AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI.ARPA (AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws) (01/21/86)
AIList Digest Monday, 20 Jan 1986 Volume 4 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Queries - System V Franz & OPS5 & Address for Prof. Bouille & Knowledge-Engineering Software & Supercomputers and AI & AI and Process Control & What is a Symbol? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1986 18:50 PLT From: George Cross <FACCROSS%WSUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU> Subject: System V Franz? 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> ------------------------------ Date: Thu 16 Jan 86 10:42:00-PST From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Subject: OPS5 query 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 11:06 IST From: Amir Toister <J65%TAUNIVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU> Subject: help CAN ANYONE HELP ME LOCATE: PROF. F. BOUILLE LABORATOIRE D'INFORMATIQUE DES SCIENCE DE LA TERRE, UNIV. PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE. PARIS ------------------------------ 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. 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? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 09:47:20 cet From: JOHND%IDUI1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU Subject: Supercomputers and AI 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) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 9:21:58 MET From: mcvax!delphi.UUCP!mdc@seismo.CSS.GOV Subject: AI and process control 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] ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 86 17:12:15 EST From: David.Plaut@K.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: What is a symbol? 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 of AIList Digest ********************