HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: almond@statsci.com (Russell G. Almond)
Subject: Re: Constraint Satisfaction Problems - shells.
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc., Seattle, WA USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:49:51 GMT


> I am very interested in information about tools to solve
> constraint satisfaction problems. It there anyone able to give
> references to articles, systems etc. If there exist any shells 
> for this kind of solution I would be happy to know about them and
> if possible to have access to evaluation copies.

I have been using Garnet (developed by Myers et al. at Carnegie
Mellon).  It is a user interface development environment written in
Common LISP, but it contains and imbedded constraint satisfaction
system.  I have yet to try using it for AI representation problems,
but am strongly considering it (especially as I am already using
Garnet for user interface).  Garnet has its own newsgroup:
comp.windows.garnet.  Information about Garnet is in the
comp.lang.lisp FAQ list.  You can contact the Garnet developers at
garnet@cs.cmu.edu.

Michael Sannella has extended some of the Garnet constraint mechanisms
for multiple constraints.  His code, which he calls Mult-Garnet, is
(will be) available in the Contrib directory of the 2.1 release of
Garnet (they are currently somewhere between alpha and beta release,
should be out shortly).  Michael can be reached at
sannella@cs.washington.edu.  

Hope this is of use.


			Russell Almond			   
Statistical Sciences, Inc.		
1700 Westlake Ave., N Suite 500		
Seattle, WA  98109			
(206) 283-8802				
almond@statsci.com			

Xref: sparky comp.ai.shells:463 comp.ai:3910
From: vargas@cui.unige.ch (VARGAS Reynaldo)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.shells,comp.ai
Subject: looking ai shells dealing with uncertainty
Keywords: uncertainty, expert systems, ai, hierarchical.
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:21:47 GMT
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland

I post this article for a colaborator:

===================================================================

I'm looking for an expert system shell supporting AS MANY following 
features AS POSSIBLE:

- hierarchical organisation of "sub-experts",
- external function call possibility,
- certainty factors management,
- working at least under UNIX.

Does anybody know about this?
Did anybody develop an expert system like this using KEE or CLIPS
for example?

That is the first time I want to use such system in my usual area 
(protein biochemistry, thesis project), so please, be as clear as
possible in your response. Public domain or low price product will
be appreciated.

        En vous remerciant d'avance,
                                        Eric Langevin.

Eric Langevin
Centre d'Informatique Hospitaliere
Hopital Cantonal Universitaire de Geneve
24, rue Micheli-du-Crest
CH-1211 Geneve 4
Switzerland,        		e-mail: langevin@cih.hcuge.ch

Phone: 41-22-3726278 (p.m. only).
Fax:   41-22-3726291


===================================================================

Reynaldo VARGAS        e-mail: vargas@cih.hcuge.ch
From: brehonyt@ul.ie
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Looking for Natural Language Glossary
Date: 9 Oct 92 11:34:20 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland


Can anybody out there recommend a book which contains a complete
( as far as possible ) glossary of Natural Language terms ?.

Thanks.

Tom Brehony.
Email  : brehonyt@ul.ie 
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: bsc@sunbim.be (Bruno Schroder)
Subject: Re: Natural Language to SQL systems
Reply-To: bsc@sunbim.be
Organization: BIM
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 08:37:10 GMT

I am posting that on behalf of Lieve Debille, Loqui project leader.
All questions could also be directed to her: ldb@sunbim.be

BIM has developed a Natural Language interface to relational databases
(called Loqui) and we have done some research into the question of what
target language to use for ultimate database access. One of the
possibilities investigated was translating the NL queries into SQL
statements to access the database. Our conclusion has been that
SQL translation is not entirely impossible as an intermediate stage in
addressing a db in English; however, it imposes very serious to near
unacceptable limitations on the NL that such an interface would allow.

The problem is that a set of relations such as expressed in a relational
database do not by themselves support very interesting NL interaction.
To allow the user to exploit the expressive power of NL, one needs to build
a more expressive layer on top of the set of relations. For Loqui, we
have done this in ProLog using a clausal database. We have found that
in some cases, the expressions of this more powerful language can be
translated into a complex SQL retrieval query, in some cases however,
this is impossible or the resulting query becomes unmanagable.

For Loqui, we have decided not to use SQL as an intermediate translation
step, as it would restrict the expressive power of the interface too seriously.
We use the builtin interface from ProLog (ProLog by BIM) to access the
database directly, which gives us access to the expressive power of ProLog.

There was an article on Loqui in the January 1991 issue of SunExpert.

-------------------------------------------------------
Bruno SCHRODER				BIM
tel: +32.2.759.59.25			Kwikstraat, 4
fax: +32.2.759.47.95			B-3078 EVERBERG
email: bsc@sunbim.be			BELGIUM


Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
	<OZ.92Oct10164812@ursa.sis.yorku.ca>
	<Bvz218.5B6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:14:43 GMT

David Chalmers writes [re: my reference]:

   >[1] Roland Kirk
   >    Mental Machinery and Godel
   >    Synthese, 66, 437-452. 1986

   Is this really by "Roland Kirk"?  I had presumed it was by Robert Kirk,
   the British philosopher. 

Mea Culpa. I have no idea how I managed to type Roland instead of
Robert, but the rest of the reference is correct. 

			... In any case, I don't think this paper is
   a particularly good refutation of Lucas (although in general, Kirk is
   an interesting and underrated philosopher). It takes the line that
   although humans may be modeled by a formal system, the output of that
   formal system won't be sentences of arithmetic -- they'll rather be
   at the level of actions, or noises, or whatever, so Godel's theorem
   doesn't apply.  (A similar line to this is taken by Dennett in
   _Brainstorms_, and also by Hofstadter in _GEB_.)

I don't think this sound-bite summary of yours does justice to his
paper. For example, Kirk also argues that one is _not_ required to
grant Lucas or any other bearer of G"odelian argument that anybody 
at anytime instentiate ony _one_ formal system. It also includes a
reply to, what I believe to be the gist of your "misses the point"
bit [elided, see <Bvz218.5B6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>] at page 448.

Thanks for the detailed response, which I have elided, as I do not
have anything to add.

oz
---
Some people need to count noses before | electric: oz@sis.yorku.ca
they will admit to having one. - Fodor | ph:[416] 736 2100 x 33976
From: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: How often are random word strings grammatical?
Date: 11 Oct 92 14:47:38 GMT

vosse@rulfsw.leidenuniv.nl writes:
 > In article <92282.183904TXN102@psuvm.psu.edu>, phaedrus <TXN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
 > > i would think the answer to this question would be:  inversely propor-
 > > tional to the complexity of the grammar.  i.e. random word strings
 > > have a better chance of being grammatically correct under a simpler
 > > grammar than they would under one with many convolutions.
 > 
 > Try again. In a very simple grammar such as
 > S -> a
 > the language over alphabet {a, ..., z} would contain only one word,
 > but an infinite number of random strings.
 > [...]

But surely only an finite number of finite strings?

____

Gordon Joly      Phone  +44 71 387 7050 ext 3703      FAX  +44 71 387 1397
Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk        UUCP: ...!{uunet,uknet}!ucl-cs!G.Joly
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
Xref: sparky comp.ai:3826 comp.ai.shells:458 comp.ai.edu:470
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.shells,comp.ai.edu
Subject: Looking for ELIZA-like demos
From: <V67COS2@HASARA11.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 16:15:27 CET
Organization: SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam

To all experts,
 
Our department cooperates in a science week project for highschool students
(15-16 year). To the purpose of demonstrating an expert system we like to use
the ELIZA system, or an equivalent. Does anybody know where i can get a PD
version of such a system?
 
Thanx in advance,
 
Martin Misseyer
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Business Informatics
Free Univerity Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-20-5484971; Fax: +31-20-6462645
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets
From: geddis@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Don Geddis)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Reply-To: Geddis@CS.Stanford.Edu
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date:  8 Oct 92 18:58:10 GMT

>> moffat@uvapsy.psy.uva.nl (Dave Moffat) writes
>> >There's an extensive paper by Aaron Sloman in the latest AI journal
>> >doing exactly this -- refuting Penrose, point by point.

>ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
>> technical inaccuracies (such as Sloman's belief that multiple
>> processors somehow avoid the Church-Turing hypothesis), and

ianr@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Ian Rogers) writes:
>Any machine which has more processors than processes (ie. nodes
>in a search space) will linearise (or better) *any* algorithm.

Turing machine analysis, and the Church-Turing hypothesis, is about
computability, not complexity.  Different models of computation (such as
random-access memory in general purpose computers) result in wildly
different complexities for algorithms than a turing machine (which has to
go through its tape one step at a time).

But that's got nothing to do with computability, which asks whether any
algorithm exists at all, regardless of how fast it runs.  You can prove,
for example, that the "halting problem" is undecidable by any algorithm.
Penrose is claiming that no such algorithm exists for intelligence.  Whatever
the merits of Penrose's argument, it is certainly the case that Sloman's
invocation of multiple processors has nothing at all to do with the question.

	-- Don Geddis
-- 
Don Geddis (Geddis@CS.Stanford.Edu)
To me, clowns aren't funny.  In fact, they're kinda scary.  I've wondered
where this started, and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus
and a clown killed my dad.
	--  Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]
From: jplaure@IMAG.FR (Jean-Pierre Laurent)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: IJCAI Reminder
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:14:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: imag.9210160914.AA24569
Organization: IMAG Institute, University of Grenoble, France


Please redistribute the above information on appropriate local blackboards.
Thanks very much in advance.


J.P. LAURENT
University of Chamb{ry
LIA  -  BP 1104
F  -  73011  CHAMBERY

Tel: (+33) 79 96 10 62
Fax: (+33) 79 96 34 75
email: jplaure@imag.fr


******************************************************************
******************************************************************
REMINDER:

THE DEAD-LINE FOR SUBMITTING PAPERS FOR IJCAI-93 IS 1ST OF NOVEMBER., IN TWO
WEEKS...
@bbn.com    
waltz@think.com    
ide@vassar.bitnet   
swartout@isi.edu    
nebel@dfki.uni-sb.de     
imd7vaw@uclamvs.bitnet   
weischedel@bbn.com   
wielinga@swi.psy.uva.nl   
bobrow@xerox.com  
aimag@sumex-aim.stanford.edu  
ringle@reed.edu  
ian@epas.utoronto.ca   
sergei@nl.cs.cmu.edu   
sigart@vaxa.isi.edu  
helft@ai.sri.com        
ymum19%pa.cn.umist.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk   
kautz@research.att.com

-- 
JP Laurent
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,sci.cognative,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
From: Brian F G Bidulock <bbidulo1%agt@cs.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
X-Xxdate: Wed, 14 Oct 92 21:15:42 GMT
Organization: AGT Limited Research & Development
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:08:55 GMT

>On 5 Oct 92 17:04:21 GMT bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) says:
>
> [...]
>
>There's a nice collection by Margaret Bowden (sp?) the name of which
>escapes me.  Something like "Philosophy of AI".
>

I believe the name is Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I found the book more interesting from the viewpoint of philosopy
than computer science.
---
Brian Bidulock
AGT Limited, Research & Development
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: vosse@rulfsw.leidenuniv.nl
Subject: Re: How often are random word strings grammatical?
Organization: Leiden University Faculty of Social Sciences
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:39:41 +0100

In article <92282.183904TXN102@psuvm.psu.edu>, phaedrus <TXN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> i would think the answer to this question would be:  inversely propor-
> tional to the complexity of the grammar.  i.e. random word strings
> have a better chance of being grammatically correct under a simpler
> grammar than they would under one with many convolutions.

Try again. In a very simple grammar such as
S -> a
the language over alphabet {a, ..., z} would contain only one word,
but an infinite number of random strings.
In a highly complex grammar, things might be totally different
E.g. in a grammar that generates all strings of non-prime length
over alphabet {i}, almostly every random string would be a word
of the language.

> this is my first post here, how'd i do?  :-)

Not well 8-)

> Thi

	Theo Vosse
	----------
        Unit for Experimental Psychology
        University of Leiden
        The Netherlands
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: ross@hsi.com (Michael Ross)
Subject: Request for Info: Expert Systems/AI ... impact on the workplace
Organization: 3M Health Information Systems, Wallingford, CT.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:59:18 GMT

I am interested in studies or research (or your own views) on the impact
implementing Expert Systems/AI tools have on the workplace. This would include
worker acceptability, adaption/resistance to their implementation versus 
pure studies of increases in workplace productivity.

My specific area of interest is a customer support organization implementing
a problem/resolution tool for the first level of support ... but all 
responses are encouraged.


Thanks!


Michael Ross                                  ...!uunet!hsi!ross
3M Health Information Systems                   ross@hsi.com
Wallingford, CT   USA
-- 
Michael Ross                                  ...!uunet!hsi!ross
3M Health Information Systems                   ross@hsi.com
Wallingford, CT   USA
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
From: ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:15:33 GMT

In article <MOFFAT.92Oct7105034@uvapsy.psy.uva.nl>
moffat@uvapsy.psy.uva.nl (Dave Moffat) writes about rebuttals to
Penrose's book.

>Now finally here's what I originally meant to say.
>There's an extensive paper by Aaron Sloman in the latest AI journal
>doing exactly this -- refuting Penrose, point by point.

This paper is -- my opinion only, of course -- one of the worst
responses to Penrose that has been published.  It is rife with
technical inaccuracies (such as Sloman's belief that multiple
processors somehow avoid the Church-Turing hypothesis), and
essentially caves in to Penrose's attack on strong AI.  I found
it an embarrassment.

The issue of Behavior & Brain Sciences that contained an extensive
discussion of Penrose's book was much better.  Some of the responses
made sense, and some didn't -- but that was still a vast improvement
on Sloman's piece.

						Matt Ginsberg



Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: kormann@watson.bms.com (JOSEPH KORMANN (X3167 LAWRENCEVILLE))
Subject: Looking for: Dr. A. J. Marin
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:15:00 GMT

Hi. I'm currently looking for this person for another person that I know (he 
doesn't have access to this universe we call NetNews). If anyone has an 
address for her, please mail me at JKORMANN @ SNUFFY.TRENTON.EDU.
She was previously heavily involved in Neural Net research (I know, wrong 
group but, hey..) and she taught at UTSI.

Thank You.

Joseph

JKORMANN @ SNUFFY.TRENTON.EDU

Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: robertc@sco.COM (Robert Chansky)
Subject: CYC project info
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:25:48 GMT



	Earlier someone asked for information on the CYC project.  I'd
like to hear about it also.  Perhaps a posting would be enlightening to
more..
-- 
                                 . 
                     (.signature at 50 meters)
Xref: sparky comp.ai:3807 comp.ai.neural-nets:3818
From: murao@kobe-u.ac.jp (Hajime Murao)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Request for references on 'messy GA'
Keywords: GA
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:13:43 GMT
Reply-To: murao@kobe-u.ac.jp
Followup-To: comp.ai
Distribution: comp

Hi! 

I am looking for papers, technical reports, etc. on the application of
'messy GA', which is originally introduced by Dr. Goldberg.  I'd
appreciate receiving any information on research works to get full
references on this subject.

Thanks in advance.
--
 Hajime Murao  <murao@kobe-u.ac.jp>  *** NeXT mail gradly accepted !! ***
Kitamura Labo., Dept. of Instrumentation Eng., Faculty of Engineering.
Kobe Univ., Japan. Tel:+81-078-881-1212 (ext.2733)
Xref: sparky comp.ai:3818 sci.engr.control:153
From: yk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Yoshiki Kinoshita)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.engr.control
Subject: Re: Fuzzy Logic in Japan
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:12:41 GMT
Reply-To: yk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Yoshiki Kinoshita)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1so.hkice@lab.ntt.jp> farzin@apollo3d.apollo3.ntt.JP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes:
>Fuzzy logic was introduced to the world 27 years ago by Professor
>Lotfi Zadeh in his "Fuzzy Sets" paper published in Information
>Control magazine, though it is only recently that we've seen it
>applied across a broad range of products.

I am not in this field, but as I understand, Professor Kokichi Tanaka
(who was gone about 10 years ago) did play a pioneering role in Fuzzy
set theory.

Is it correct?  If it is, it's a bit strange no lines of an article
entitled "Fuzzy Logic IN JAPAN" mention this fact.

Yoshiki.
--
visiting: Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland;
from: Electrotechnical Laboratory, Tsukuba, Japan.
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: costello@mbunix.mitre.org (Costello)
Subject: Pattern Matching of Screens
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, Ma.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:32:30 GMT

Hi Folks,

TOP LEVEL SUMMARY

   I am interested in seeing if there are any AI tools for scanning
words on different screens and doing a fuzzy match to see what words
are in common among the different screens. (Assume that the screens
are in electronic form.)

DETAILS

   I have been assigned the task of trying to consolidate the data
that is used by 3 (Ada) applications.  Each application displays the 
data on the screen (nicely labeled).  Each application was developed 
independently. So, each application has some data that is unique
to that application, but there is quite a lot of overlap. However,
of the overlapping data there are some problems - one application
may label the employee data as EMP, while another application may
label the employee data as EMPL, etc. I am interested in seeing if
there are tools available for examining the screens for the different
applications and coming up with a list of words (i.e. data) that is
common for all the applications (eg. EMP, or some minor variant, is
common to all three applications).

Thanks for any help you can provide.  Cheers!  /Roger

Please respond to:

   costello@mitre.org

Thanks.
Xref: sparky comp.ai:3862 comp.ai.neural-nets:3874 comp.ai.philosophy:6371 sci.psychology:4083
From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Date: 11 Oct 92 06:17:11 GMT
Followup-To: comp.ai

>Burt Voorhees writes [in response to my impression that
>searle and penrose are ignored]:

>     Really?  I was just resently sent a list of 38 references to papers
>   about the Chinese Room, all in major technical journals, with an appended
>   comment that this was only a partial listing of all the papers which have
>   been written on this.  The fact that every AI proponent who srites about
>   machine intelligence seems to feel it necessary to try and refute the
>   Searle argument to me indicates .. blah blah...

>Those are probably the refs Chalmers have posted in the past. They are
>fun to read, and pay special attention to the "systems reply", a reply
>Searle appearently doesn't want to understand. It is also worth noting
>that fifty-sixty (if that many) articles in a decade does not add upto
>"every AI proponent who writes about machine intelligence".

  Sorry, not Chalmers references at all.  They come from a friend in
San Francisco who is cqarrying out an argumentation analysis of the entire
machine intelligence dispute.  Who argues what, who supports who and who
attempts to refute who, etc.  His work will be out as a wall chart in a
year or so.
  It's not that Searle doesn't understand the systems reply - he just doesn't
buy it.  I'd guess that he just doesn't accept the behaviorist assumption
at the basis of the Turing test.  The whole point of the Chinese Room is
that you can pass all the behavioral tests you want but if there ain't
nobody home, there ain't nobody home.

>     As for Penrose, I think that most AI people just don't know how to
>   reply to him.  Other than attempting to down play his book, of course.

>OF course! What else could it possibly be? :-]

  Of course.  :)
bv
>Information is in the mind of  |  internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca
>the beholder. - R. Jackendoff  |  phone:[416] 736 2100 x33976
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
	<26536@castle.ed.ac.uk> <MOFFAT.92Oct7105034@uvapsy.psy.uva.nl>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:30:36 GMT

Dave Moffat writes [amongst other things]:
	...
   Searle and Penroe were both surprised by the strength of
   the reaction from the AI community that engulfed them.

Really? I am not trying to be facetious, but my impression is that both
of them are being ignored for the most part. I suppose Searle's Chinese
room is probably still good for undergraduate papers and a few articles
in the popular press, but he doesn't seem to have the sort of impact [say]
Fodor has, and I thought Penrose has been getting the same reaction great
actors and actresses get when they decide to sing; A few admirers listen,
applaud and exclaim how great a performance it was, while everyone else
groans. :-]

oz
---
... If I wanted to be facetious, I would declare that I am descended
    from Turing's machine on my spear side, and from a library on my
    spindle side. -- GOLEM, lecture XLIII
Date: Saturday, 10 Oct 1992 13:02:08 CET
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: eardelea@risc.uni-linz.ac.at (Eugen Ardeleanu)
Distribution: world
Organization: RISC, J.K. University of Linz, Austria
Subject: looking for CFP for IJCAI

Hi,
I am looking for the call for papers for IJCAI '93. If you happen to have  a copy
of it, please send it to me directly. Thank a lot,
Eugen Ardeleanu
e-mail:  eardelea@risc.uni-linz.ac.at
Xref: sparky comp.ai:3852 sci.engr.control:165