject: Re: comments on AI FAQ
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 18:38:06 GMT

In article <hoyle.716513570@sfu.ca> hoyle@beaufort.sfu.ca (Michelle Hoyle) writes:
>Re: Lists of papers and articles.
>
>If people thought that it was useful, I'm willing to place a Filemaker
>Pro database file of Computational Intelligence papers/authors and
>a searchable ASCII file on the anonymous ftp site here in computing
>science at Simon Fraser University.
>
>Using such a file, one could find specific papers that have been published,
>all of the authors (Not just the primary one), which issue they appeared in,
>and subject material.  I was also looking at placing abstracts of each
>article into this database, too, so that it would be possible to search
>for a keyword.
>
>If there is a central "AI ftp site", a copy could be placed there and
>updated every issue.
>
>-- Michelle A. Hoyle
>     Editorial Assistant
>     Journal of Computational Intelligence
>     
>

Very good idea. Logic in Computer Science (LCIS) <theory.lcs.mit.edu>
and Logic programming conference and journals bibliography including
journal of automated reasoning and journal of symbolic computation
<duck.dfki.uni-sb.de> both have ftp site for archive.

I think CI journal can start the trend for "AI bib ftp site" north
america.  Also note the large database (13,000 articles) in

	     THE LIDO MAILSERVER FOR AI LITERATURE 
		Computer Science Department
		University of Saarbruecken
		   lido@cs.uni-sb.de


Best Regards,

Alex Kean <kean@cs.ubc.ca>

Department of Computer Science           
University of British Columbia
6356 Agricultural Road,
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6T 1Z2

Tel: +1 (604)-822-4912
Fax: +1 (604)-822-5485


Newsgroups: comp.ai,rec.puzzles