COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00005 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	%cs323[w89,jmc]		Winter 1989
C00004 00003	Some old notes
C00006 00004	Notes for final: for distribution
C00007 00005	Fred owns a bird named Tweety.
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
%cs323[w89,jmc]		Winter 1989
*        MJ450; Alex@Polya                                     Oct 24
*        400B Ortega Avenue, #324 ⊗ Mountain View, CA  94040, (415) 966-1263
alex@polya

supplementary packet of papers

1. Programs with common sense
2. Lifschitz, Formalizing Common Sense: An Introduction
3. Kraus and Perlis
4. Lifschitz, Circumscriptive Theories
5. First order theories of indiv. concepts ...
6. Ascribing mental qualities ...
7. Generality in AI
8. Some expert systems need common sense
9. Benchmark problems in nonmonotonic reasoning
alex@polya
papers for students
Besides the Ginsberg book, please arrange for the students to buy
an additional packet of 8 papers.  See me to get copies.

Jan 17
discussed automaton model of can, notion of epist. adeq. ways of
decomposing automaton, mentioned unicity distance

Jan 24
continued with Lifschitz's introduction
problems 1-7
students had trouble with notions of interpretation and model
Some old notes

Formalizations:

1. crossing the street
	a. knowing where the cars are
	b. Will he let me by?

2. blocks world
	elaboration tolerant version

3. A knows that B will acheive p if B knows that A wants p.

4. Full blocks world.  Rectangular parallelopipeds in 3-space above
table.  Robot can move pointer in 3-space which will stop when
it touches.  Can attach, then move.  Moverments will be allowed
when geometrically possible.  Can read position.  Eye on stalk.
Gives description of scene as collection of parallelopipeds when
enough is visible.  Interaction between sentential reasoning and
the hand-eye apparatus.  Problem: Can a bridge from A to B be
built with the material available?  Scaffolding?

Elaboration tolerance.

	The formalism  $s' = result(event,s)$ does not readily
tolerate elaboration to provide for continuous actions, while
%
$$occurs(event,s) ⊃ ∃s'.later(s,s') ∧ hasoccurred(event,s')$$
%
tolerates such elaboration.

$$occurs(move(x,y),s1) ⊃ ∃s2.s1→s2 ∧ holds(on(x,y),s2)$$

$$tries(move(x,y),s) ∧ holds(clear x and clear y, s) ⊃ occurs(move(x,y),s)$$

$$occurs(tries move(x,y),s) ∧ holds(clear x and clear y,s)
 ∧ ¬prevented(move(x,y),s)
	⊃ occurs(move(x,y),s)$$
Notes for final: for distribution

give questions about birds as examples.  What do you get if just
ab s are varied?  What if just ab s and flies are varied?  What
if all predicates are varied?

1. Interpretations including minimal interpretations.
open book and notes

2. What would be the most useful additions to which
these axioms are elaboration tolerant?  To what additions
would it be intolerant?
blocks?

3. Make some axioms for some domain.
Fred owns a bird named Tweety.