lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (09/17/88)
From article <18249@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, by fishwick@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU (Paul Fishwick): " " 2) If commonsense knowledge representation is the issue then we " might want to ask a fundamental question "Why do we care about " representing commonsense knowledge about continuous actions?" " I can see 2 possible goals: One goal is to validate some given " ... To reason about continuous actions where the physics hasn't been worked out or is computationally infeasible. How about that as a third goal? " Obviously, I'm trying to spark some inter-group discussion and so I hope " that any responses will post to both the AI group (comp.ai) AND " the SIMULATION group (comp.simulation). In addition (sci.math) and " (comp.theory.dynamic-sys) may be appropriate. Tsk, tsk. Left out sci.lang. The way people think about these things is reflected in the tense/aspect systems of natural languages. " I believe that Genesereth and Nilsson are quite correct that "reasoning " about time and continous actions" is an important issue. However, an " even more important issue revolves around people discussing " concepts about "state," "time," and "change" by crossing disciplines. " Any thoughts? In English, predicates which can occur with Agent subjects, those capable of deliberate action, can also occur in the progressive aspect, expressing continuous action. This suggests some connection between intent and continuity whose nature is not obvious, to me anyway. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu