perm filename F87.IN[LET,JMC] blob
sn#851113 filedate 1988-01-02 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00418 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00050 00002 ∂01-Oct-87 0037 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
C00052 00003 ∂01-Oct-87 1140 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Committees
C00053 00004 ∂01-Oct-87 1320 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU CSD Committees
C00055 00005 ∂01-Oct-87 1411 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Committees
C00056 00006 ∂01-Oct-87 1425 Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU Message of 1-Oct-87 14:23:53
C00058 00007 ∂01-Oct-87 1435 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU visiting professors
C00060 00008 ∂01-Oct-87 1444 PHY
C00063 00009 ∂01-Oct-87 1447 RPG Various Topics
C00065 00010 ∂01-Oct-87 1449 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Reminder
C00066 00011 ∂01-Oct-87 1527 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU visiting professors
C00067 00012 ∂01-Oct-87 1619 SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU Re: INS
C00075 00013 ∂01-Oct-87 1659 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU Re: visiting professors
C00077 00014 ∂01-Oct-87 1720 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU re: visiting professors
C00079 00015 ∂01-Oct-87 1711 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU [Bob Engelmore <Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>: Computer chess: Hitech]
C00082 00016 ∂01-Oct-87 1734 @Score.Stanford.EDU:MAILER-DAEMON@jessica.Stanford.EDU Returned mail: Host unknown
C00085 00017 ∂01-Oct-87 1832 SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: INS
C00089 00018 ∂01-Oct-87 2227 reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET re: non-monotonic reasoning
C00090 00019 ∂02-Oct-87 0006 NS
C00091 00020 ∂02-Oct-87 0649 BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU Re: visiting professors
C00093 00021 ∂02-Oct-87 1158 VAL Research Mentor Information
C00095 00022 ∂02-Oct-87 1317 VAL re: Carolyn's phone number
C00096 00023 ∂02-Oct-87 1355 VAL question
C00097 00024 ∂02-Oct-87 1414 VAL Research Mentor Information
C00100 00025 ∂02-Oct-87 1448 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU Re: visiting professors and industrial lecturers
C00102 00026 ∂02-Oct-87 1456 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU logic in AI
C00103 00027 ∂02-Oct-87 1541 PHY
C00104 00028 ∂02-Oct-87 1551 PHY
C00105 00029 ∂02-Oct-87 1713 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU logic in AI
C00106 00030 ∂02-Oct-87 2025 NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU paper
C00107 00031 ∂03-Oct-87 0807 tk@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
C00109 00032 ∂03-Oct-87 1811 JSW Alliant memory
C00110 00033 ∂03-Oct-87 1915 sharma%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu transfer to stanford
C00119 00034 ∂03-Oct-87 1918 WEISE@Sierra.Stanford.EDU railroad conspiracy
C00121 00035 ∂04-Oct-87 1241 sharma%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu re: transfer to stanford
C00125 00036 ∂04-Oct-87 1836 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU re: visiting professors and industrial lecturers
C00126 00037 ∂04-Oct-87 1947 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Checkpoint
C00131 00038 ∂05-Oct-87 0854 PHY Fed express
C00132 00039 ∂05-Oct-87 1443 AS.JAL@forsythe.stanford.edu NSF Final Report
C00134 00040 ∂06-Oct-87 0819 @RELAY.CS.NET,@ai.toronto.edu,@utterly.ai.toronto.edu:hector@ai McDermott update
C00139 00041 ∂06-Oct-87 0837 PHY
C00143 00042 ∂06-Oct-87 0900 JMC
C00144 00043 ∂06-Oct-87 0900 JMC
C00145 00044 ∂06-Oct-87 1034 VAL Commonsense and non-monotonic reasoning
C00146 00045 ∂06-Oct-87 1047 PALLAS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: aids
C00153 00046 ∂06-Oct-87 2159 harnad@Princeton.EDU Talk at Stanford
C00177 00047 ∂06-Oct-87 2246 harnad@Princeton.EDU re: Talk at Stanford
C00180 00048 ∂07-Oct-87 1008 perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu gorbachev and circumscription
C00183 00049 ∂07-Oct-87 1211 gasser%pollux.usc.edu@oberon.USC.EDU DAI Workshop Funding Request
C00192 00050 ∂07-Oct-87 1249 danny@Think.COM Hopper
C00193 00051 ∂07-Oct-87 1315 GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU gorbis
C00194 00052 ∂07-Oct-87 1508 perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu more on gorbachev
C00199 00053 ∂07-Oct-87 1540 mmdf@RELAY.CS.NET Failed mail (msg.aa12928)
C00201 00054 ∂07-Oct-87 1629 perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu more on gorbachev, again
C00205 00055 ∂07-Oct-87 1730 HALPERN@IBM.COM Re: wrong address
C00206 00056 ∂08-Oct-87 1615 @Score.Stanford.EDU:nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU NSF Centers
C00210 00057 ∂08-Oct-87 2040 ARK Mr. S and Mr. P
C00211 00058 ∂09-Oct-87 0734 @RELAY.CS.NET:kam%unsun.riec.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET One More About Your Lecture
C00215 00059 ∂09-Oct-87 0932 GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Sept Auditron Readings
C00216 00060 ∂09-Oct-87 0939 bothner@pescadero.Stanford.EDU Re:aids
C00218 00061 ∂09-Oct-87 1112 VAL re: reference
C00223 00062 ∂09-Oct-87 1358 RPG NSF S&T Centers
C00225 00063 ∂09-Oct-87 1428 bothner@pescadero.Stanford.EDU re:aids
C00231 00064 ∂09-Oct-87 1701 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00233 00065 ∂09-Oct-87 1802 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU QLISP meeting
C00234 00066 ∂09-Oct-87 1802 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU time of meeting
C00235 00067 ∂10-Oct-87 0900 JMC
C00236 00068 ∂10-Oct-87 1818 SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU Typing
C00237 00069 ∂10-Oct-87 2112 PAT@IMSSS Confirmation
C00238 00070 ∂12-Oct-87 0904 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:edsel!jlz@labrea.stanford.edu time of meeting
C00240 00071 ∂12-Oct-87 1359 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA Book Reviewers Needed
C00242 00072 ∂12-Oct-87 1549 LES DARPA Umbrella Contract
C00246 00073 ∂12-Oct-87 1620 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA CADE-9 second announcement
C00252 00074 ∂13-Oct-87 1553 goguen@csl.sri.com Kyoto Prize
C00255 00075 ∂13-Oct-87 1703 PHY
C00262 00076 ∂13-Oct-87 1850 HALPERN@IBM.COM References
C00263 00077 ∂14-Oct-87 0755 PHY
C00264 00078 ∂14-Oct-87 1305 SIEGMAN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU McCarthy's Anti-Gang Campaign
C00267 00079 ∂14-Oct-87 1321 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU LISP in mathematics
C00268 00080 ∂14-Oct-87 1349 VAL Les's meeting
C00269 00081 ∂14-Oct-87 1401 goguen@csl.sri.com Re: Kyoto Prize
C00271 00082 ∂14-Oct-87 1605 PHY
C00272 00083 ∂14-Oct-87 1637 PHY
C00273 00084 ∂14-Oct-87 1813 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Name your fiction...
C00277 00085 ∂14-Oct-87 1818 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Page One
C00283 00086 ∂14-Oct-87 1824 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Page Two
C00289 00087 ∂14-Oct-87 1828 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Oops
C00290 00088 ∂14-Oct-87 1828 goguen@csl.sri.com Re: Kyoto Prize
C00292 00089 ∂15-Oct-87 0036 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: LISP in mathematics
C00293 00090 ∂15-Oct-87 0600 JMC
C00294 00091 ∂15-Oct-87 0700 JMC
C00295 00092 ∂15-Oct-87 0736 PHY
C00296 00093 ∂15-Oct-87 0800 JMC
C00297 00094 ∂15-Oct-87 0800 JMC
C00298 00095 ∂15-Oct-87 0837 PHY
C00299 00096 ∂15-Oct-87 0917 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Brink's proposed modifications
C00301 00097 ∂15-Oct-87 1047 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00302 00098 ∂15-Oct-87 1312 VAL re: class next week
C00303 00099 ∂15-Oct-87 1347 VAL re: class next week
C00304 00100 ∂15-Oct-87 1352 VAL Non-monotonic seminar: Correction
C00305 00101 ∂15-Oct-87 1613 GLB
C00306 00102 ∂15-Oct-87 1616 ME [*,RA]
C00307 00103 ∂16-Oct-87 1221 VAL reply to message
C00309 00104 ∂16-Oct-87 1258 RDZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Computer Forum
C00311 00105 ∂16-Oct-87 1447 stantz@helens.stanford.edu re: CIS vending machine.
C00313 00106 ∂16-Oct-87 1522 stantz@helens.stanford.edu re: CIS vending machine.
C00314 00107 ∂17-Oct-87 0115 JSW Forum
C00315 00108 ∂19-Oct-87 0101 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Gang of four
C00316 00109 ∂19-Oct-87 1052 PHY
C00317 00110 ∂19-Oct-87 1156 AIR Progress report
C00325 00111 ∂19-Oct-87 1333 arg@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU old version of Qlisp again available
C00327 00112 ∂20-Oct-87 0731 PHY
C00328 00113 ∂20-Oct-87 1329 @Score.Stanford.EDU:nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU Duda
C00330 00114 ∂20-Oct-87 1628 pratt@navajo.stanford.edu Gurevich
C00332 00115 ∂20-Oct-87 1740 pratt@navajo.stanford.edu Plotkin
C00333 00116 ∂21-Oct-87 0955 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU more light please
C00335 00117 ∂21-Oct-87 1200 REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU your Participation in the High Noon Lecture Series
C00339 00118 ∂21-Oct-87 1613 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of September computer charges.
C00342 00119 ∂22-Oct-87 1521 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU meeting
C00344 00120 ∂22-Oct-87 1936 @Score.Stanford.EDU:dale%LINC.CIS.UPENN.EDU.#Internet@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Ph.D. Proposal (UPenn)
C00349 00121 ∂23-Oct-87 1043 VAL re: class next week
C00350 00122 ∂23-Oct-87 1056 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00352 00123 ∂23-Oct-87 1434 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU more light please
C00355 00124 ∂23-Oct-87 1748 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA
C00365 00125 ∂26-Oct-87 0000 JMC Expired plan
C00366 00126 ∂26-Oct-87 0851 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU [nilsson@jeeves.stanford.edu (Nils Nilsson): umbrella contract]
C00372 00127 ∂26-Oct-87 1023 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU Winter CS101 text
C00374 00128 ∂26-Oct-87 1135 gerry%eusip.edinburgh.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
C00384 00129 ∂26-Oct-87 1147 Yuri_Gurevich@um.cc.umich.edu Operational semantics
C00385 00130 ∂26-Oct-87 1200 Mailer failed mail returned
C00386 00131 ∂26-Oct-87 1215 Mailer failed mail returned
C00387 00132 ∂26-Oct-87 1325 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
C00388 00133 ∂26-Oct-87 1508 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Umbrella Proposal
C00390 00134 ∂26-Oct-87 2021 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Gang of four
C00391 00135 ∂26-Oct-87 2135 JK
C00394 00136 ∂27-Oct-87 0934 ULLMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Paper available
C00395 00137 ∂27-Oct-87 1025 Yuri_Gurevich@um.cc.umich.edu re: Operational semantics
C00396 00138 ∂27-Oct-87 1110 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU greetings
C00398 00139 ∂27-Oct-87 1947 QLisp-mailer a reminder
C00400 00140 ∂28-Oct-87 1333 ZM Mihailov's visit
C00401 00141 ∂28-Oct-87 1347 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU challenge
C00404 00142 ∂28-Oct-87 1352 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU oh, and ..
C00405 00143 ∂28-Oct-87 1410 AIR re: report on ebos
C00406 00144 ∂28-Oct-87 1733 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00408 00145 ∂28-Oct-87 1825 @RELAY.CS.NET:dlpoole@watdragon.waterloo.edu A question about circumscription.
C00413 00146 ∂29-Oct-87 0230 @RELAY.CS.NET:dlpoole@watdragon.waterloo.edu re: A question about circumscription.
C00416 00147 ∂29-Oct-87 0825 REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: your Participation in the High Noon Lecture Series
C00418 00148 ∂29-Oct-87 0842 reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET AAAI grant request
C00421 00149 ∂29-Oct-87 0845 reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET AAAI grant request
C00424 00150 ∂29-Oct-87 0932 reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET AAAI grant request
C00435 00151 ∂29-Oct-87 0951 reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET AAAI grant request
C00439 00152 ∂29-Oct-87 1024 JDP What I've been doing
C00445 00153 ∂29-Oct-87 1406 VAL re: Mikhailov
C00446 00154 ∂29-Oct-87 1435 VAL re: Mikhailov
C00447 00155 ∂29-Oct-87 1540 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU Ramin Zabih
C00448 00156 ∂29-Oct-87 1731 VAL Poole
C00449 00157 ∂29-Oct-87 1747 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00452 00158 ∂30-Oct-87 0733 PHY
C00460 00159 ∂30-Oct-87 0936 PHY
C00461 00160 ∂30-Oct-87 0936 PHY
C00466 00161 ∂30-Oct-87 0950 RWF re: Who's Who?
C00467 00162 ∂30-Oct-87 1117 PHY
C00468 00163 ∂30-Oct-87 1342 LES Posting
C00469 00164 ∂30-Oct-87 1428 Qlisp-mailer Jack Test
C00470 00165 ∂01-Nov-87 1210 @Score.Stanford.EDU:nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU AI Qual Exams
C00473 00166 ∂01-Nov-87 1915 JK
C00477 00167 ∂02-Nov-87 0800 JMC
C00478 00168 ∂02-Nov-87 1353 VAL DARPA umbrella proposal
C00482 00169 ∂02-Nov-87 1934 ME UDP1 disk drive working and available
C00485 00170 ∂03-Nov-87 1029 VAL re: DARPA umbrella proposal
C00486 00171 ∂03-Nov-87 1155 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
C00487 00172 ∂03-Nov-87 1511 LES re: conversation with Jack Schwartz
C00488 00173 ∂03-Nov-87 1738 LES Reprints needed
C00492 00174 ∂03-Nov-87 2011 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:bose@faraday.ece.cmu.edu theorem proving example
C00495 00175 ∂03-Nov-87 2111 LES re: JMC
C00496 00176 ∂04-Nov-87 0804 TALEEN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: more jokes
C00498 00177 ∂04-Nov-87 0834 MACMILK@Score.Stanford.EDU critics on su-etc
C00499 00178 ∂04-Nov-87 1432 NSH
C00502 00179 ∂04-Nov-87 1648 Mailer Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00505 00180 ∂04-Nov-87 2027 FRANTS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Gorbachev speech
C00507 00181 ∂04-Nov-87 2027 FRANTS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU previous message.
C00508 00182 ∂05-Nov-87 0549 LARSEN%UMDC.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu report on September ttac meeting
C00510 00183 ∂05-Nov-87 1215 HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Logic-of-Programs Seminar
C00512 00184 ∂05-Nov-87 1254 LES EBOS etc.
C00515 00185 ∂05-Nov-87 1418 PHY
C00518 00186 ∂05-Nov-87 1427 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU flak on overhead rate
C00519 00187 ∂05-Nov-87 1434 LES re: EBOS etc.
C00521 00188 ∂05-Nov-87 1451 REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: your Participation in the High Noon Lecture Series
C00523 00189 ∂05-Nov-87 1636 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM Paper by Arbab I sent you for review
C00524 00190 ∂05-Nov-87 1725 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU Mike Genesereth
C00526 00191 ∂06-Nov-87 1031 simpson@vax.darpa.mil Re: addendum to previous
C00528 00192 ∂06-Nov-87 1058 VAL re: basic research contract
C00529 00193 ∂06-Nov-87 1147 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00531 00194 ∂06-Nov-87 1415 LES
C00536 00195 ∂06-Nov-87 1430 D.DOUG@OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU re: largest state.
C00537 00196 ∂06-Nov-87 1455 RWF re: San Diego's Market/MLK street
C00538 00197 ∂06-Nov-87 1507 VAL re: basic research contract
C00539 00198 ∂06-Nov-87 1817 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA Final CADE-9 Call for Papers
C00545 00199 ∂06-Nov-87 2349 bellcore!ulysses!ihlpm!tracy@RUTGERS.EDU Technological Opportunities for Humanity
C00547 00200 ∂07-Nov-87 2235 JSW Visit to MIT
C00548 00201 ∂08-Nov-87 0028 Qlisp-mailer next meeting
C00549 00202 ∂08-Nov-87 1212 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU ai courses
C00551 00203 ∂08-Nov-87 1322 VAL Advice needed
C00553 00204 ∂08-Nov-87 1527 aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Mail via ARPANET Gateway to UK
C00556 00205 ∂08-Nov-87 1533 binford@boa-constrictor ai courses
C00558 00206 ∂08-Nov-87 1540 binford@boa-constrictor ai courses
C00560 00207 ∂09-Nov-87 0929 JDP
C00562 00208 ∂09-Nov-87 1324 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU second try
C00564 00209 ∂09-Nov-87 1329 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU month change
C00566 00210 ∂10-Nov-87 0850 JDP
C00568 00211 ∂10-Nov-87 1223 CLT qlisp interface
C00569 00212 ∂10-Nov-87 1252 JSW Qlisp interface
C00572 00213 ∂10-Nov-87 1257 CLT qlisp interface
C00573 00214 ∂10-Nov-87 1344 VAL WICS
C00574 00215 ∂10-Nov-87 1510 VAL re: WICS
C00575 00216 ∂10-Nov-87 1551 ME re: user disk pack
C00576 00217 ∂10-Nov-87 1615 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU re: SPO Advisory Committee
C00578 00218 ∂10-Nov-87 1627 VAL reply to message
C00579 00219 ∂10-Nov-87 1631 PASTERNACK@KL.SRI.Com re: Where is JMC?
C00580 00220 ∂10-Nov-87 1712 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU re: SPO Advisory Committee
C00584 00221 ∂10-Nov-87 2145 R.ROLAND@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: Ginsburg and pot
C00586 00222 ∂11-Nov-87 0842 PHY
C00589 00223 ∂11-Nov-87 0900 JMC
C00590 00224 ∂11-Nov-87 0900 JMC
C00591 00225 ∂11-Nov-87 0947 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM Are you there?
C00592 00226 ∂11-Nov-87 1043 BOUSSE@Sierra.Stanford.EDU Ginsburg's experience
C00594 00227 ∂11-Nov-87 1333 ME failed mail returned
C00598 00228 ∂11-Nov-87 1416 LES Formal Reasoning budget
C00603 00229 ∂11-Nov-87 1435 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Re: misguided missive
C00604 00230 ∂11-Nov-87 1553 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Joe Weening
C00606 00231 ∂11-Nov-87 1608 LES Revised Formal Reasoning budget
C00611 00232 ∂11-Nov-87 1647 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00613 00233 ∂11-Nov-87 1658 LES re: Revised Formal Reasoning budget
C00614 00234 ∂12-Nov-87 2256 HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU LOP
C00616 00235 ∂12-Nov-87 1409 LES re: Revised Formal Reasoning budget
C00617 00236 ∂12-Nov-87 1511 POSER@CSLI.Stanford.EDU fugu & polygraphs
C00622 00237 ∂12-Nov-87 1640 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU polygraph testing
C00627 00238 ∂12-Nov-87 1644 LES re: Revised Formal Reasoning budget
C00630 00239 ∂12-Nov-87 1645 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU polygraph
C00632 00240 ∂12-Nov-87 1701 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Polygraphs and the liberal/conservative boundary
C00634 00241 ∂12-Nov-87 1839 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU message
C00636 00242 ∂12-Nov-87 1839 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU polygraph
C00638 00243 ∂13-Nov-87 0618 PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Ginsburg
C00645 00244 ∂13-Nov-87 0923 luke@glacier.stanford.edu Question
C00646 00245 ∂13-Nov-87 0933 HOLSTEGE@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Polygraph testing, acerbic remarks
C00653 00246 ∂13-Nov-87 1352 LES Simpson discussion
C00655 00247 ∂13-Nov-87 1544 luke@glacier.stanford.edu re: Question
C00656 00248 ∂13-Nov-87 2059 PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Ginsburg
C00658 00249 ∂13-Nov-87 2151 mcvax!litp!queinnec@uunet.UU.NET 1st IWoLES
C00664 00250 ∂14-Nov-87 1318 LYN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: traffic safety
C00665 00251 ∂14-Nov-87 1631 LES re: Revised Formal Reasoning budget
C00670 00252 ∂15-Nov-87 1231 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU Liaison visit to Inference
C00671 00253 ∂16-Nov-87 0915 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
C00672 00254 ∂16-Nov-87 1319 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM re: Are you there?
C00673 00255 ∂16-Nov-87 1329 VAL re: regards from Nepeivoda
C00674 00256 ∂16-Nov-87 1339 BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: expenses
C00675 00257 ∂16-Nov-87 1344 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM McCarthy on Arbab
C00677 00258 ∂16-Nov-87 1355 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00679 00259 ∂16-Nov-87 1612 VAL Visit to Austin
C00680 00260 ∂16-Nov-87 1907 ME UDP?
C00681 00261 ∂16-Nov-87 1928 ME UDPs
C00682 00262 ∂17-Nov-87 1624 TEICH@Sushi.Stanford.EDU cs101
C00683 00263 ∂18-Nov-87 0811 PHY
C00686 00264 ∂18-Nov-87 1825 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00688 00265 ∂19-Nov-87 1255 HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Logic-of-Programs Seminar
C00690 00266 ∂19-Nov-87 1638 gluck@psych.Stanford.EDU re: QUERRY: Is there anyway to get books electronically??
C00691 00267 ∂19-Nov-87 1645 ME bike lockers installed and usable
C00692 00268 ∂19-Nov-87 1937 gluck@psych.Stanford.EDU re: QUERRY: Is there anyway to get books electronically??
C00693 00269 ∂19-Nov-87 2200 JMC
C00694 00270 ∂20-Nov-87 1350 GOLDBERG@CSLI.Stanford.EDU re: moral responsibility for the Sandinistas
C00696 00271 ∂20-Nov-87 1459 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA PROLOG BENCHMARKING WORKSHOP
C00704 00272 ∂20-Nov-87 1504 PHY
C00706 00273 ∂20-Nov-87 1556 VAL re: Austin
C00707 00274 ∂20-Nov-87 1635 VAL re: Austin
C00708 00275 ∂20-Nov-87 1643 VAL re: Austin
C00709 00276 ∂22-Nov-87 0919 Qlisp-mailer Fortune
C00710 00277 ∂22-Nov-87 2141 DON say what?
C00711 00278 ∂23-Nov-87 0333 enea!LISBET.LiU.SE!M-REINFRANK@uunet.UU.NET nmr-workshop
C00713 00279 ∂23-Nov-87 0859 Qlisp-mailer New version of Qlisp available
C00723 00280 ∂23-Nov-87 0923 PHY
C00728 00281 ∂23-Nov-87 1620 simpson@vax.darpa.mil re: Revised Formal Reasoning budget
C00730 00282 ∂23-Nov-87 1641 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU an example sentence for you
C00732 00283 ∂23-Nov-87 1907 mogul@decwrl.dec.com illumination
C00738 00284 ∂23-Nov-87 2243 enea!LISBET.LiU.SE!M-REINFRANK@uunet.UU.NET re: nmr-workshop
C00740 00285 ∂24-Nov-87 0900 JMC
C00741 00286 ∂24-Nov-87 0956 REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU High Noon Lecture Series
C00743 00287 ∂24-Nov-87 1800 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU Re: Searle essay
C00744 00288 ∂24-Nov-87 1923 Qlisp-mailer QLAMBDA now working
C00748 00289 ∂25-Nov-87 1035 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU ai courses
C00749 00290 ∂25-Nov-87 1111 VAL
C00750 00291 ∂26-Nov-87 2115 PEYTON@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Nicaragua & Carter
C00751 00292 ∂27-Nov-87 0304 mcvax!ermhs!.thh%hra@uunet.UU.NET RE: for Christos Papadimitriou
C00753 00293 ∂27-Nov-87 1359 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU Course Discussion Meeting
C00756 00294 ∂27-Nov-87 1412 narain%pluto@rand-unix.ARPA Re: reference
C00758 00295 ∂27-Nov-87 2134 mcvax!ermhs!MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.UU.NET Returned mail: User unknown
C00761 00296 ∂28-Nov-87 1447 SCOTT@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: History and JMC
C00763 00297 ∂28-Nov-87 1613 SCOTT@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: History and JMC
C00764 00298 ∂30-Nov-87 1104 ENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU Looking for a first name
C00765 00299 ∂30-Nov-87 1143 LES re: Looking for a first name
C00766 00300 ∂30-Nov-87 1154 ENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU re: Looking for a first name
C00767 00301 ∂30-Nov-87 1421 Qlisp-mailer QLISP meeting this week
C00768 00302 ∂30-Nov-87 1556 LES Topologix transputers
C00770 00303 ∂30-Nov-87 1601 mhs@ht.ai.mit.edu word problem (the Byzantine generals meet Eratosthenes)
C00773 00304 ∂30-Nov-87 1646 Qlisp-mailer QLISP meeting change, take note
C00775 00305 ∂30-Nov-87 2130 Qlisp-mailer new qlisp
C00778 00306 ∂30-Nov-87 2152 RPG reprint request
C00779 00307 ∂01-Dec-87 0051 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU re: Searle essay
C00780 00308 ∂01-Dec-87 1050 RPG
C00781 00309 ∂01-Dec-87 1157 JSW Paper for Codevilla
C00782 00310 ∂01-Dec-87 1228 JSW Paper for Codevilla
C00783 00311 ∂01-Dec-87 1322 Qlisp-mailer What do you get when four processors print to the screen at once?
C00786 00312 ∂01-Dec-87 1518 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
C00788 00313 ∂01-Dec-87 1655 LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: book the Green Library should get
C00790 00314 ∂01-Dec-87 1724 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
C00792 00315 ∂01-Dec-87 2111 Qlisp-mailer Yet another QLISP meeting move
C00794 00316 ∂01-Dec-87 2157 Mailer Re: random points and lines in the plane
C00796 00317 ∂02-Dec-87 0848 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Sr. Faculty Meeting
C00798 00318 ∂02-Dec-87 1257 PHY
C00800 00319 ∂02-Dec-87 1535 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
C00801 00320 ∂02-Dec-87 1707 Qlisp-mailer meeting location
C00802 00321 ∂03-Dec-87 1540 HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Logic-of-Programs Seminar
C00804 00322 ∂03-Dec-87 1914 ibuki!rww@labrea.stanford.edu open house
C00806 00323 ∂04-Dec-87 1046 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
C00808 00324 ∂04-Dec-87 1441 JSW Symbolics multiprocessor
C00809 00325 ∂05-Dec-87 0123 SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: `Radfem' - etymology and equivalence [was Re: Plus ca change]
C00812 00326 ∂07-Dec-87 1245 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00815 00327 ∂07-Dec-87 1329 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Sr. Faculty Meeting
C00816 00328 ∂08-Dec-87 0047 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Re: Address for Henry Firdman
C00818 00329 ∂08-Dec-87 0530 MEERSMAN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Your invited talk at the Canton, China conference, July 1988
C00820 00330 ∂08-Dec-87 0957 littell@navajo.stanford.edu Sept. expenditure statement
C00821 00331 ∂08-Dec-87 1300 JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU Oliver Radkey
C00822 00332 ∂08-Dec-87 1302 JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU Oliver Radkey
C00824 00333 ∂08-Dec-87 1343 JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Oliver Radkey
C00825 00334 ∂08-Dec-87 1521 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS COMMITTEE
C00864 00335 ∂08-Dec-87 1626 PHY
C00865 00336 ∂09-Dec-87 0117 @Score.Stanford.EDU:POSER@CSLI.Stanford.EDU experiment
C00866 00337 ∂09-Dec-87 0529 MEERSMAN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu thanks. Pls ignore further queued requests on this... Robert Meersman
C00867 00338 ∂09-Dec-87 0900 JMC
C00868 00339 ∂09-Dec-87 1443 Qlisp-mailer beware of stack overflow!!!
C00872 00340 ∂09-Dec-87 1714 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00875 00341 ∂10-Dec-87 1342 HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Logic-of-Programs Seminar
C00877 00342 ∂11-Dec-87 0615 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu Thanks
C00879 00343 ∂11-Dec-87 1158 DAVIS@Score.Stanford.EDU Sailing
C00880 00344 ∂11-Dec-87 1425 Qlisp-mailer new Qlisp version available
C00892 00345 ∂11-Dec-87 1456 RPG My State
C00894 00346 ∂12-Dec-87 1425 PLAMBECK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Mencken
C00896 00347 ∂13-Dec-87 0004 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU re: Searle essay
C00898 00348 ∂13-Dec-87 1357 GREEP@CSLI.Stanford.EDU Re: where much modern religion seems to lead
C00899 00349 ∂13-Dec-87 1437 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu this is my preferred .edu address. This Bitnet address Marjory
C00901 00350 ∂14-Dec-87 0804 Qlisp-mailer Fibonacci
C00905 00351 ∂14-Dec-87 0810 Qlisp-mailer Fibonacci
C00909 00352 ∂14-Dec-87 0847 PHY
C00910 00353 ∂14-Dec-87 0905 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Full Professor Faculty Meeting
C00912 00354 ∂14-Dec-87 1056 edsel!jlz@labrea.stanford.edu First issue goes to publisher!!!
C00914 00355 ∂14-Dec-87 1219 WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Ruminations on air travel
C00917 00356 ∂14-Dec-87 1219 WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU My last message ...
C00918 00357 ∂14-Dec-87 1326 Qlisp-mailer Fibonacci
C00921 00358 ∂14-Dec-87 1536 Qlisp-mailer re: Fibonacci
C00922 00359 ∂14-Dec-87 1642 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Budget Justification, Continuation of Umbrella Contract
C00927 00360 ∂14-Dec-87 1655 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Correction
C00929 00361 ∂14-Dec-87 1704 WENTWORTH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU $2.5 million costs a life?
C00931 00362 ∂14-Dec-87 2022 REGES@Score.Stanford.EDU CS101
C00932 00363 ∂14-Dec-87 2322 Qlisp-mailer new, faster Qlisp now up
C00936 00364 ∂15-Dec-87 0959 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU WICS 88
C00938 00365 ∂15-Dec-87 1234 VAL re: WICS 88
C00939 00366 ∂15-Dec-87 1504 REGES@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: cs101
C00941 00367 ∂15-Dec-87 1547 VAL re: WICS 88
C00942 00368 ∂15-Dec-87 1608 LES Secretary
C00943 00369 ∂16-Dec-87 0600 JMC
C00944 00370
C00947 00371 ∂16-Dec-87 1632 VAL Brink
C00948 00372 ∂17-Dec-87 0153 mcvax!inria.inria.fr!queinnec@uunet.UU.NET TeX Format for IWoLES
C00951 00373 ∂17-Dec-87 0600 JMC
C00952 00374 ∂17-Dec-87 0910 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Promotions
C00954 00375 ∂17-Dec-87 0917 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Promotions
C00956 00376 ∂17-Dec-87 1116 DNUTE%UGA.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Workshop Proposal
C00965 00377 ∂17-Dec-87 1346 GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
C00969 00378 ∂17-Dec-87 1517 PAPA@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: for Christos Papadimitriou
C00971 00379 ∂17-Dec-87 1700 GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
C00972 00380 ∂17-Dec-87 1728 LES Secretary position
C00973 00381 ∂17-Dec-87 1754 PAPA@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: collaboration with Soviets
C00974 00382 ∂18-Dec-87 1015 GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
C00976 00383 ∂18-Dec-87 1016 LES
C00978 00384 ∂18-Dec-87 1025 GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
C00979 00385 ∂21-Dec-87 2017 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: McDermott critique
C00982 00386 ∂21-Dec-87 2017 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Undeliverable mail
C00984 00387 ∂21-Dec-87 2056 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Apology
C00986 00388 ∂21-Dec-87 2111 @RELAY.CS.NET,@ai.toronto.edu,@utterly.ai.toronto.edu:hector@ai McDermott critique
C00990 00389 ∂21-Dec-87 2254 Qlisp-mailer JMC's Touch, running up to 3+ times faster than serial, compiled version.
C01036 00390 ∂22-Dec-87 1635 LIN Thanks
C01037 00391 ∂23-Dec-87 1325 GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Information for Keith Clark
C01040 00392 ∂23-Dec-87 1514 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Qtak
C01047 00393 ∂23-Dec-87 1556 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU Journal of Philosophical Logic Paper
C01048 00394 ∂23-Dec-87 1558 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: books
C01050 00395 ∂23-Dec-87 1559 GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Keith Clark
C01051 00396 ∂23-Dec-87 1608 ME back on the ARPAnet
C01053 00397 ∂24-Dec-87 0541 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU re: Journal of Philosophical Logic Paper
C01054 00398 ∂24-Dec-87 2046 GLB
C01055 00399 ∂27-Dec-87 1913 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Letter Form
C01056 00400 ∂28-Dec-87 1312 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of October computer charges.
C01059 00401 ∂28-Dec-87 1643 TAP essays
C01060 00402 ∂28-Dec-87 2228 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
C01063 00403 ∂29-Dec-87 0826 simpson@vax.darpa.mil Re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
C01068 00404 ∂29-Dec-87 0850 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu A new member of our committee...
C01071 00405 ∂29-Dec-87 1342 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of October computer charges.
C01074 00406 ∂29-Dec-87 1418 AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU phone meeting
C01075 00407 ∂29-Dec-87 1436 AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU clippings
C01076 00408 ∂29-Dec-87 1441 AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU expense
C01077 00409 ∂29-Dec-87 1625 AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU puzzle
C01079 00410 ∂29-Dec-87 1710 ME Lathrop spooling
C01080 00411 ∂29-Dec-87 1729 LES IBM RT
C01081 00412 ∂29-Dec-87 2050 CL.BOYER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Thank You!
C01082 00413 ∂30-Dec-87 0104 @SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,@NTT-20.NTT.JP:masahiko@nuesun.NTT visit
C01084 00414 ∂30-Dec-87 1347 AI.THROOP@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Re: file
C01086 00415 ∂30-Dec-87 1452 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Full Tenured Faculty Meeting
C01088 00416 ∂31-Dec-87 1104 yuly@csv.rpi.edu
C01090 00417 ∂31-Dec-87 1105 yuly@csv.rpi.edu summary
C01099 00418 ∂31-Dec-87 1340 ME RA's files
C01101 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂01-Oct-87 0037 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 1 October 1987
Previous Balance 14.24
Monthly Interest at 1.0% 0.14
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 14.38
PAYMENT DELIVERY LOCATION: CSD Receptionist.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
Please deliver payments to the Computer Science Dept receptionist, Jacks Hall.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your PONY ACCOUNT NAME on your check.
Note: The recording of a payment takes up to three weeks after the payment is
made, but never beyond the next billing date. Please allow for this delay.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.0% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
An account with a credit balance earns interest of .33% per month,
based on the average daily balance.
Your last Pony payment was recorded on 4/30/87.
Accounts with balances remaining unpaid for more than 55 days are
considered delinquent and are subject to reduction of credit limit.
Please pay your bill and keep your account current.
∂01-Oct-87 1140 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Committees
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 11:39:59 PDT
Date: Thu 1 Oct 87 11:39:57-PDT
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Committees
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, sloan@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12339059818.11.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
In order to facilitate input into various committees by interested
parties, could you please arrange for notification of your committee
meetings to be sent to CSD@SCORE.
Thanks!
-------
∂01-Oct-87 1320 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU CSD Committees
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 13:20:28 PDT
Date: Thu 1 Oct 87 13:19:49-PDT
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: CSD Committees
To: miller@KL.SRI.COM, tajnai@Score.Stanford.EDU,
buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, waleson@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU, haunga@Score.Stanford.EDU,
reges@Score.Stanford.EDU, dewerk@Score.Stanford.EDU, rwf@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
rfn@Sail.Stanford.EDU, dek@Sail.Stanford.EDU, oliger@Navajo.Stanford.EDU,
hemenway@Score.Stanford.EDU, les@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
gotelli@Score.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
ullman@Score.Stanford.EDU, zm@Sail.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
sloan@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12339077998.30.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
More on notification of committee meetings:
Please note that this message is being sent out to all CSD committees AND
that notification should be sent to faculty@score instead of csd@score.
Thanks!
-------
∂01-Oct-87 1411 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Committees
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 14:06:18 PDT
Date: Thu 1 Oct 87 14:06:14-PDT
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Committees
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 1 Oct 87 14:04:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12339086448.13.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John,
I have you down as in charge of the visiting professor committee...and
routinely sent out a message. My apologies.
-Anne
-------
∂01-Oct-87 1425 Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU Message of 1-Oct-87 14:23:53
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 14:25:01 PDT
Date: Thu 1 Oct 87 14:24:25-PDT
From: The Mailer Daemon <Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Message of 1-Oct-87 14:23:53
Message failed for the following:
GRAD-ADMIN@Score.Stanford.EDU.#Internet: File not found
------------
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 1 Oct 87 14:24:04-PDT
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Thu, 1 Oct 87 14:07:55 PDT
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 1 Oct 87 14:18:37-PDT
Date: 01 Oct 87 1418 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: visiting professors
To: faculty@score.stanford.edu
Cc: richardson@score.stanford.edu
Does anyone have proposals for a visiting professor for next year?
I seem to be in charge of this although away, and I suppose I can
collect proposals and suggestions by email.
-------
∂01-Oct-87 1435 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU visiting professors
Received: from TENAYA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 14:35:07 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA00638; Thu, 1 Oct 87 14:35:35 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 14:35:35 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8710012135.AA00638@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@sail.Stanford.EDU
Cc: faculty@score.Stanford.EDU, richardson@score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 01 Oct 87 1418 PDT <8710012125.AA00582@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: visiting professors
Maybe Dick Duda (I hear he may be available). -Nils
∂01-Oct-87 1444 PHY
next batch of mail
strange letter in telegram style from
Graphnet
329 Alfred Avenue
Teaneck, N.J. 07666
Lyngby
Dines Bjorner
Thanks for your positive reply. We are delighted. Do you have a title
for keynote speech. When will you arrive. Flight no. Day Time. Similar
for your departure. We will book double room in Copenhagen for shoulder
days/nights.
If not otherwise instructed, willyou be in Copenhagen Monday Oct 26
or culd you be so moved. Danish IFIP group is organising a 3 speaker
evening with Ershov. Somebody from Icot and would like to see you as one
of the three. Would you be available Danish IFIP group.
Would fund all additional expenses etc. Sorry to give you all this to work
on.
Sincerely yours
My net address is DB(AD SIGN)DDC(DOT)UUCP
DINES BJORNER
TO SEND OVERSEAS CABLE OR TELEX VIA GRAPHNET,
CALL 1-800-527-6733 ANYTIME (24 HOURS /7 DAYS)
--
Please let them know that you are in Texas and not here at Stanford.
--
North-Holland computer publications catalogue 1987
Artificial Intelligence journal
Newsweek
`Some recent applications of knowledge' by Rohit Parikh - comments welcome
An extremely lengthy letter from R. Thomas, Universite d'aix-Marseille
with xerox copies of another lengthy letter. Something to do with
`your speech in our University magazine when you taught here for a few
days, a few years ago.'
∂01-Oct-87 1447 RPG Various Topics
John, I am still in the Institute mood, so apparent inactivity is not
significant at the moment.
Could you volunteer to write 2-3 pages on what you think the state of
Lisp, its uses, and what a reasonable future for Lisp might be like, for a
Lucid newsletter? You can let me know some in a week or so.
I've talked to Scherlis about an additional task on your DARPA contract
which would cover my and Will Clinger's travel to ISO meetings for the
next Lisp (he and I are project editors - we write the specification). He
thinks we could do that if we could get some sort of pro forma appointment
for him at Stanford. Can this be arranged.
-rpg-
∂01-Oct-87 1449 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Reminder
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 14:49:05 PDT
Date: Thu 1 Oct 87 14:43:14-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Reminder
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: BScott@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12339093181.20.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Your message about visiting professors reminded me that I did not receive
an acknowledgment of my message to you concerning your benefit payments.
I do want to be sure you did receive it, so that you can arrange for the
appropriate payments.
Betty
←
-------
∂01-Oct-87 1527 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU visiting professors
Received: from TENAYA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 15:27:06 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA00725; Thu, 1 Oct 87 15:27:31 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 15:27:31 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8710012227.AA00725@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 01 Oct 87 1519 PDT <8710012219.AA00708@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: visiting professors
I'll look into the title situation.
∂01-Oct-87 1619 SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU Re: INS
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 16:19:00 PDT
Date: Thu 1 Oct 87 16:19:38-PDT
From: Harinder Singh <SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: INS
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 1 Oct 87 14:38:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12339110732.35.SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
Your impression is correct - the INS officials are known
to be some of the most obnoxious specimens of bureaucrats in
the US government.
Most of my knowledge of their obnoxiousness is, however,
second-hand because I've always gone in to any business with
them with an excess of preparation, care and visibly powerful
support. Even in New Delhi it was Sir this and Sir that at
the window but some of that was also the good luck of having
a human being at the window that day instead of the usual
animals - they are known to slam windows in people's faces
because they know that people do NOT have any recourse; the
INS has been given too much discretionary power in denying
visas to people on an arbitrary basis.
I know of cases where, for instance, someone with
admission to Harvard with full funding for a Ph.D. has been
denied a visa because the consular official thought the
person *might* accept a job in the US after a PhD at Harvard,
EVEN IF there were no illegality involved at any step along
the way.
An acknowledgement that one *might* be induced to
*consider* a job offer, legally made and legally to be considered
in compliance with all applicable laws, is a fatal acknowledgement.
How many students know before they finish *exactly* where
they will work? A Canadian friend of mine almost got turned away
at the US-Canadian border because he let on, honestly, that he
MIGHT consider job offers from US companies. The Immigration
official threatened to refuse him entry to finish his PhD here
but let him in anyway, probably because my friend's American
wife was standing right next to him. They were shocked at this
kind of treatment, as any law abiding person of any nationality
would be.
There are also known cases of advanced doctoral students
being denied re-entry to the US after a visit abroad because
they are now hot stuff for US employers to catch, even if by fully
legal methods. More than one PhD has thus been jeopardized. I'm
sure the foreign student counselor at the I-Center (Marcia Makino at
723-1831) can provide many more examples from her years of dealing
with this stuff every day.
As one last example, let me describe the case of a friend's
daughter who is a Stanford student. They are English and have been
here as permanent residents for many years. Her father is a very
senior person in a Silicon Valley company and is not one to ever
mess with borderline legal activities. Anyway, his daughter went
overseas for a year of study abroad and when she returned the
immigration official at SFO wouldn't let her back in. He said
that she would have to be deported to England because she had been
away from the US for a full year. His supervisor got in on the
action, however, and noticed that the young woman's date of return
to the US was *exactly* the same, by coincidence, as the date on
which she'd gone a year before. So she was allowed back in to
be with her family and continue her degree at Stanford, simply
because she squeaked in within hours of the year being up.
The agency's operation is highly `Un-American' on a
number of crucial human rights/human dignity counts and could
possibly be open to challenge based on constitutional grounds
(I'm in the process of studying this.) There was a time not
so long ago when the INS was allowed to discriminate against
Orientals *by law*. There has been some progress made in
eliminating some of that racist stuff by the efforts of people
who wouldn't stand for it, and it is necessary to carry the
process further to eliminate the laws that treat foreign
nationals with less than full *human* rights.
For a nation that prides itself on being composed
of immigrants from all over the world and, indeed, of being
frequently rejuvenated by the influx of immigrants, there
are some terrible blind spots in immigration law and INS
operation that urgently need attention.
Inder
PS
Please note that my messages about the INS are
limited to a discussion of fully *legal* immigrants and
visitors. Illegal immigration and its consequences are
not covered in these postings because that is a separate
and more complicated category of concern. Also, the last
two examples involved Caucasian foreigners so there was
no racial angle involved - just stupid, brutal application
of some bizarre, archaic laws that are vestiges of an age
long gone.
-------
∂01-Oct-87 1659 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU Re: visiting professors
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 16:59:41 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 16:58:56 PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: visiting professors
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>" of Thu, 1 Oct 87 14:18:00 PDT
Message-ID: <12339117887.43.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
John, remind me of the parameters. What does the person do?
How much money do we have
tpo spend on this professor? I.e. is this a real visitorship
or is it subsidized by comeone's company?
Ed
-------
∂01-Oct-87 1720 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU re: visiting professors
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 17:20:23 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 17:19:38 PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: visiting professors
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu, 1 Oct 87 17:17:00 PDT
Message-ID: <12339121655.43.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
OK, John, in that case, I strongly second the nomination of Dick Duda.
I am also VERY interested in DeKleer, but he is not nearly as good a
teacher as Duda.
Ed
-------
∂01-Oct-87 1711 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU [Bob Engelmore <Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>: Computer chess: Hitech]
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 17:11:06 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 17:10:21 PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: [Bob Engelmore <Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>: Computer chess: Hitech]
To: nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12339119964.43.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Mail-From: ENGELMORE created at 1-Oct-87 10:36:06
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 10:36:03 PDT
From: Bob Engelmore <Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Computer chess: Hitech
To: ksl@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, associates@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
Office-Phone: (415) 723-8444
Message-ID: <12339048184.17.ENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
For those of you interested in computer chess, Hans Berliner just sent me
a note saying that his chess machine, Hitech, won the Pennsylvania State
Chapmpionship Tourney. It scored 4.5 out of 5, and even beat a Senior
Master with a rating of 2412. Its performance rating for the event was
2559, which is a very high Senior Master rating.
An interesting side note: "Due to a specific interpretation of the rules that
bar a computer from winning money at a chess tournament, Hitech was denied not
only the money prize (which is appropriate), but also the State Title and
trophy." The rules said that the title would go to the most highly placed
state resident -- can't a machine be a resident?! Anyone for taking up the
cause of machine rights?
Bob
-------
-------
∂01-Oct-87 1734 @Score.Stanford.EDU:MAILER-DAEMON@jessica.Stanford.EDU Returned mail: Host unknown
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 17:34:27 PDT
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 1 Oct 87 17:34:26-PDT
Received: from Portia.local (Portia.Stanford.EDU) by jessica.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Thu, 1 Oct 87 17:33:40 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 17:33:40 PDT
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@jessica.stanford.edu>
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
To: <@score.stanford.edu:JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <jwilson@portia.local>... Host unknown
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu (labrea.stanford.edu.ARPA) by Portia.local (1.2/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA05820; Thu, 1 Oct 87 17:35:41 pdt
Message-Id: <8710020035.AA05820@Portia.local>
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Thu, 1 Oct 87 17:17:37 PDT
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 1 Oct 87 17:17:51-PDT
Date: 01 Oct 87 1717 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.local>
Subject: re: visiting professors
To: FEIGENBAUM@sumex-aim.local
Cc: faculty@score.local
[In reply to message sent Thu, 1 Oct 87 16:58:56 PDT.]
Ed asked to be reminded of the parameters regarding visiting
faculty, and I thought I'd better remind everyone.
The faculty agreed some time ago that we ought to have about a
visiting professor a year, for example, a senior person we might consider
trying to recruit. If we find a person the faculty considers suitable,
it's up to the Chairman to find the money, e.g. from the budget for
someone on unpaid leave. Shapiro visited in this way. I believe there's
no-one this year.
∂01-Oct-87 1832 SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: INS
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 18:19:28 PDT
Date: Thu 1 Oct 87 18:20:07-PDT
From: Harinder Singh <SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: INS
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Thu 1 Oct 87 16:43:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12339132664.9.SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Could well be.
I don't have answers to all your questions right
now but I believe that their rudeness *can* be cured by
administrative action.
The INS is allowed to operate on the premise that
anyone who has *ever* contemplated working in the US is
guilty of intent to immigrate *illegally*. Thus a statement
that one might be interested in exploring *legally permissible*
options for working/training/living in the US can thereafter
be construed as intent to immigrate *illegally* unless proven
otherwise.
For instance, an official approval of a foreigner
by the US Deptt of Labor for acceptance of a job in a manner
that will not be displacing a US citizen or resident is
then held *against* the foreign national by the INS *until*
he/she converts to permanent resident status. (Yup, that's
literally true.)
You may be right - the INS may be feeling forced
to do this stuff and the real responsibility may lie with
Congress. For that reason, my approach to the problem is
a legislative one.
There are some ideas available on why this kind
of an attitude was adopted - gotta run for dinner right
now so i might hit 'em another time. Has to do with the
impotence of the INS *within* the US borders and the lack
of control over *illegal* immigration from the southern
border.
Could someone clarify the distinction between
immigrate and emigrate? I think I'm using the terms
correctly but would appreciate a confirmation.
-------
∂01-Oct-87 2227 reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET re: non-monotonic reasoning
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Oct 87 22:27:45 PDT
Received: from ai.toronto.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id aa04661; 2 Oct 87 0:59 EDT
Received: from reiter by ai.toronto.edu via UNIX id AA22624; Thu, 1 Oct 87 15:50:38 EDT
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 15:50:38 EDT
From: Ray Reiter <reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
Message-Id: <8710011950.AA22624@ai.toronto.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: re: non-monotonic reasoning
It's in press.
Nonmonotonic reasoning, Ann. Rev. Comp. Sci., 2, 1987, pp 147-186.
∂02-Oct-87 0006 NS
To: JMC
Your following News Service notification request(s) have expired:
(tyler*texas)/AP
∂02-Oct-87 0649 BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU Re: visiting professors
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Oct 87 06:49:36 PDT
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 87 06:48:51 PDT
From: Bruce Buchanan <BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: visiting professors
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: nilsson@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>" of Thu, 1 Oct 87 14:18:00 PDT
Message-ID: <12339268968.15.BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
John,
Reid Smith, a Stanford PhD now at Schlumberger Palo Alto, would be
an excellent visiting professor. We had talked about having someone
in AI giving a course on object-oriented programming and he is writing
a book on the subject.
bgb
-------
∂02-Oct-87 1158 VAL Research Mentor Information
I believe on Sep. 28 you received a message from Sharon Hemenway regarding
the Research Mentor packet. Nils thinks we may wish to include an entry for
our group. (I understand we didn't have one in the last year's packet.)
Would you like me to write a description? Please respond as soon as possible
(the deadline is today, and I received the message a few minutes ago).
If we want to do this, should we describe only the "commonsense reasoning
group", or do we want a "qlisp group" too? If we want two descriptions then
I'll have to ask Carolyn to help me.
∂02-Oct-87 1317 VAL re: Carolyn's phone number
[In reply to message rcvd 02-Oct-87 12:13-PT.]
They say 512 471-3874 is Athletics.
∂02-Oct-87 1355 VAL question
My friends with several small children are looking for a maid/babysitter. I
remembered about the woman who had helped you here with Timothy; can she be
interested?
∂02-Oct-87 1414 VAL Research Mentor Information
Please review this draft:
Faculty: John McCarthy
Research Associates: Vladimir Lifschitz
Group: Commonsense Reasoning
Research: Developing the theory of commonsense knowledge and reasoning,
which is concerned with designing formal languages for expressing
commonsense knowledge and with representing the process of commonsense
reasoning by logical deduction. This theory plays a central part in AI.
Its mathematical foundation is formed mainly by the concepts and ideas
of logic which were originally proposed for the formalization and study
of proofs in mathematics. There are remarkable similarities between
commonsense reasoning and mathematical proofs, but there are also
important differences. One distinctive feature of commonsense reasoning
is the use of default assumptions, when an argument is justified by the
absense of certain information among available facts. Default reasoning
is non-monotonic, in the sense that extending the given knowledge base may
invalidate some of the previously used default assumptions and thus force
us to retract some of the conclusions made before. The study of non-monotonic
reasoning is a new and intensively developing area of applied logic, and
it plays a central part in our work.
Funding: DARPA
Structure: Informal structure, weekly seminars.
We need one more item, "Slots available". Here is what I saw in other
group descriptions: "one or two slots", "two or three unpaid slots". What
will we say? And we should have information of this sort in the descriptions
of two other groups.
By the way, I understand that you're hiring Alex Gorbis as an RA. What do
we want him to do?
∂02-Oct-87 1448 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU Re: visiting professors and industrial lecturers
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Oct 87 14:48:14 PDT
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 87 14:43:46 PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: visiting professors and industrial lecturers
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>" of Fri, 2 Oct 87 11:53:00 PDT
Message-ID: <12339355422.54.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
John, thanks for the clarification. My TOP candidate for the "prominent
visiting professor" is Prof. Ken Forbus of the University of Illinois
Computer Science Department.
Ed
-------
∂02-Oct-87 1456 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU logic in AI
Received: from TENAYA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Oct 87 14:56:19 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA01872; Fri, 2 Oct 87 14:56:13 PDT
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 87 14:56:13 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8710022156.AA01872@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 02 Oct 87 1356 PDT <8710022137.AA01810@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: logic in AI
Ok, I have no objection to following standard usage (when I know about
it). will do.
∂02-Oct-87 1541 PHY
∂02-Oct-87 1530 JMC letter
Could you texify halste.re1[f87,jmc] and send it? You
can sign it PHY for John McCarthy.
--
Okay, ``it's in the mail''.
∂02-Oct-87 1551 PHY
mail again - since you're on-line and your box is HEAVY with mail:
Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence Workshop July 1987
" August 1986 both from Peter Cheeseman
(HUGE - combined 800 pages)
ACM Computing Surveys
The Journalof Logic Programming
announcement from Amer Acad of Arts and Sciences reservations
Friday November 13, The Huntington Library, San Marino California
`Have you made a will' from the Mathematical Association of America
apply for complimentary booklet
∂02-Oct-87 1713 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU logic in AI
Received: from TENAYA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Oct 87 17:13:09 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA02000; Fri, 2 Oct 87 17:13:03 PDT
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 87 17:13:03 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8710030013.AA02000@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 02 Oct 87 1356 PDT <8710022137.AA01810@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: logic in AI
Ok, I'll make sure the next draft uses the accepted logical terminology
more precisely.
∂02-Oct-87 2025 NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU paper
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Oct 87 20:25:36 PDT
Date: Fri 2 Oct 87 20:25:31-PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: paper
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12339417637.15.NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John, the mailer is complaining that the file is too long to
send the paper to you. The name of the file is
newmit.tex in my score directory <nilsson.papers>. Probably you
can ftp it? Phone me if you have trouble. -Nils
-------
∂03-Oct-87 0807 tk@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Oct 87 08:07:37 PDT
Received: from CUCKOO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 248043; Sat 3-Oct-87 11:08:38 EDT
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 87 11:08 EDT
From: Tom Knight <tk@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, TK@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: The message of 2 Oct 87 22:58 EDT from John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-ID: <871003110827.2.TK@CUCKOO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Most of today/tomorrow: 617-621-7627
Home: (not likely to be there much this weekend): 617-484-5490
I'm leaving on a trip tomorrow (sunday) evening and won't be back until
Thursday or Friday. You could leave a message on the answering machine.
∂03-Oct-87 1811 JSW Alliant memory
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Gang-of-Four is now running with its new 32-megabyte memory board, which
arrived yesterday. Before, when one person ran Lisp it was noticeable
and with two the system bogged down horribly. Today I ran two Lisps
heavily consing and GC-ing, and interactive response didn't seem to be
affected at all!
∂03-Oct-87 1915 sharma%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu transfer to stanford
Received: from A.CS.UIUC.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Oct 87 19:14:56 PDT
Received: from uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU by a.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP (UIUC-5.52/9.7)
id AA19016; Sat, 3 Oct 87 21:16:57 CDT
Received: by uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU (4.12/9.2)
id AA22267; Sat, 3 Oct 87 21:16:32 cdt
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 87 21:16:32 cdt
Message-Id: <8710040216.AA22267@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU>
From: sharma%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu (Madhumitra Sharma)
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: transfer to stanford
Madhumitra Sharma
Center for Supercomputing Res and Dev
305 Talbot Lab, 104 S. Wright
Urbana, IL 61801
Phone (Off): 217-244-0040
E-mail: sharma@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu
October 3 1987
Prof. McCarthy,
I am currently a Ph.D. student (part-time) and am on the Hardware
Group for the Cedar project at the Center for Supercomputing at the Univer-
sity of Illinois. For my Ph.D., I am working towards machine architectures
for efficient parallel symbolic computing. I intend to develop "structures"
which would serve to identify, create, and efficiently manage fine-grain
parallelism. At this stage, I'm considering problems related to both
Lisp-oriented and logic programming systems. I wish to transfer to Stan-
ford in Spring '88 and would like you to consider me for a student.
I had originally intended to apply for an admission for this Fall, but
could not do so due to delays on the Cedar project. I had also written to
Prof. Hennessy earlier about 6 weeks ago. He advised me to apply for admis-
sion to the EE department. I have since received application forms for
admission and financial aid. My application is now ready for submission
but for one of the three recommendation letters.
I graduated from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, with a
B.Tech. in Electrical Engineering in 1983. Subsequently, I was a Research
Assistant with the Computer Systems Group at the University of Illinois and
obtained my M.S. in December 1984, working for Prof. Janak Patel. In Janu-
ary 1985, I joined the Cedar Project and have been involved in the specifi-
cation and design of the first Cedar system. (Prof. Ed Davidson supervises
the Hardware Group.) I had joined the project with the aim of acquiring a
thorough background in computer systems architecture and parallel process-
ing before proceeding with my doctoral research in architectures for sym-
bolic computing. During my appointment with the Cedar project, I have con-
tinued on individual study and research and have almost completed course-
work requirements for Ph.D. here. At this stage, I believe I have a very
good background in architecture and I wish to work closer to a group work-
ing in symbolic computing.
I have prepared a 8 page proposal for my doctoral research. It
discusses ideas and directions I wish to pursue. It argues for the follow-
ing approaches :
* employing, at the lower-function levels, concurrent algorithms for
fast, dynamically scheduled, parallel computation - such as the Paral-
lel Prefix algorithm for associative recurrences - and supporting
these algorithms at the core of the architecture.
* design of efficient synchronization primitives supported in hardware,
which could permit self-scheduling and dependency identification dur-
ing the concurrent execution of the above algorithms. Suitably
designed synchronization mechanisms could also allow for low-level
lazy, eager, and speculative evaluation.
* redefining semantics of basic operations and defining new ones so as
to reduce the side-effecting nature of several conventional operations
and thus enhance parallelism, cacheability, etc.
* design of data (and control information) representation and storage
hardware for parallel access and easy identification of dependencies.
The principal idea is to design (MIMD-type) structures and programming
primitives which help identify or create regularity and parallelism and to
effectively manage such parallelism. Efficiency at lower levels of the
architecture will be a prime consideration; the goal is to design mechan-
isms amenable to pipelining, parallel memory access, out-of-order execu-
tion, fine-grain dynamic scheduling and caching of data items. The whole
approach would be somewhat in the spirit of the design of the Connection
machine, except that we will consider MIMD-type applications and architec-
tures.
Can I send you a copy of my proposal and a complete resume for your
evaluation? If so, could you please give me your mailing address at Aus-
tin.
Thanking you,
Madhumitra Sharma
sharma@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu
∂03-Oct-87 1918 WEISE@Sierra.Stanford.EDU railroad conspiracy
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Oct 87 19:18:00 PDT
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1987 19:18 PDT
Message-ID: <WEISE.12339667598.BABYL@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU>
From: WEISE@Sierra.Stanford.EDU
To: John McCarthy <JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: su-etc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: railroad conspiracy
In-reply-to: Msg of 3 Oct 1987 16:56-PDT from John McCarthy <JMC at SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't talking about indepedent
inter city railroads, but city run mass transit. GM would get
the bids and put in buses. Or Standard Oil would by a local
fixed rail company then gut it. These actions are quite open
and quite documented. (And who is to say the liberals who
had the railroads taxed didn't have help from the oil and
car companies? Also, blaming things on the liberals here sounds
like a "conspiracy theory" to me.)
∂04-Oct-87 1241 sharma%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu re: transfer to stanford
Received: from A.CS.UIUC.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Oct 87 12:41:38 PDT
Received: from uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU by a.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP (UIUC-5.52/9.7)
id AA08889; Sun, 4 Oct 87 14:43:55 CDT
Received: by uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU (4.12/9.2)
id AA03206; Sun, 4 Oct 87 14:43:16 cdt
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 87 14:43:16 cdt
Message-Id: <8710041943.AA03206@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU>
From: sharma%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu (Madhumitra Sharma)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: transfer to stanford
Cc: +sharma@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Prof. McCarthy,
Thank you very much for your reply.
My ideas/directions, I think, have more to do with algortihmic issues
than with hardware. I want to come up with more inherently parallel ways of
doing symbolic computing than LISP, which was not designed with parallel
processing in mind. The design should also incorporate a concern for efficiency
in execution on a real multiprocessor. The "inherently parallel ways" include
things like parallel memory access, parallel traversal, distributed dynamic
scheduling, programming primitives that are inherently parallel, primitves for
quick run-time analysis of control/data dependencies, etc.
My principal reason for considering a transfer is that I think
I have a very good background in architecture, but would like to work
closer to a group researching software and language issues. I want to be
able to discuss any ideas I may have with others involved in such research.
That way, I think my research would be more meaningful and credible.
With this clarification, do you think I might fit in with your group ?
Is there anybody else at Stanford who you think might be appropriate ?
I did talk to Mike Farmwald when he was here about 10 days ago and he
had indicated that you would probably be interested. I also got some more
information about your group from Joe Weening. Dr. Farmwald had suggested
that I talk to him.
If you could briefly comment on my approach to the problem of
efficiency in parallel symbolic computing, I would be extremely delighted.
Thanking you for your time,
Yours sincerely,
Madhumitra Sharma
sharma@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu
∂04-Oct-87 1836 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU re: visiting professors and industrial lecturers
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Oct 87 18:36:06 PDT
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 87 18:35:22 PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: visiting professors and industrial lecturers
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Fri, 2 Oct 87 14:56:00 PDT
Message-ID: <12339921873.16.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
John, thanks. How are you and Carolyn doing in Texas? We miss you....Ed
-------
∂04-Oct-87 1947 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Checkpoint
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Oct 87 19:47:07 PDT
Date: Sun 4 Oct 87 19:46:40-PDT
From: Ed Brink <brink@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Checkpoint
To: val@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12339934853.13.BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Vladimir,
I need to meet with you, preferably Tuesday before my 11:00 class or at 2 or
after. I suspect we will take 30 minutes to an hour. I must get started
coding very soon, and presently I do not see clearly how to create a strategy
for the program to use. I want to do at least one example by hand assuming I
am the computer, i.e., without allowing myself to think and do human shortcuts,
before I start coding. I have done your Example 4 part way in that fashion,
but my answers are subtly different from yours and I need to know why.
Robinson's paper, after I have thought carefully about it, leaves me quite
close to where I was before I read it, except for some constraints, which I had
forgotten, on what is a proper substitution. The composition algorithm is
about as I had remembered it.
To give you an idea where I am at present, consider (A3) of your example 4,
page 15 of your paper. Using the algorithm as I had constructed it including
standardizing apart (see my earlier message), I arrive at
NOT(Pb AND Px){fy/x} OR NOT(Px AND Qfx){y/x}.
Obviously one can tranform mine into yours w.l.o.g. by composing it with {x/y}
on the right and dropping the {x/y} from the result as in your definition of
"instance", first line of page 14. The question is, how does the program know
to do this?
A related question is, what is the reason for retaining the substitutions in
the steps of the proof, and what is the program's strategy related to that
reason?
I believe the reason is something like, "so it is easier to find factors by
identifying the segments with each other". I believe the strategy is the
subject of the project, something for me to find out.
If that is so, I think I have bitten off more than I can chew in the time I
have. It would be enough to try to get the method working in LISP if I had the
strategy already defined, since I am not a LISP hacker but still low on the
learning curve. And MRS is undocumented and slow to learn, but still better (I
think) than reinventing all that mechanism oneself.
So it seems to be time to define the project a little more, now that I
understand the parameters better.
Are you available Tuesday? If not, I can meet you Thursday at the same times.
Thanks.
..Ed
-------
∂05-Oct-87 0854 PHY Fed express
They have cancelled pick up for anytime immediately to AFTER 4 before 5.
Please let me know ASAP when you have the final version ready.
∂05-Oct-87 1443 AS.JAL@forsythe.stanford.edu NSF Final Report
Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Oct 87 14:43:38 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Mon, 5 Oct 87 14:43:19 PDT
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 87 14:41:57 PDT
From: Judy Leasher <AS.JAL@forsythe.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: NSF Final Report
October 5, 1987
TO: Professor John McCarthy
Computer Science
FROM: Judith Leasher
Sponsored Projects Office
Encina #40, Mail Code 6060
Telephone: 723-2907
ITS Account: as.jal
SUBJECT: NSF Final Report for Grant No. DCR 8206565
As requested in our telephone conversation of this morning, the
title of the above grant is: "Mechanical Theorem Proving and
Development of EKL", for the period September 1, 1982 - June 30,
1987.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Thank you.
To: JMC@SAIL
cc: AS.JAL
∂06-Oct-87 0819 @RELAY.CS.NET,@ai.toronto.edu,@utterly.ai.toronto.edu:hector@ai McDermott update
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Oct 87 08:19:00 PDT
Received: from ai.toronto.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id aa24224; 6 Oct 87 10:43 EDT
Received: from utterly.ai.toronto.edu by ai.toronto.edu via ETHER with SMTP id AA19296; Tue, 6 Oct 87 10:40:13 EDT
Received: from (null) (-:localhost:-) by utterly.ai.toronto.edu via ETHER with SMTP id AA16917; Tue, 6 Oct 87 10:41:52 EDT
Message-Id: <8710061441.AA16917@utterly.ai.toronto.edu>
To: james@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU, bobrow@XEROX.COM, stefik@XEROX.COM,
kabowen@amax.npac.syr.edu, rjb%allegra.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET,
ec%cs.brown.edu@RELAY.CS.NET, dekleer.pa@XEROX.COM,
jon.doyle@C.CS.CMU.EDU, forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, phayes@KL.SRI.COM,
hayes@SPAR-20.ARPA, hewitt@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU, hinton@C.CS.CMU.EDU,
hobbs@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, israel@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, val@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, bmoore@KL.SRI.COM,
rcm%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK, nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
pentland@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, watdaisy!dlpoole%watmath.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET,
reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET, stan@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
stan%humus.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu,
alberta!lksc%ubc-vision.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET, briansmith@XEROX.COM,
stickel@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, tyson@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
waldinger@KL.SRI.COM, tw@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, wwoods@BBN.COM,
woods@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU
Cc: mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA
Subject: McDermott update
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 87 10:40:37 -0400
From: Hector Levesque <hector%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
Although the proofread galleys have been in the publisher's hands for some
time, I am sorry to report that the special issue of COMPUTATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE will be delayed until at least Christmas (for reasons too ugly to
go into). I apologize to those of you who received nasty threats and chilling
ultimata from me when I was trying to expedite matters in July and August. A
special apology to Terry Winograd whose final submission I had in hand within
a week of asking for it, viz way back in July of last year.
On another topic, the possibility has been raised of collecting all of the
submissions in a volume and publishing them somehow (perhaps with another
article and commentary in the works). I have very mixed feelings about this
(especially given my general disgruntledness on this issue and the way the
Blue Jays fumbled the Pennant). If you have any concerns or strong feelings
for or against, let me know. The default is no go.
Hector
∂06-Oct-87 0837 PHY
mail
letter from Ad hoc committee for principled discussions of constitutional
issues:
Thank you for supporting the Glazer-Hook statement on the candidacy of
Judge Bork. Enclosed is the complete communication which was forwarded
to the Judiciary Committee and the press release supplied to 76 media outlets
and agencies.
As you may have llarned, there is nw a serious possibility that the Bork
nomination will be forwarded to the full Senate by the Judiciary committee
without recommendation. We believe that in the light of this development
our committee should distribute the statement to all Senators and, if possible,
have it printed in one of Washington's newspapers.
We still have an opportunity to add signatures. Therefore, I would appreciate
it very much if you culd supply us with additional endorsers by
contacting colleagues on your campus and at other institutions. (If you
would prefer, give us the names and we will make the contact.)
Some of the signers have offered help to defray the cost of the Committee's
planned activities. If you are inclined to send a contribution, please make
it payable to me with a note that it is for the support of the
Ad Hoc Committee. (There is simply no time for the formalities needed to
establish a separate committee account.)
The numbers at which I can be reached are still:
(212) 864-0645 (evenings)
(914) 279-8887 (weekends)
(212) 220-6482 or 220-6209 (Monday and Wednesday)
A message could also be left for me at (212) 391-3835 during regular
business hours.
Sincerely
Miro M. Todorovich
P.S. Your assistance in getting added signatures would be particularly
important in view of the activities of the so-called anti-Bork
`war room' in the Senate building, which was vividly described
in last week's New York Times.
plus enclosures. I will mail this to you if you want it, or put
it on your file cabinet for your secretary to file, but will do nothing
else `for' Bork, as he has said NO to issues that I feel are very YES
issues. And, please, no flaming..
faculty minutes of September 29, 1987
paper by Eyal Mozes `A deductive database based on Aristotelian logic'
forwarded to you by Zohar.
∂06-Oct-87 0900 JMC
Noftsker
∂06-Oct-87 0900 JMC
Raffel
∂06-Oct-87 1034 VAL Commonsense and non-monotonic reasoning
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
This quarter, our usual time (Th 4pm) conflicts with the departmental
lecture series, so maybe we should change it. One possibility would be
to move the seminar to 2:45.
If you are seriously interested in the seminar and STRONGLY OPPOSED to one
of these options, please send me a message.
Vladimir
∂06-Oct-87 1047 PALLAS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: aids
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Oct 87 10:47:06 PDT
Date: Tue 6 Oct 87 10:46:43-PDT
From: Joseph I. Pallas <PALLAS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: aids
To: su-etc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon 5 Oct 87 23:54:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12340360845.14.PALLAS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
1. The following article confirms what some of us have
suspected about the attitude of the homosexual activists.
The above statement confirms what some of us have suspected about the
attitude of the conservative activists (now there's an oxymoron).
What exactly is this suspicion of yours, JMC? That homosexual men and
women are human beings, as likely as the rest of us to make errors of
judgment, or to fail to see the significance of events as they are
happening? No, that's impossible. It must be that there's a
homosexual conspiracy to further the political rights of the minority
(at the cost of a few lives) over the objections of the moral
majority. Oh, I left out your favorite phrase, "the politics of
victimization." I find your implication disgusting, and it lowers you
to make it. The Contras may kill their own people for political ends,
but gays do not.
2. Vigorous enforced sexual quarantines at the beginning might
have slowed the spread of AIDS.
Vigorous enforced gun control might slow the spread of violent crime.
Vigorous enforced action against Hitler might have prevented the
murder of millions of German civilians by their own government.
Vigorous enforced eugenics might improve the quality of the human
species.
Vigorous enforced internment of Japanese-Americans might have
shortened World War II.
3. Compared to Alzheimer's disease, AIDS is very well funded.
Considering the exotic nature of the problem, progress has been rapid.
Compared to progress on Alzheimer's disease, which affects 2.5 million
Americans, progress on AIDS has been extremely rapid.
Compared to Alzheimer's disease, AIDS is very deadly.
My impression is that progress on AIDS has been as rapid as it has
primarily because it became an issue at the time when microbiologists
and geneticists were just beginning to understand retroviruses. AIDS
happened to fall at the foot of the learning curve, and provided a
good deal of incentive. Our understanding of the relationship between
the brain and mental processes is progressing on a much shallower
curve, largely because the brain is much harder to study than a piece
of nucleic acid.
From a conservative standpoint, it is much more important to make
progress on AIDS than on Alzheimer's. For the most part, Alzheimer's
disease affects people who are no longer productive members of our
society (and would not be even if they were not so afflicted). AIDS,
however, is removing from the work force young, vigorous, productive
people.
------------
As much as JMC and other conspiracy theorists would like, there is no
leadership of the gay community. That means there is no one who can
be blamed if gay people failed to respond as swiftly or resolutely to
the threat of AIDS as we hope they would have had they the view that
hindsight now affords.
One of the curious aspects of the Right is its obsession with placing
blame. One might think, from JMC's postings, that it is more
important to figure out who can be ``blamed'' for AIDS than it is to
attack the problem. Not very pragmatic.
joe
-------
∂06-Oct-87 2159 harnad@Princeton.EDU Talk at Stanford
Received: from PRINCETON.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Oct 87 21:58:46 PDT
Received: by Princeton.EDU (5.51/1.38)
id AA04814; Wed, 7 Oct 87 00:55:20 EDT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 87 00:55:20 EDT
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU
Received: by mind.Princeton.EDU (4.12/1.52)
id AA17718; Wed, 7 Oct 87 00:59:44 edt
Message-Id: <8710070459.AA17718@mind.Princeton.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Talk at Stanford
John, I'm sending the summaries of 3 papers of mine: (1) "Minds, Machines and
Searle," (2) "Uncomplemented Categories, or What Is It Like To Be a Bachelor,"
which was my presidential address for the Society for Philosophy & Psychology
Meeting this June, and (3) "Category Induction and Representation," which is
my theoretical chapter in the Categorical Perception volume that has just
appeared. If there is interest in these topics at Stanford, why don't you have
me invited out to talk (they make a good show, either singly or as a 3-talk
series)? The material should be of interest to the departments of psychology,
philosophy and computer science. Set of 3 abstracts follows.
Cheers, Stevan
------------------------------------------------------------
I. Minds, Machines and Searle
Searle's provocative "Chinese Room Argument" attempted to
show that the goals of "Strong AI" are unrealizable.
Proponents of Strong AI are supposed to believe that (i) the
mind is a computer program, (ii) the brain is irrelevant,
and (iii) the Turing Test is decisive. Searle's point is
that since the programmed symbol-manipulating instructions
of a computer capable of passing the Turing Test for
understanding Chinese could always be performed instead by a
person who could not understand Chinese, the computer can
hardly be said to understand Chinese. Such "simulated"
understanding, Searle argues, is not the same as real
understanding, which can only be accomplished by something
that "duplicates" the "causal powers" of the brain. In this
paper I make the following points:
1. Simulation versus Implementation: Searle fails to
distinguish between the simulation of a mechanism, which is
only the formal testing of a theory, and the implementation
of a mechanism, which does duplicate causal powers. Searle's
"simulation" only simulates simulation rather than
implementation. It can no more be expected to understand
than a simulated airplane can be expected to fly.
Nevertheless, a successful simulation must capture formally
all the relevant functional properties of a successful
implementation.
2. Theory-Testing versus Turing-Testing: Searle's argument
conflates theory-testing and Turing-Testing. Computer
simulations formally encode and test models for human
perceptuomotor and cognitive performance capacities; they
are the medium in which the empirical and theoretical work
is done. The Turing Test is an informal and open-ended test
of whether or not people can discriminate the performance of
the implemented simulation from that of a real human being.
In a sense, we are Turing-Testing one another all the time,
in our everyday solutions to the "other minds" problem.
3. The Convergence Argument: Searle fails to take
underdetermination into account. All scientific theories are
underdetermined by their data; i.e., the data are compatible
with more than one theory. But as the data domain grows, the
degrees of freedom for alternative (equiparametric) theories
shrink. This "convergence" constraint applies to AI's "toy"
linguistic and robotic models as well, as they approach the
capacity to pass the Total (asympototic) Turing Test. Toy
models are not modules.
4. Brain Modeling versus Mind Modeling: Searle also fails
to note that the brain itself can be understood only through
theoretical modeling, and that the boundary between brain
performance and body performance becomes arbitrary as one
converges on an asymptotic model of total human performance
capacity.
5. The Modularity Assumption: Searle implicitly adopts a
strong, untested "modularity" assumption to the effect that
certain functional parts of human cognitive performance
capacity (such as language) can be be successfully modeled
independently of the rest (such as perceptuomotor or
"robotic" capacity). This assumption may be false for models
approaching the power and generality needed to pass the
Total Turing Test.
6. The Teletype versus the Robot Turing Test: Foundational
issues in cognitive science depend critically on the truth
or falsity of such modularity assumptions. For example, the
"teletype" (linguistic) version of the Turing Test could in
principle (though not necessarily in practice) be
implemented by formal symbol-manipulation alone (symbols in,
symbols out), whereas the robot version necessarily calls
for full causal powers of interaction with the outside world
(seeing, doing AND linguistic understanding).
7. The Transducer/Effector Argument: Prior "robot" replies
to Searle have not been principled ones. They have added on
robotic requirements as an arbitrary extra constraint. A
principled "transducer/effector" counterargument, however,
can be based on the logical fact that transduction is
necessarily nonsymbolic, drawing on analog and analog-to-
digital functions that can only be simulated, but not
implemented, symbolically.
8. Robotics and Causality: Searle's argument hence fails
logically for the robot version of the Turing Test, for in
simulating it he would either have to USE its transducers
and effectors (in which case he would not be simulating all
of its functions) or he would have to BE its transducers and
effectors, in which case he would indeed be duplicating
their causal powers (of seeing and doing).
9. Symbolic Functionalism versus Robotic Functionalism: If
symbol-manipulation ("symbolic functionalism") cannot in
principle accomplish the functions of the transducer and
effector surfaces, then there is no reason why every
function in between has to be symbolic either. Nonsymbolic
function may be essential to implementing minds and may be a
crucial constituent of the functional substrate of mental
states ("robotic functionalism"): In order to work as
hypothesized, the functionalist's "brain-in-a-vat" may have
to be more than just an isolated symbolic "understanding"
module -- perhaps even hybrid analog/symbolic all the way
through, as the real brain is.
10. "Strong" versus "Weak" AI: Finally, it is not at all
clear that Searle's "Strong AI"/"Weak AI" distinction
captures all the possibilities, or is even representative of
the views of most cognitive scientists.
Hence, most of Searle's argument turns out to rest on
unanswered questions about the modularity of language and
the scope of the symbolic approach to modeling cognition. If
the modularity assumption turns out to be false, then a
top-down symbol-manipulative approach to explaining the mind
may be completely misguided because its symbols (and their
interpretations) remain ungrounded -- not for Searle's
reasons (since Searle's argument shares the cognitive
modularity assumption with "Strong AI"), but because of the
transdsucer/effector argument (and its ramifications for the
kind of hybrid, bottom-up processing that may then turn out
to be optimal, or even essential, in between transducers and
effectors). What is undeniable is that a successful theory
of cognition will have to be computable (simulable), if not
exclusively computational (symbol-manipulative). Perhaps
this is what Searle means (or ought to mean) by "Weak AI."
------------------------------------------------------------
II. Uncomplemented Categories or
What is it Like to Be a Bachelor?
To be able to categorize and identify objects, both concrete
and abstract, we must form an internal representation that
can sort the members from the nonmembers of the category. To
do this, we must first sample instances of members and
nonmembers and pick out the features that the members share
and that will reliably distinguish them from the nonmembers.
The set of nonmembers is called the "complement" of the
category and there are some constraints on what it can be:
The complement of a category must be bounded (it cannot
consist of everything else in the universe, but only those
things we might mistake for members, otherwise the search
for distinguishing features could go on for ever) and it
cannot be empty (otherwise there would be no way to
determine the distinguishing features of the members).
Category representations are "context-dependent" (a
different complement of confusable alternatives requires
different distinguishing features) and "approximate" (a
context can always be widened, which may require finding
new, more general features). If the complement of a category
is not available, sometimes it can be furnished by
extrapolation and analogy, as perhaps occurs with (1) the
"impoverished" grammatical input of the language-learning
child and (2) the experiential category "what it's like to
be a bachelor" (for someone who has never experienced its
complement). Sometimes this strategy cannot work, however,
as in the case of (3) experiential categories such as "what
it's like to be awake, to be aware, to be alive, to be" and
(4) epistemic and existential categories such as "is
conceivable" and "exists," and perhaps even some kinds of
counterfactuals. Certain longstanding philosophical problems
associated with 3 and 4 may be related in part to the fact
that such categories are not just uncomplemented but
uncomplementable, and hence that our representations for
them, if we have any, must be defective. Some of the self-
denial paradoxes (e.g., Russell's paradox) may also arise in
part because of problems of noncomplementability.
------------------------------------------------------------
III. Category Induction and Representation
Categorization is a very basic cognitive activity. It is
involved in any task that calls for differential responding,
from operant discrimination to pattern recognition to naming
and describing objects and states-of-affairs. Explanations
of categorization range from nativist theories denying that
any nontrivial categories are acquired by learning to
inductivist theories claiming that most categories are
learned.
"Categorical perception" (CP) is the name given to a
suggestive perceptual phenomenon that may serve as a useful
model for categorization in general: For certain perceptual
categories, within-category differences look much smaller
than between-category differences even when they are of the
same size physically. For example, in color perception,
differences between reds and differences between yellows
look much smaller than equal-sized differences that cross
the red/yellow boundary; the same is true of the phoneme
categories /ba/ and /da/. Indeed, the effect of the category
boundary is not merely quantitative, but qualitative.
There have been two theories to explain CP effects. The
"Whorf Hypothesis" explains color boundary effects by
proposing that language somehow determines our view of
reality. The "motor theory of speech perception" explains
phoneme boundary effects by attributing them to the patterns
of articulation required for pronunciation. Both theories
seem to raise more questions than they answer, for example:
(i) How general and pervasive are CP effects? Do they occur
in other modalities besides speech-sounds and color? (ii)
Are CP effects inborn or can they be generated by learning
(and if so, how)? (iii) How are categories internally
represented? How does this representation generate
successful categorization and the CP boundary effect?
Some of the answers to these questions will have to come
from ongoing research, but the existing data do suggest a
provisional model for category formation and category
representation. According to this model, CP provides our
basic or elementary categories. In acquiring a category we
learn to label or identify positive and negative instances
from a sample of confusable alternatives. Two kinds of
internal representation are built up in this learning by
acquaintance: (1) an iconic representation that subserves
our similarity judgments and (2) an analog/digital feature-
filter that picks out the invariant information allowing us
to categorize the instances correctly. This second,
categorical representation is associated with the category
name. Category names then serve as the atomic symbols for a
third representational system, the (3) symbolic
representations that underlie language and that make it
possible for us to learn by description.
This model provides no particular or general solution to the
problem of inductive learning, only a conceptual framework;
but it does have some substantive implications, for example,
(a) the "cognitive identity of (current) indiscriminables":
Categories and their representations can only be provisional
and approximate, relative to the alternatives encountered to
date, rather than "exact." There is also (b) no such thing
as an absolute "feature," only those features that are
invariant within a particular context of confusable
alternatives. Contrary to prevailing "prototype" views,
however, (c) such provisionally invariant features must
underlie successful categorization, and must be "sufficient"
(at least in the "satisficing" sense) to subserve reliable
performance with all-or-none, bounded categories, as in CP.
Finally, the model brings out some basic limitations of the
"symbol-manipulative" approach to modeling cognition,
showing how (d) symbol meanings must be functionally
anchored in nonsymbolic, "shape-preserving" representations
-- iconic and categorical ones. Otherwise, all symbol
interpretations are ungrounded and indeterminate. This
amounts to a principled call for a psychophysical (rather
than a neural) "bottom-up" approach to cognition.
∂06-Oct-87 2246 harnad@Princeton.EDU re: Talk at Stanford
Received: from PRINCETON.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Oct 87 22:45:57 PDT
Received: by Princeton.EDU (5.51/1.38)
id AA05763; Wed, 7 Oct 87 01:42:25 EDT
Received: by mind.Princeton.EDU (4.12/1.52)
id AA18097; Wed, 7 Oct 87 01:46:55 edt
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 87 01:46:55 edt
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@Princeton.EDU>
Message-Id: <8710070546.AA18097@mind.Princeton.EDU>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: re: Talk at Stanford
Thanks for your reply. Do you know email addresses for Barwise/Perry
and Suppes? -- Stevan
∂07-Oct-87 1008 perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu gorbachev and circumscription
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Oct 87 10:08:14 PDT
Received: from yoohoo.cs.umd.edu by mimsy.umd.edu (5.58/4.7)
id AA07896; Wed, 7 Oct 87 12:08:26 EST
Received: by yoohoo.cs.umd.edu (5.54/3.14)
id AA18949; Wed, 7 Oct 87 13:09:00 EDT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 87 13:09:00 EDT
From: perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu
Return-Path: <perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8710071709.AA18949@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: gorbachev and circumscription
Cc: perlis@mimsy.umd.edu
John,
I have been puzzling about your "Gorbachev" problem, the one that
goes one step beyond the "Reagan" problem, and asks how Reagan can know that
Gorbachev doesn't know whether Reagan is sitting or standing. (I may have
twisted your scenario a bit, but I hope it preserves the spirit.)
I am trying to solve it using circumscription. I had thought that
it might be a good candidate for the situation you have described where
circumscription itself becomes a formal entity that is among the
circumscribed axioms. You suggested this as a potential advantage of
2nd-order circumscription but as yet without examples. The idea would be to
prove that Gorbachev cannot prove that Reagan is sitting (or standing). At
this point, I am not so sure it will work out that way.
I believe you told me once that you had worked this out using
possible worlds. I would be interested in seeing your solution, if you have
it available. Possibly it will help me in my own effort with the problem
(or convince me that my effort is off-track!).
Best,
Don
∂07-Oct-87 1211 gasser%pollux.usc.edu@oberon.USC.EDU DAI Workshop Funding Request
Received: from OBERON.USC.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Oct 87 12:11:00 PDT
Received: by oberon.USC.EDU (5.51/5.5) id AA19320;
Wed, 7 Oct 87 11:58:13 PDT
Received: by pollux.usc.edu (1.1/SMI-3.0DEV3) id AA09593;
Wed, 7 Oct 87 11:58:00 PDT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 87 11:58:00 PDT
From: gasser%pollux.usc.edu@oberon.USC.EDU (Les Gasser)
Message-Id: <8710071858.AA09593@pollux.usc.edu>
To: jmc@su-ai.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: DAI Workshop Funding Request
John,
I sent you a previous note about funding, but perhaps it got lost.
I'm organizing the 8th workshop on Distributed AI, and
am writing this note to request funding for it from AAAI.
The workshop will be held at the University of California's Lake
Arrowhead Conference Center, May 22-25 1988, at a cost of
$75.00/person/night (inclusive). I expect to have no more than 40
people, which would bring the cost to $9,000, and would like to have
some extra to pay for airport transportation, preparation and mailing,
xeroxing of papers, etc. I'd like to get $10,000 in support from
AAAI.
I'd like to know as soon as you can tell me when I might expect an
answer on AAAI support, as I must place a deposit of $1800.00 at the
Arrowhead Conf. Center ASAP.
A preliminary description of the workshop appears below. The planning
committee has included:
Miro Benda, (Boeing AI Center)
Phil Cohen, (SRI)
Lee Erman, (Teknowledge)
Mike Genesereth, (Stanford)
Mike Georgeff, (SRI)
Carl Hewitt, (MIT)
Mike Huhns, (MCC)
Victor Lesser, (UMASS)
Nils Nilsson (Stanford)
N.S. Sridharan, (FMC Corp)
Michael Fehling, (Rockwell)
A tentative description follows.
If you need more information, please let me know.
-- Les
Dr. Les Gasser
Computer Science Department
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA. 90089-0782
gasser@usc-cse.usc.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
8th Workshop on Distributed AI
Lake Arrowhead Conference Center (Tentative)
Planned for May 1988
The 8th DAI workshop will focus on on issues of coordinating fairly
large-grain "agents," and not on issues of language-level concurrency,
fine-grained parallelism, concurrent machines, or "connectionist"
approaches. The driving focus will be be synthetic and pragmatic,
addressing questions of how we go about integrating theoretical and
experimental ideas about knowledge, planning, negotiation, action,
etc. so as to build working interacting agents?
Suggested topics:
How to describe problems, decompose them, and allocate them among a
collection of intelligent agents, including resource allocation,
setting up communication channels, dynamic allocation, etc.
How to assure coherent, coordinated interaction among intelligent
agents, including how is control allocated, how is coherence
determined, what is the role of communication in coherence,
plan synchronization, etc.
How to reason about other agents, the world, and the state of the
coordinated process, including plan recognition, prospective
reasoning (expectations), process, cognitive, knowledge, and belief
models, representation techniques, what needs modeling in what
situations, etc.
How to recognize and resolve disparities in viewpoints,
representations, knowledge, and goals (including dealing with
incomplete, inconsistent, and representationally incompatible
viewpoints) using techniques such as communication, negotiation,
conflict resolution, compromise, deal enforcement, specialization
and credibility weighting, etc.
Problems of language and communication, including interaction
languages and protocols, reasoning about communication acts
(e.g. when, what, how to communicate), dialogue coherence, etc.
Epistemological problems such as concept formation, mutual
knowledge, the mutual construction of language and coherence,
situation assessment with different frames of
reference, the problem of "shared meanings," etc.
Practical architectures for and real experiences with building
interacting intelligent agents or distributed AI systems, including
the limitations faced, resource bounded reasoning, etc.
Appropriate methodologies, evaluation criteria, and techniques for
DAI research, including comparability of results, basic assumptions,
useful concepts, canonical problems, etc.
Format:
Prospective participants should submit an extended abstract (8-10
pages) describing original work in DAI. Preference will be given to
work addressing basic research issues in DAI such as those outlined
above. A small number of "interested observers" will be selected for
participation and need only submit a request to attend with
some justification.
A number of submitted papers will be selected for full presentation,
critique, and discussion. Other participants will be able to present
their work in a "poster session." There will be ample time allowed for
informal discussion.
Participation will be limited to 35-40 people.
∂07-Oct-87 1249 danny@Think.COM Hopper
Received: from THINK.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Oct 87 12:49:17 PDT
Return-Path: <danny@Think.COM>
Received: from voltaire by Think.COM via CHAOS; Wed, 7 Oct 87 15:49:19 EDT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 87 15:51 EDT
From: Danny Hillis <danny@Think.COM>
Subject: Hopper
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu, danny@Think.COM
Cc: debbie@Think.COM
In-Reply-To: <8710030803.AA20388@Think.COM>
Message-Id: <871007155150.7.DANNY@VOLTAIRE.THINK.COM>
Thanks for the note. -danny
∂07-Oct-87 1315 GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU gorbis
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Oct 87 13:15:54 PDT
Date: Wed 7 Oct 87 13:14:47-PDT
From: Mike Genesereth <GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: gorbis
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12340649944.12.GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John,
Well, I found Gorbis (wel, he found me), and I got all of the information
necessary for the admissions office. It looks like everything is hunky dory.
mrg
-------
∂07-Oct-87 1508 perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu more on gorbachev
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Oct 87 15:08:12 PDT
Received: from yoohoo.cs.umd.edu by mimsy.umd.edu (5.58/4.7)
id AA15521; Wed, 7 Oct 87 17:08:39 EST
Received: by yoohoo.cs.umd.edu (5.54/3.14)
id AA19431; Wed, 7 Oct 87 18:09:40 EDT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 87 18:09:40 EDT
From: perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu
Return-Path: <perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8710072209.AA19431@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: more on gorbachev
Cc: perlis@mimsy.umd.edu
John, your response prompts me to send you a little more detail on my
thinking. I too had thought about the general issue of knowledge about
knowledge in the problem. It occurred to me to begin by representing what
it is expected that an agent will know in a given situation, as follows:
Let K(g,i,s) mean agent g has knowledge (or belief) i in situation
s. Then we can write general facts about what is known (or likely to be
known) in certain situations. For instance, we can express the idea that g
is likely to know whether h is seated if g and h are both in the same room:
(1) Seated(h,s) & At(h,r,s) & At(g,r,s) --> K(g,seated(h,s),s)
(2) -Seated(h,s) & At(h,r,s) & At(g,r,s) --> K(g,not-seated(h,s),s)
Also we can formulate common knowledge in a given situation. Let
Common(s,i) means i is common knowledge for agents in situation i; then we
can assert:
(3) (i)[Common(s,i) <--> (g)(In(g,s) --> K(g,i))]
and
(4) Common(s, (i)[Common(s,i) <--> (g)(In(g,s) --> K(g,i))] )
If we introduce a KW predicate (Knows Whether), we can shorten (1)
and (2) to:
(5) (h)(s)Common(s,KW(seated(h,s)))
if now a situation is typed to correspond to physical locales (rooms). Here
(4) is gratuitous but I think it will become important in other
applications. I am abusing notation by dropping quotes, I know...
The idea then is that a situation can be used to specify whatever we
have reason to think g knows, whether for very general sorts of situations
or highly specific ones tailored to particular individuals (such as Soviet
heads of state who have at times been in the presence of American heads of
state). Then it may be that a requirement of minimizing the predicate K (or
KW) for a given agent and situation will produce repectable commonsense
conclusions. If the knowledge issues I have mentioned are not those you
were referring to, perhaps we are not viewing the problem in the same way.
Or I may be all wet about the promise that the above axiomatic outline
holds.
While I see no major difficulty here, I have not pursued it
carefully, since I hoped instead for an approach involving the `object
circumscription' idea, and this I have not yet seen how to do. I had hoped
that, if Gorbachev (G) is performing a kind of circumscription in his own
reasoning, then another agent could reason about G's use of circumscription
in order to conclude that G would not deduce certain things (or that G would
deduce that G does not know certain things).
∂07-Oct-87 1540 mmdf@RELAY.CS.NET Failed mail (msg.aa12928)
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Oct 87 15:40:29 PDT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 87 17:56:43 EDT
From: RELAY Mail System (MMDF) <mmdf@RELAY.CS.NET>
Sender: mmdf@RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: Failed mail (msg.aa12928)
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Your message could not be delivered to
'@ibm.com:halpern@almvma.ibm.com (host: ibm.com) (queue: ibm-sj)' for the following
reason: ' Unknown Host 'almvma''
Your message follows:
Received: from sail.stanford.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id aa12928; 7 Oct 87 17:43 EDT
Date: 07 Oct 87 1442 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: same message, better address
To: halpern@ALMVMA.IBM.COM
I'm teaching Epistemological Problems of AI, and I would
like the reference to your work or that of the others
at IBM San Jose most relevant to formalizing knowledge,
especially problems like the wise men and Mr. S and Mr. P
and "all he knows is".
∂07-Oct-87 1629 perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu more on gorbachev, again
Received: from MIMSY.UMD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Oct 87 16:29:48 PDT
Received: from yoohoo.cs.umd.edu by mimsy.umd.edu (5.58/4.7)
id AA16867; Wed, 7 Oct 87 18:30:15 EST
Received: by yoohoo.cs.umd.edu (5.54/3.14)
id AA19580; Wed, 7 Oct 87 19:31:15 EDT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 87 19:31:15 EDT
From: perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu
Return-Path: <perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8710072331.AA19580@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: more on gorbachev, again
Cc: perlis@mimsy.umd.edu
I agree with your remarks, to wit:
Leaving the formalism aside, it seems to me that our beliefs about
Gorbachev's knowledge derives from two assumptions.
(1) Gorbachev's knowledge of specific events derives from his
experience.
(2) The experience he can have is consistent with Reagan either
sitting or standing. This avoids having to assume anything about
Gorbachev's specific mental processes.
I think I may have been focussing on a slightly different problem, tho I did
not say so: How can we conclude that Gorbachev CAN CONCLUDE THAT HE does
not know whether R is sitting/standing...This is where it may be useful to
know that G's knowledge include circumscriptive derivations. But perhaps it
is simpler than I have been thinking. For I suppose we could just assume in
general that if WE can prove G does not know something, then G can
negatively introspect and conclude the same.
Yet in a more general setting this seems insufficient: if we know that G
does not have the belief that a given plane cannot fly, it is reasonable for
us to conclude that he believes it can fly. Yet this seems to attribute to
him circumscriptive derivations. This is where I might expect your idea of
circumscription as an object to apply.
I will try to carry out the formal beginnings I mentioned, to see where they
lead on the basic Reagan-Gorbachev example, even though they now do not seem
to bear on the object-circumscription issue. Perhaps I will gain a better
sense of the knowledge issues; in any case I will let you know what results.
∂07-Oct-87 1730 HALPERN@IBM.COM Re: wrong address
Received: from IBM.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Oct 87 17:30:00 PDT
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 87 17:21:33 PDT
Sender: halpern@IBM.com
From: Joe Halpern <halpern@IBM.com>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <871007.172133.halpern@IBM.com>
Subject: Re: wrong address
In-Reply-To: Your message of 07 Oct 87 1550 PDT
John, halpern@almvma is my net address on bitnet.
Halpern@ibm.com is my net address on csnet/arpanet.
-- Joe
∂08-Oct-87 1615 @Score.Stanford.EDU:nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU NSF Centers
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Oct 87 16:15:41 PDT
Received: from Tenaya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 8 Oct 87 16:12:47-PDT
Received: by Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA07166; Thu, 8 Oct 87 16:12:49 PDT
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 87 16:12:49 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8710082312.AA07166@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
To: dek@sail, guibas@score, ullman@score, rwf@sail, goldberg@score, zm@sail,
jmc@sail, mayr@score, pratt@score
Cc: nilsson
Subject: NSF Centers
I recently forwarded to the faculty an announcement from NSF about the
proposed new "Science and Technology Centers." (Anne Richardson has a
copy if any of you didn't receive one.) I haven't heard from anybody
in CSD about whether or not they intend to get involved in proposing
an STC, but it occurs to me that some combination of you might want to
consider proposing a Center For Foundations of Computer Science (or some
similar title). We all know how hard it is these days to get support
for basic research. The "theory group" has certainly had its share of
difficulties getting research support, yet the work that it does is
extremely important for CS in general and, ultimately, for applications!
I have no idea what the chances would be of NSF funding such a Center at
Stanford. Maybe they too are more interested in applications. (I think
these Centers will come under Gordon Bell's general umbrella, and he
isn't known as being overboard on theory.) But, I would be glad to help
with any PR needed at NSF including trying to find out about the chances.
Before spending a lot of time on this though, I would like to hear from
some of you about whether or not (given potential NSF interest) the idea
makes sense and (MOST IMPORTANTLY) who wants to be the "point person"
to coordinate proposal writing, etc. I don't have the various deadlines
in front of me right now, but I seem to recall that we need to send in
a letter of intent by Nov. 15 and a final proposal by Jan. 15. -Nils
∂08-Oct-87 2040 ARK Mr. S and Mr. P
Do you have the exact form of the puzzle involving Mr. S and Mr. P
who know/don't know the sum and product, respectively? I'd like it.
Thanks.
Arthur
∂09-Oct-87 0734 @RELAY.CS.NET:kam%unsun.riec.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET One More About Your Lecture
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 87 07:34:32 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa04343; 9 Oct 87 10:02 EDT
Received: from utokyo-relay by RELAY.CS.NET id al29437; 9 Oct 87 9:59 EDT
Received: by ccut.cc.u-tokyo.junet (5.51/6.2.9Junet)
id AA14365; Fri, 9 Oct 87 22:24:34 JST
Received: by nttlab.NTT (4.12/6.2NTT.g) with TCP; Fri, 9 Oct 87 18:59:44 jst
Received: by aoba.aoba.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.2Junet) ; Fri, 9 Oct 87 18:03:16 jst
Received: by unsun.riec.tohoku.junet (1.1/6.2Junet)
id AA00847; Fri, 9 Oct 87 18:00:45+0900
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 87 18:00:45+0900
From: Yukiyoshi Kameyama <kam%unsun.riec.tohoku.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
Return-Path: <kam@unsun.riec.tohoku.junet>
Message-Id: <8710090800.AA00847@unsun.riec.tohoku.junet>
To: jmc%sail.stanford.edu%csnet-relay.csnet%u-tokyo.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: One More About Your Lecture
Cc: kam%unsun.riec.tohoku.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET
Dear Prof. McCarthy,
I'm sorry to bother you so often, but please answer one more question.
I finished my work of translating your lecture into Japanese about three
weeks ago, but today the editor suddenly asked me to make a complete list of
reference. I made a list of relevant references, but could not make a
complete one. Namely, I don't know the origin of Lifschitz's work which
you refered in the last chapter of your talk, and gave us a copy of it.
Vladimir Lifschitz: ``Formal Theories of Action''
The other references are your papers "Programs with Common Sense", "Some
Philosophical Problems From the Standpoint of AI", "Circumscription", and
McDermott & Doyle's "Non-monotonic Logic", Reiter's "A Logic for Default
Reasoning", and Shoham's "Chronological Ignorance".
I would appreciate if you let me know the origin of Lifschitz's
paper, and any references which you think is necessary for your talk.
Sincerely, Yours,
Yukiyoshi Kameyama
kam%unsun.riec.tohoku.junet@relay.cs.net
∂09-Oct-87 0932 GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Sept Auditron Readings
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 87 09:32:03 PDT
Date: Fri 9 Oct 87 09:31:36-PDT
From: Edith Gilbertson <GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Sept Auditron Readings
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: Gilbertson@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12341133604.32.GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
Would you please send me your auditron readings for rooms 356 & 358?
Thank you for your assistance,
--Edith
-------
∂09-Oct-87 0939 bothner@pescadero.Stanford.EDU Re:aids
Received: from PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 87 09:39:35 PDT
Received: by pescadero.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 8 Oct 87 13:57:32 PDT
Date: 8 Oct 1987 1357-PDT (Thursday)
From: Per Bothner <bothner@pescadero.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re:aids
Perhaps my latest posting was a little harsh, but I do find
many your postings very negative and annoying. I have done a fair
amount of reading and discussion about AIDS, and get upset at
simplistic "solutions." While sensible people can disagree
about specifics, and while we can agree on some generalities,
the latter can be very dangerous because they are so vague
(contact tracing, quarantine, and testing can mean very
different things). Could I suggest that you read Shilts's book?
While I haven't read it, and would probably disagree with many
of his positions, I think it would provide a more valuable
and informed perspective than "American Spectator."
--Per
∂09-Oct-87 1112 VAL re: reference
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Oct-87 11:06-PT.]
A preliminary report is in Proc. IJCAI-87, and the full paper is in the
Proc. of the Workshop on the Frame Problem.
∂09-Oct-87 1358 RPG NSF S&T Centers
∂09-Oct-87 1350 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU NSF S&T Centers
Received: from TENAYA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 87 13:50:11 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA08100; Fri, 9 Oct 87 13:49:59 PDT
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 87 13:49:59 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8710092049.AA08100@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
To: RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Cc: nilsson
In-Reply-To: Dick Gabriel's message of 09 Oct 87 1019 PDT <8710091719.AA07953@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: NSF S&T Centers
Yes, now that I think about it. Why not (you) have a brief conversation
with John McCarthy to see if he thinks it's appropriate and would it
be appropriate for you to be the point man (i.e. write the proposal) with
JMC being the PI. You can get a copy of the announcement from Anne. -Nils
∂09-Oct-87 1428 bothner@pescadero.Stanford.EDU re:aids
Received: from PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 87 14:28:06 PDT
Received: by pescadero.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 9 Oct 87 14:29:18 PDT
Date: 9 Oct 1987 1429-PDT (Friday)
From: Per Bothner <bothner@pescadero.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: re:aids
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> /
09 Oct 87 1225 PDT.
Perhaps "liberal ideology" might have influenced positions,
but I think "wishful thinking" is less inflammatory and more
accurate way of describing the phenomenon. Trying to blame
"gay leaders" for underestimating the problem is putting
the blame in the wrong place when gay people were fighting
desperately to have the problem taken seriously at all.
For years, most politicians and many health experts ignored
the problem - after all it didn't affect "their" constituency.
Your postings are ofensive partly because you critice the very
people who for many years were the only ones doing anything.
But what if these people were doing the \wrong/ thing?
I don't think they were, at least not on major points.
Some of your specifics:
- Importance of privacy vs reducing the spead of AIDS.
There is some conflict, and where invasion of privacy
would \really/ reduce the spread, most people would agree
privacy would have to be sacrificed. But:
a: Ignoring privacy would increase the spread of AIDS
to some extent by driving people underground.
b: Respect for privacy would not hamper effective measures.
More on this below.
c: Privacy is not a trivial value: Many people who have
been exposed as gay and/or HIV-positive have had their lives
ruined and some have killed themselves because of it.
1. Pre-marital testing. Many people are reaching the
conclusion that pre-marital testing for other venereal
diseases is not economically justified, because so very
few cases are found. AIDS is even less justified, because
a very small percentage of people getting married are
likely to be infected. Given that there are insufficient
resources for \voluntary/ testing right now, it seems
silly to spend huge amounts for \mandatory/ testing of
low-risk people. If pre-martital testing could really
reduce AIDS, I would be for it. As it is, it is just a
cosmetic proposed by politicians for non-medical reasons.
2. Of course I'm in favor of contact tracing, and of
course it is being done. I just think it is better done
informally than by setting of data bases of infected people.
3. We don't know everything about AIDS or how it is transmitted.
But we know a lot about it. It is possible that a PWA (person
w/aids) could transmit other infections, and it is impossible
to rule out that Aids could be transmitted through kissing,
toilet seats, etc, etc. However, we \do/ know that the risks
of this are so vanishingly small as to be ignorable. (We know
this from judging what has already happened - i.e. on the
basis of epistemology, though biological studies confirm them.)
Re: a PWA transmitting other diseases: it may be worth concern,
but so far it doesn't seem to be a serious problem. A change in
policy does not seem called for on the current evidence.
However, I am willing to re-evaluate policies as evidence
changes. I think that applies to most gay people and medical
people, and rational politicians as well. However, demagogues
like Dannemeyer and Doolittle have no interest in scientific
evidence or medical judgement, and and ther "solutions" do
much to waste taxpayer money, much to sow ill-will and
fear, and much to increase the spread of AIDS through
doing the wrong thing.
--Per
∂09-Oct-87 1701 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
This year, we will begin with a series of talks on the semantics
of negation in logic programming.
THE STABLE MODEL SEMANTICS FOR LOGIC PROGRAMMING
Thursday, October 15, 4:15pm
MJH 252
Vladimir Lifschitz
This work is joint with Michael Gelfond. We propose a new declarative
semantics for logic programs with negation. Unlike the familiar "iterated
fixed point" semantics, ours is applicable to some non-stratified programs.
At the same time, its formulation is quite simple. It is related to some ideas
of Robert Moore's autoepistemic logic.
(In my office, MJH 362, I have a few copies of our extended abstract.)
∂09-Oct-87 1802 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU QLISP meeting
Received: from Gang-Of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 87 18:01:54 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA02748; Fri, 9 Oct 87 18:01:24 pdt
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 87 18:01:24 pdt
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8710100101.AA02748@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: QLISP meeting
Will be held this Friday, the 16th of October, to discuss the state of
the world.
Be there or be ↑2.
∂09-Oct-87 1802 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU time of meeting
Received: from Gang-Of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Oct 87 18:02:37 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA02759; Fri, 9 Oct 87 18:02:06 pdt
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 87 18:02:06 pdt
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8710100102.AA02759@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: time of meeting
Is 11am.
∂10-Oct-87 0900 JMC
lost and found
∂10-Oct-87 1818 SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU Typing
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 10 Oct 87 18:18:28 PDT
Date: Sat 10 Oct 87 18:18:37-PDT
From: Harinder Singh <SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Typing
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12341491688.12.SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Thank you for the appreciative comment, Prof. McCarthy.
I'm trying pretty diligently, for the most part, to make up for
not having had instruction - it's the numeric stuff that trips me
up most of all.
Best regards,
Inder
-------
∂10-Oct-87 2112 PAT@IMSSS Confirmation
Received: from IMSSS by SAIL. with PUP; 10-Oct-87 21:06 PDT
Date: 10 Oct 1987 2104-PDT
From: Pat@IMSSS
Subject: Confirmation
To: JMC@SU-AI
cc: Pat@IMSSS
Just to confirm that I did get the message you sent this evening.
I'll try to get busy on various funding sources--working in
parallel, gov. and nongov.
-------
∂12-Oct-87 0904 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:edsel!jlz@labrea.stanford.edu time of meeting
Received: from Gang-Of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Oct 87 09:04:14 PDT
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA03803; Mon, 12 Oct 87 09:03:38 pdt
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Mon, 12 Oct 87 09:03:46 PDT
Received: from sunvalleymall.lucid.com by edsel id AA29432g; Mon, 12 Oct 87 08:36:54 PDT
Received: by sunvalleymall id AA07635g; Mon, 12 Oct 87 08:38:31 PDT
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 87 08:38:31 PDT
From: Jan Zubkoff <edsel!jlz@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8710121538.AA07635@sunvalleymall.lucid.com>
To: rivin@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Cc: qlisp@gang-of-four.stanford.edu, jlz.rivin@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Igor Rivin's message of Fri, 9 Oct 87 18:02:06 pdt <8710100102.AA02759@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: time of meeting
Dick is out of town.
∂12-Oct-87 1359 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA Book Reviewers Needed
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Oct 87 13:59:33 PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Mon 12 Oct 87 13:59:00-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Mon 12 Oct 87 16:51:30-EDT
Received: from anl-mcs.ARPA (TCP 3200200067) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 12 Oct 87 16:54:22 EDT
Received: by anl-mcs.ARPA (4.12/4.9)
id AA20974; Mon, 12 Oct 87 15:48:06 cdt
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 87 15:48:06 cdt
From: stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA (Rick L. Stevens)
Message-Id: <8710122048.AA20974@anl-mcs.ARPA>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Book Reviewers Needed
Cc: stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA
I am trying to find people interested in reviewing books for
the Journal of Automated Reasoning. You get to keep the books you
review. If you are interested in reviewing send me mail and I will
send you the booklist. Books not on the list can also be reviewed
but will have to be requested from the publisher.
Rick Stevens
Mathematics and Computer Science
Argonne National Laboratory
stevens@anl-mcs.arpa
∂12-Oct-87 1549 LES DARPA Umbrella Contract
To: binford@WHITNEY.STANFORD.EDU, Buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
cheriton@PESCADERO.Stanford.EDU, Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
Feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, Genesereth@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
latombe@WHITNEY.STANFORD.EDU, DCL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, Nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, BScott@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
The planned extension to the DARPA umbrella contract that is currently
supporting a number of projects in the department, as well as Luckham's
group in EE, is scheduled to lapse 12/1/90. KSL has another umbrella that
I understand finishes on 8/21/88; I trust that either it will be extended
or that the projects on that one will be moved to the extension of the
other umbrella before then.
We need to have a successor contract in place before the existing one(s)
finish or we will be in a lot of trouble. As I understand it, DARPA would
like to have just one such contract in order to minimize administrative
complexity.
We have been less than impressed with SPAWASYSCOM as a contracting agency.
One possible contracting agent that Bill Scherlis suggests is NASA Ames.
Peter Friedland there says that he is willing to consider it if the
proposed work lies within the interet areas of his group. I heard from
Bob Engelmore that DARPA is now doing some contrcts in-house, so that may
be another possibility.
In any case, we need to put together a proposal outlining the scope of
work and preliminary budgets for the various known component projects.
I propose that we aim for completion of this proposal by November 13
(which happens to be a Friday!). In order to get organized, we should
have a meeting soon -- say on Thursday, 10/15 at 3:00pm in Nils'
conference room. Please try to come or appoint a proxy.
Les Earnest
∂12-Oct-87 1620 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA CADE-9 second announcement
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Oct 87 16:19:57 PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Mon 12 Oct 87 16:19:25-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Mon 12 Oct 87 19:14:04-EDT
Received: from anl-mcs.ARPA (TCP 3200200067) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 12 Oct 87 19:16:13 EDT
Received: by anl-mcs.ARPA (4.12/4.9)
id AA24141; Mon, 12 Oct 87 18:09:46 cdt
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 87 18:09:46 cdt
From: stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA (Rick L. Stevens)
Message-Id: <8710122309.AA24141@anl-mcs.ARPA>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: CADE-9 second announcement
Cc: stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA
Second Preliminary Announcement and Call for
Papers
9th International Conference on Automated
Deduction
May 23-26, 1988
CADE-9 will be held at Argonne National Laboratory (near
Chicago) in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the
discovery of the resolution principle at Argonne in the sum-
mer of 1963. Papers are invited in the following or related
fields:
Theorem Proving Logic Programming
Unification Deductive Databases
Term Rewriting ATP for Nonstandard Logics
Program Verification Inference Systems
The program committee includes
Peter Andrews Ewing Lusk
W. W. Bledsoe Michael MacRobbie
Alan Bundy Hans-Jorgen Ohlbach
Robert Constable Ross Overbeek
Seif Haridi William Pase
Larry Henschen Jorg Siekmann
Jean-Louis Lassez Mark Stickel
Dallas Lankford Jim Williams
Papers should be sent to arrive before November 23, 1987,
to
Ewing Lusk and Ross Overbeek, chairmen
CADE-9
Mathematics and Computer Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, IL 60439-4844
We plan to offer a number of short tutorials at
extremely modest prices. The current plans are to hold
tutorials in the following areas:
attacking open problems
exploting multiprocessors
verification
constraint logic programming
rewrite systems
nonstandard logics
These tutorials will run for 2-3 hours. We intend to offer
them at the following rates:
# tutorials status rate
1 student $30
normal $50
2 student $40
normal $75
3 student $50
normal $90
We are attempting to hold down the cost of registration and hous-
ing, especially for students. At this point, we plan
to have a registration fee of $95 for students and $180 for
nonstudents.
This conference is being held at Argonne on the 25th
anniversary of the seminal work that resulted in the
discovery of resolution. We hope that it will prove to be
an opportunity to reflect on both what has (and has not)
been accomplished since then, as well as the new directions
being explored. If you have an interest in automated deduc-
tion, we encourage you to attend. Questions should be
directed to E. L. Lusk (lusk@anl-mcs.arpa, phone 312-972-
7852) or Ross Overbeek (overbeek@anl-mcs.arpa, phone 312-
972-7856).
∂13-Oct-87 1553 goguen@csl.sri.com Kyoto Prize
Received: from ATHOS.CSL.SRI.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Oct 87 15:53:13 PDT
Received: from localhost by athos.csl.sri.com (3.2/4.16)
id AA01542 for jmc@sail.stanford.edu; Tue, 13 Oct 87 15:53:25 PDT
Message-Id: <8710132253.AA01542@athos.csl.sri.com>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: goguen@csl.sri.com
Subject: Kyoto Prize
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 87 15:53:23 -0700
From: goguen@csl.sri.com
Dear John,
I have been appointed a Nominator for the Kyoto Prize in Advanced Technology,
which for 1988 is specialized to "Computer Science and Engineering, Artificial
Intelligence." You are my first thought for this prestigious award. I don't
know if you have heard of it, but the Japanese want the Kyoto Prize to become
equivalent to the Nobel Prize, and it has a comparable cash award,
Y45,000,000. If you would not object to being nominated, I could use some
help in filling out the form, which requests a brief biography, reprints of
representative papers (up to 5 -- I have some favorites, but would like to
know yours), a list of your other awards and honors, and (last category)
anything else that may help.
I hope that you and Caroline are enjoying Austin; it really can be quite
beautiful when it isn't too hot.
Cheers,
Joseph
--------
∂13-Oct-87 1703 PHY
mail :
`telegram' via graphnet:
The Danish membership organization IFIP is very pleased to learn
that you will participate in the TC2 workshop on partial evaluation
and mixed computation. A workshop is by its very nature closed to
a broad audience. In order to gain a wider support for Danish
participation in IFIP, we would like to take advantage of your
presence by organizing an evening event for a broader audience
in Copenhagen.
As the Danish representative in TC2 and on behalf of Danfip, I ask
for your cooperation in such an event.
We should like you to present in a broad sense your involvement
in the structuring of future developments of computing and its
impact in your country.
I kindly ask you to let me know immediately whether you will
contribute or not, and if so to send me a title for your presentation.
A short abstract will be most welcome also. Your presentation should be
given in 30-45 minutes. Until now I have received a positive reply
from A.P.Ershov, and I hope to have a contribution from Japan as well.
The event is scheduled for Monday, October 26, Danfip will of course
cover all additional expenses for your prlonged stay in Denmark.
J. Steensgaard-Madsen, Dept. of Comp Science, Dth Bldg. 345
DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
UUCP address DIKU.IDDTH.JSM
strange number: COL 345, DK-2800
to send overseas cables or telex via graphnet
1-800-527-6733
`telegram' via graphnet:
In order to arrange hotel and local transport I need to know
your air arrival and departure times flight nos etc. Also
I am of the impression that Carolyn Talcott is your wife
if that is so.
Can we lodge you in double room
Dines Bjorner
Dept of Comp Sci Techn Univ of Denmark
strange numbers that may help you reply to him:
37805 ddc dk
Notices of the American Math Society
News release: Information Interational and NeEASI-WEBER announce a better
solution to ad management
American Academy of Arts and Sciences - meeting schedule
many advertisements about books from SEAI Technical Publications
Call for papers nineteenth annual Pittsburgh Conference on Modeling and Simulation
May 5-6, 1988
AAAI-88 Seventh National Conference on A.I. call for papers Aug 22-26, 1988
St. Paul, Minnesota
CRC Press 1987 New Titles Catalog
Stanford News - The Centennial Campaign
Dean's Innovation Fund - invitation to apply
Values, Technology, Science, and Society
Please check for any error - Virginia Mann 723-2565
F Technological Opportunities for Humanity
McCarthy 60-62P T Th 1:15 3 units
Science magazine
hardcopy of Report of the Workshop on Environments for Computational
Mathematics, held July 30, 1987 during the ACM SIGgraph Conference in Anaheim
from Xerox
letter from Artificial Intelligence journal - about a review by Nigel Ward
on Computation and Cognition: Toward a foundation for cognitive science
by Z. Pylyshyn. Mark Stefik, A.I., wants you to give another review of
this book. If you are interested, and do not already have the book,
Stefik will rush you a copy of it.
NTT Procurement Seminar announcement - 2 seminars this fall.
A group of reports from (University of Goteborg and Chalmers University of
Technology) Programming Methodology Group:
`On a nonconstructive type theory and program derivation' by Jan Smith
by Jan M Smith
`The Independence of Peano's fourth axiom from Martin-Lof's type theory
without universes' by Jan M. Smith
`Inverse Image analysis' by Peter Dybjer
`An efficiency comparison of some representations of purely functional
arrays' by Annika Aasa, Soren Holmstrom, Christina Nilsson
`Views: a way for pattern matching to cohabit with data abstraction'
by Philip Wadler
`Projections for strictness analysis' by P. Wadler, R.J.M. Hughes
Invitation to nominate candidates for the Kyoto Prizes 1988 from
The Inamori Foundation
∂13-Oct-87 1850 HALPERN@IBM.COM References
Received: from IBM.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Oct 87 18:50:25 PDT
Date: 13 October 1987, 17:50:21 PDT
From: "Joseph Y. Halpern" <HALPERN@ibm.com>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <101387.175024.halpern@ibm.com>
Subject: References
John, I sent you the papers today. What papers discuss the
difference between "knowing how" and "knowing that" besides
Bob Moore's paper? Can you give me some references? Thanks.
-- Joe
∂14-Oct-87 0755 PHY
∂13-Oct-87 2022 JMC reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 13-Oct-87 17:03-PT.]
Please reply to Bjorner that I can't stay till Monday.
--
???
I have to assume you mean J. Steensgaard-Madsen,
Bjorner wants to know your airline schedule.
???
∂14-Oct-87 1305 SIEGMAN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU McCarthy's Anti-Gang Campaign
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Oct 87 13:05:14 PDT
Date: Wed 14 Oct 87 13:09:53-PDT
From: Tony Siegman <SIEGMAN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: McCarthy's Anti-Gang Campaign
To: su-etc@Sierra.Stanford.EDU
cc: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12342484061.14.SIEGMAN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
John, one of the lessons of life I think I've learned -- from child
raising, and dog training, among other experiences -- is that a positive
approach, where feasible, really is more effective than a negative
approach.
Negative incentives (penalties) do of course work -- when gas prices
soared, fuel efficient autos appeared; when heating costs soared, people
insulated, and shut off unnecessary rooms. BUt if your three-year-old
is doing something you don't want him to do, or generally behaves
obnoxiously, find him something attractive and better to do; focus on
rewarding and reinforcing good behavior, not punishing bad.
The application to gangs is obvious. Jail sentences, IF inexorable and
stringent enough, will probably work. But providing better, challenging,
rewarding outlets, though harder to do, will probably work even better
-- IF, again, done well enough and with enough continuity and quality and
perseverance. The stereotypical social-worker do-gooders are on the right
track in trying to fight delinquency; it's just that it's hard to do this
well. Society doesn't support it with enough continuity -- and,
civil-rights do-gooders often tie the hands of positive-incentive efforts
by denying them the minimal degree of compulsion they may need to force
people like gang members to take the first steps into these programs.
-------
∂14-Oct-87 1321 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU LISP in mathematics
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Oct 87 13:21:42 PDT
Date: Wed 14 Oct 87 13:20:52-PDT
From: Ilan Vardi <ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: LISP in mathematics
To: su-etc@Score.Stanford.EDU
cc: ilan@Score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12342486060.26.ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Is it true that Tartaglia's solution of the cubic was the first
application of LISP to mathematics?
-------
∂14-Oct-87 1349 VAL Les's meeting
[In reply to message rcvd 13-Oct-87 20:18-PT.]
OK. Does the "umbrella contract" have anything to do with our DARPA grant?
Should any part of our work be included among the "component projects"?
∂14-Oct-87 1401 goguen@csl.sri.com Re: Kyoto Prize
Received: from ATHOS.CSL.SRI.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Oct 87 14:01:07 PDT
Received: from localhost by athos.csl.sri.com (3.2/4.16)
id AA02478 for JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:01:16 PDT
Message-Id: <8710142101.AA02478@athos.csl.sri.com>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: goguen@csl.sri.com
Subject: Re: Kyoto Prize
In-Reply-To: Your message of 14 Oct 87 12:58:00 -0700.
<8710142003.AA13637@csl.csl.sri.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:01:13 -0700
From: goguen@csl.sri.com
John, thanks for your fast reply. I just want to add that I tremendously
admire your work, it has personally inspired me in many different ways, and I
really can't think of anyone who is more deserving than you of this prize.
Two further points about the nomination procedure: Can you have someone,
perhaps your secretary at Stanford, send me copies of these papers? (I have
grotty old xeroxes, but it seems more suitable to send them something more
classy looking.) Second, for what reason do you suggest I contact Ito? (The
instructions to nominators request keeping the procedure confidential.)
Cheers,
Joseph
--------
∂14-Oct-87 1605 PHY
Cannot find
`Computing with symbolic expressions' in your file cabinets.
more mail:
The Bridge vol 17, no. 3
large package from Lyn Kelly, 2317 Shoal Creek, Austin Texas 78705
Concorde denim bag containing
`Non-monotonic reasoning vs. logic prograaming a new perspective'
by Przymusinski
Mathematical Logic by Shoenfield
blank quadrille book that says return to JMC reward
∂14-Oct-87 1637 PHY
and yet another `telegram' from Dines Bjorner -- he just doesn't seem
to get the message that you are in Texas.
Please be advised that Prof. Peter Lucas at the IBM Almaden
reearch center is leaving Wednesday for Denmark. Peter is
also attending the IFIP TC2 workshop on partial evaluation
and mixed computation. Any reply to Danish IFIP org request
for Monday Oct 26 talk?
[has not received the message sent earlier today]
Dines Bjorner, Dept of CS, Techn Univ of Denmark
∂14-Oct-87 1813 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Name your fiction...
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Oct 87 18:13:33 PDT
Date: Wed 14 Oct 87 18:12:22-PDT
From: Ed Brink <brink@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Name your fiction...
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: hemenway@Score.Stanford.EDU, val@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12342539127.25.BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
It seems there was another shoe to drop, maybe two, associated with my MSCS
requirements. First, IBM now wants to cut me off from school for at least
calendar 1988, which, if I have not finished by then, means I am out of the
MSCS program and will have to apply all over again. I'm working on that within
IBM, but that's the current state of affairs.
Second, the 1987-88 Courses and Degrees does indeed allow you to take 143A
without 243 (compilers), BUT: it adds several new core courses, deletes at
least one and changes others.
So I intend to petition for an adjustment which substitutes some old core
courses for some new ones and waives 212, 240A and 241 on experience. I don't
know how this will impress Dr Oliger, so I am asking you first.
Sharon Hemenway is our new Jutta McCormick, and if I may say so without
appearing to try to influence her, she's doing a fine job (she's also the new
Victoria). She says that if you approve this maneuver via email she can sign
the form for you.
So I am sending you two messages following this, which are the two pages I
intend to attach to the form. The form itself, of course, just spells out the
adds, deletes and changes to the program.
Please respond to Sharon and copy me; if you just haven't time to deal with it,
I'll fall back on your previous suggestion and see if Nils (and Vladimir) will
allow Vladimir to stand in for you. Sharon and I think, though, that your
opinion will tend to have more force with Dr. Oliger.
I need your answer in a week or so, because IBM Personnel is waiting to see
whether they have to act to get my manager to let me finish normally.
By the way, at the same time he did this, my manager also allowed me to take as
much vacation as I can muster to get the project done. That means all of this
quarter, with a few days left over. Since I am taking only CS143, that should
do it.
Thanks for your time.
..Ed
-------
∂14-Oct-87 1818 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Page One
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Oct 87 18:18:35 PDT
Date: Wed 14 Oct 87 18:17:25-PDT
From: Ed Brink <brink@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Page One
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: hemenway@Score.Stanford.EDU, val@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12342540045.25.BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Core Requirements to be Waived for Ed Brink's MSCS Program
This is meant to be an attachment to the "Master's Program Revision" dated
10/12/87, and clarifies the reasoning for the changes. It refers to the
MSCS requirements in the 1987-1988 Courses and Degrees. Several of the
items below apply to most MSCS programs converting from the 1986-1987
requirements. Specifically, CS151, 154, 157, 161 and 224 fall in this
category, and Stat116 is similar.
Probably the "experience" rationale for waiving CS140, 240A and part of
212 will generate more questions. In every case it is felt that the
experience claimed represents subject knowledge that is far more than
adequate. Discussion of any doubts is welcomed. The OS experience was as
part of the team that built OS/360 at IBM Poughkeepsie in the late 60's,
and architectural liaison with Kingston and Raleigh for the OS/360 manager
until about 1969. Knowledge of computer architecture and organization
comes from being a programmer from the IBM 650 through the 7090, 1401,
7010, 360, S/23, S/34, PC and most of the computers in between, as well as
from the EE611 course. The earlier computers were programmed in assembly
language, which implies a fair knowledge of the architecture, and the 360
work was systems work (e.g., pipelining considerations for the mod 91).
COURSE TITLE REASON
------ ----- ------
Stat116 Theory of Probability Redlands Math 135, Statistics (for
math majors) and considerable
study of Feller's books
CS140 Concurrent Programming Experience (design, building and
architectural control of OS/360)
CS151 Proof Techniques in Discrete CS257A, CS257B, CS223, CS323,
Mathematics CS326, CS356 taken
CS154 Introduction to Automata CS254 waived previously based on
and Complexity Theory Syracuse SIS 203, Mechanical
Languages and EE 396, Theory of
Automata; CS261 taken
CS157 Logical Basis for Computer CS257A, CS257B taken
Programming
CS161 Discrete Structures CS261 taken
& Algorithms
CS212 Computer Architecture Experience (30 years, 26 IBM) and
and Organization Syracuse EE362, Theory of
Switching Circuits; EE611 taken
CS224 Intro to AI Original Feigenbaum CS123; CS225A,
CS276, CS309A, CS323, CS326,
CS328C, CS423, CS525 taken
CS240A Operating Systems Experience (design, building and
architectural control of OS/360)
-------
∂14-Oct-87 1824 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Page Two
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Oct 87 18:23:54 PDT
Date: Wed 14 Oct 87 18:22:45-PDT
From: Ed Brink <brink@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Page Two
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: hemenway@Score.Stanford.EDU, val@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12342541017.25.BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Ed Brink's MSCS Plan as of 10/11/87
This is a statement of the match between courses taken and courses
required in the 1987-1988 Courses and Degrees. Together with the petition
to waive certain core courses, this justifies the position that Mr. Brink
will have completed requirements for the MSCS degree at end of autumn
quarter 1987.
The notation below needs brief explanation. Parentheses, "()", denote
courses taken under NRO and NCO rules but not recorded. Brackets, "[]",
denote courses counted in the 45 units but not used to fulfill any other
requirements. Braces, "{}", indicate courses not deemed applicable to the
45 units.
The column headed "REQT" indicates the degree requirements each course is
fulfilling; for example, "b opt" is an option for part b.
Quarters are represented A, W, S or M; M is summer. The year is the
calendar year in which the quarter starts.
UNITS COURSE NAME REQT QTR GRADE
(3) CS144C Sorting and Searching () 80S (A-)
(3) EE611 Microprocessor as Circuit Element () 80M (A-)
(3) CS104 Pascal () 85S (A)
(3) CS123 Introduction to AI () 85S (A-)
3 CS223 Fundamentals of AI a,core 85M A-
[3] CS309A PROLOG for natural lang syntax [] 85A [B]
(3) CS22 LISP () 85W (A+)
3 CS323 Advanced AI a 86S B
(1) CS500 Seminar (3) 86M (+)
[3] CS242 Survey of Programming Languages [] 86A [B]
3 CS257A Logical Basis for Programming a,core 86A B+
3 CS261 Data Structures, NP complexity core 86A B
[1] CS500 Seminar [3] 86A [+]
3 CS257B Deductive Systems a 86W B-
3 CS276 Nat Language Semantics b opt 86W A-
3 CS326 Epistemological Problems of AI b opt 86W A-
[3] CS356 Reasoning about Knowledge [] 86W [A-]
3 CS225A AI Programming Methodology b opt 87S A
3 CS328C Cognition and Connectivism b opt 87S A-
[1] CS520 Survey of AI Research [3] 87S [+]
{1} CS005 TeX and LaTeX {} 87S {+}
[2] CS423 Readings in AI [3] 87S [+]
{1} CS522 Heuristic Programming Seminar {3} 87S [+]
[1] CS525 Causation Seminar [3] 87S [+]
3 CS237A Numerical Analysis core 87M +
[3] CS399 Special Project (Inverse Method) [] 87M [in process]
3 CS143A Compilers core 87A in process
---------------
33 + [17] + (16) + {2}
There are 50 units applied to the requirement for 45. Core units are 15
and prerequisites 0, satisfying the 21 maximum. Only 8 are pass/fail,
leaving 42 graded, the first 36 as follows: 3 A, 15 A-, 3 B+, 12 B, 3 B-.
A "B" average seems assured since only 6 units remain.
-------
∂14-Oct-87 1828 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Oops
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Oct 87 18:28:28 PDT
Date: Wed 14 Oct 87 18:27:18-PDT
From: Ed Brink <brink@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Oops
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: hemenway@Score.Stanford.EDU, val@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12342541844.25.BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
I see I forgot to mention one thing in my first note:
Part of the reason for the petition now is to cause me to be through with the
MSCS at the end of this quarter and thus nullify the problem brought on by my
manager's news.
..Ed
-------
∂14-Oct-87 1828 goguen@csl.sri.com Re: Kyoto Prize
Received: from ATHOS.CSL.SRI.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Oct 87 18:28:47 PDT
Received: from localhost by athos.csl.sri.com (3.2/4.16)
id AA00254 for JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 14 Oct 87 18:28:56 PDT
Message-Id: <8710150128.AA00254@athos.csl.sri.com>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: goguen@csl.sri.com
Subject: Re: Kyoto Prize
In-Reply-To: Your message of 14 Oct 87 15:16:00 -0700.
<8710142323.AA15173@csl.csl.sri.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 87 18:28:53 -0700
From: goguen@csl.sri.com
John, as far as I know, different nominators are appointed each year, and old
nominations do not remain in force from one year to another. This makes sense
because the subfields involved are changed each year.
I look forward to receiving your material. Good luck!
Cheers,
Joseph
--------
∂15-Oct-87 0036 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: LISP in mathematics
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Oct 87 00:36:26 PDT
Date: Thu 15 Oct 87 00:35:32-PDT
From: Ilan Vardi <ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: LISP in mathematics
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: ilan@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 14 Oct 87 13:29:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12342608880.15.ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I don't think you've addressed the possiblity of cross language
information exchange in my original message.
-------
∂15-Oct-87 0600 JMC
raffel 518 946-2145
∂15-Oct-87 0700 JMC
benefits office
∂15-Oct-87 0736 PHY
∂14-Oct-87 2058 JMC reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 14-Oct-87 16:05-PT.]
Now I remember. The title of that paper is Recursive Functions of Symbolic
Expressions and their Computation by Machine. part I
discard the Bridge and forward the package. I'll reward Kelly.
--
what about all the other stuff in the first message?
∂15-Oct-87 0800 JMC
prieditis
∂15-Oct-87 0800 JMC
tiaa
∂15-Oct-87 0837 PHY
Recursive Functions of Symbolic
Expressions and their Computation by Machine. part I
cannot locate in any of your files
∂15-Oct-87 0917 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Brink's proposed modifications
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Oct 87 09:17:30 PDT
Date: Thu 15 Oct 87 09:13:53-PDT
From: Ed Brink <brink@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Brink's proposed modifications
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: brink@Sushi.Stanford.EDU, hemenway@Score.Stanford.EDU,
val@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 14 Oct 87 20:35:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12342703243.14.BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks for fast action. I'll get the form to Sharon today. ..Ed
-------
∂15-Oct-87 1047 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
THE STABLE MODEL SEMANTICS FOR LOGIC PROGRAMMING
Thursday, October 15, 4:15pm
MJH 252
Vladimir Lifschitz
This work is joint with Michael Gelfond. We propose a new declarative
semantics for logic programs with negation. Unlike the familiar "iterated
fixed point" semantics, ours is applicable to some non-stratified programs.
At the same time, its formulation is quite simple. It is related to some ideas
of Robert Moore's autoepistemic logic.
∂15-Oct-87 1312 VAL re: class next week
[In reply to message rcvd 15-Oct-87 12:01-PT.]
Great. In what room does your class meet?
∂15-Oct-87 1347 VAL re: class next week
[In reply to message rcvd 15-Oct-87 13:37-PT.]
No, thanks. I've already contacted Apt.
Have a good time in Europe.
Vladimir
∂15-Oct-87 1352 VAL Non-monotonic seminar: Correction
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Today we meet in MJH 121 (not 252, which will be our regular place).
∂15-Oct-87 1613 GLB
Dear Ms. Dickey,
At the beginning of the Summer quarter 1986, I
agreed to provide RA support for Gian Luigi Bellin
until the completion of his Ph D degree.
Sincerely,
John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science
Stanford University
-------
Dear prof. McCarthy,
maybe I did it then, but let me express again my gratitude for this.
Gianluigi
∂15-Oct-87 1616 ME [*,RA]
To: JMC, ZM
CC: ME
I've been told to purge Rutie's account, since she is gone. Before
I delete all her files, I thought I'd give you a chance to save any
of her files that you think might be important for you.
∂16-Oct-87 1221 VAL reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Oct-87 08:57-PT.]
Gorbis takes the course in non-monotonic reasoning from Matt and Kurt,
comes to our seminar, learns to program in Pascal and studies for the
theory exam. His first reaction to Reiter's logic was that it's
psychologically implausible and computationally intractable, and
consequently worthless. I think he's doing fine.
Another new student, Nita Goyal, was attracted by our ad in the
Research Mentor Packet, and came to talk with me this morning. She
seems to have a strong background in logic and is taking Manna's
course this quarter.
∂16-Oct-87 1258 RDZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Computer Forum
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Oct 87 12:58:51 PDT
Date: Fri 16 Oct 87 12:47:27-PDT
From: Ramin Zabih <RDZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Computer Forum
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Fri 16 Oct 87 08:56:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12343004266.52.RDZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
I'd be happy to talk, if you think it would be appropriate (I had the
impression that the forum was mostly for people who were finishing up
their thesis). I could either talk about SCHEMER, or I could describe
this new SAT algorithm that I did this summer.
Ramin
-------
∂16-Oct-87 1447 stantz@helens.stanford.edu re: CIS vending machine.
Received: from HELENS.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Oct 87 14:47:27 PDT
Received: by helens.stanford.edu; Fri, 16 Oct 87 14:45:44 PDT
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 87 14:45:44 PDT
From: Mark Stantz <stantz@helens.stanford.edu>
Subject: re: CIS vending machine.
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Hmmm. Do I detect a subtle hint here?
Maybe if I had something to do with MJH I'd consider it, but as it
is, I only go to the place to pick up old handouts for CS classes. I don't
even have a key.
Besides, lots of people have offices there, and it makes more sense
that one of them handle the job, doesn't it? They're there regularly, after
all.
-Mark
∂16-Oct-87 1522 stantz@helens.stanford.edu re: CIS vending machine.
Received: from HELENS.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Oct 87 15:22:10 PDT
Received: by helens.stanford.edu; Fri, 16 Oct 87 15:20:25 PDT
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 87 15:20:25 PDT
From: Mark Stantz <stantz@helens.stanford.edu>
Subject: re: CIS vending machine.
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
It's isn't hooked up to anything like Pony, if that's what you mean.
It's just an ordinary commecial vending machine, filled, I'm told, by CIS
students.
-mark
∂17-Oct-87 0115 JSW Forum
I spoke at the Forum this past February on parallel Lisp. I'd rather
not speak again this year, since it would mostly be an update on the
same topic.
∂19-Oct-87 0101 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Gang of four
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Oct 87 00:28:33 PDT
Date: Mon 19 Oct 87 00:27:16-PDT
From: Ilan Vardi <ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Gang of four
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: ilan@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12343655950.15.ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Joe Weening informs me that you named this machine. Did you at any time
consider the name Four Play?
-------
∂19-Oct-87 1052 PHY
to: JMC, Yvette,
I will not be here on Thursday or Friday, October 22 and 23.
Will be having gum surgery.
-Phyllis
∂19-Oct-87 1156 AIR Progress report
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Here are some results of my experimenting with polynomials. It is based
on the package we received from Halstead, modified for QLISP.
In short:
a) the efficiency of the very coarse grain parallelism is much
better than the efficiency of finer grain parallelism;
b) I proposed some modification to improve the scheduler, but the improvement
in case of finer grain parallelism is not sufficient;
c) we need a better tool to do more detailed analysis and further improve
performance in the case of finer grain parallelism.
This package is based on the standard representation of
sparse polynomials where multivariate polynomials R[x,y,...,z] are
represented as the isomorphic ring of polynomials in one variable, say x,
with coefficients in the ring R[y,...,z]. The polynomial arithmetic is
pretty straightforward.
Since Lucid QLISP failed to run the program, I resorted to the simulator.
The following two tables represent the effective number of processors in
polynomial arithmetic.
The effective number of processors is calculated as the total number of steps
spent on doing arithmetic (not counting the steps spent on overhead and
wasted) divided by the total number of steps (time of calculation).
The first table represents the results of calculation where parallelism
was carried out on all levels, i. e. the polynomials representing coefficients
also were calculated in parallel.
Number of processors 1 5 10 20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degree of polynomial
5 0.64 2.0 1.8 1.8
10 0.64 2.7 2.9 2.8
20 0.64 3.0 3.8 3.9
The second table represents the results of calculation where parallelism
was applied only to the top level polynomials.
Number of processors 1 5 10 20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degree of polynomial
5 0.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
10 0.94 3.7 3.7 3.7
20 0.97 4.5 7.4 7.5
Comparison of this two tables shows that coarse grain parallelism gives
better results than finer grain parallelism.
The one processor column shows what is the necessary overhead for creating
and running additional processes.
It is obvious from the tables that in most cases a lot of time is wasted
besides the time spent on the necessary overhead. This lack of performance
can be attributed to the plain lack of parallelism or to some more subtle and
interesting phenomena.
The execution of the two similar calculations in parallel in cases where
the effective number of processors is significantly less then number
suggested by the necessary overhead permits to distinguish between these
two reasons.
In case of top level parallelism the parallel execution of two calculations
almost doubled the effective number of processors, bringing the effective
number of processors close to the number restricted by the necessary overhead.
In case of multi-level parallelism the parallel execution of two calculations
did not significantly increase the number of effective processors.
One of the possible reasons for poor performance in multi-level parallel
polynomial arithmetic is contention on the lock due to large number of small
processes. I proposed to arrange a circle of "ready" process queues each
protected by its own lock (Dan came to this idea independently and improved
significantly performance for Fibonacci). More careful analysis showed that
this kind of contention does not appear in polynomial computation I studied.
Another problem I found was contention on the lock due to the number of idling
processors all recognizing the appearance of a new process in the queue and
getting lock in turns. This phenomenon explained a decline of performance
after the number of processors exceeded a particular number. It was
corrected easily by a small modification of the scheduler.
After this correction the decline is not noticeable anymore.
I proposed also one optimization in the handling of waiting processors in the
scheduler. This improved the performance in the case of Fibonacci by 50%.
It turned out that all these optimizations still leave multi-level polynomial
calculations at the quite low level of performance.
To improve further performance and to understand better what is going on during
calculation we should develop better reporting and analytic tools on the basis
of the existing simulator.
Also I would like to experiment with more sophisticated algorithms of
polynomial arithmetic (like Karatsuba method or fast Fourier transform), so
our examples and results would be closer to real life situations.
I also think that we need to do experiments with some large problems and I
would like to do some experiments with group manipulation algorithms and
programs.
∂19-Oct-87 1333 arg@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU old version of Qlisp again available
Received: from Gang-Of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Oct 87 13:33:41 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA01830; Mon, 19 Oct 87 13:32:58 pdt
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 87 13:32:58 pdt
From: Ron Goldman <arg@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8710192032.AA01830@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: old version of Qlisp again available
/usr/local/bin/qlisp is a restored version of the initial Qlisp implementation
complete with all the restrictions described back in the July(?) handout. A
new version with less restrictions will be up in the next few weeks.
Ron
∂20-Oct-87 0731 PHY
mail:
`Options' from Internatinal Institute for Appl Systems Analysis
Focus
Bulletin The American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Computing Reviews
Communications of the ACM
Daedalus
reports list from INRIA
The American Math Monthly
Science
∂20-Oct-87 1329 @Score.Stanford.EDU:nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU Duda
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 20 Oct 87 13:29:25 PDT
Received: from Tenaya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 20 Oct 87 13:24:58-PDT
Received: by Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA07393; Tue, 20 Oct 87 13:25:42 PDT
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 87 13:25:42 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8710202025.AA07393@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Cc: nilsson
Subject: Duda
John, I have a definite indication of interest in a visiting position
from Dick Duda. Furthermore, it is likely that Dick will leave
Syntelligence after any such visit and try to find a permanent
academic position. I have great respect for his abilities, and his
visiting Stanford might be a good way for us both to look each other
over. Do you have other possibilities and do you think it is worth
pursuing this possibility with Dick? -Nils
∂20-Oct-87 1628 pratt@navajo.stanford.edu Gurevich
Received: from NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 20 Oct 87 16:28:01 PDT
Received: by navajo.stanford.edu; Tue, 20 Oct 87 16:25:07 PDT
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 87 16:25:07 PDT
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@navajo.stanford.edu>
Subject: Gurevich
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
What do you think of having Yuri Gurevich as a visiting professor
at Stanford for 88/89? He's a logician turned computer scientist,
currently teaching in the CS department at Michigan. It would be fair
to say that his previous work in logic put him among the top ten
mathematical logicians. He has been very productive in computer science
in recent years, and is currently active in organizing both the last
and next Logics in Computer Science conferences. He will be taking his
sabbatical next year, with Michigan paying half his salary.
-v
∂20-Oct-87 1740 pratt@navajo.stanford.edu Plotkin
Received: from NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 20 Oct 87 17:40:22 PDT
Received: by navajo.stanford.edu; Tue, 20 Oct 87 17:37:35 PDT
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 87 17:37:35 PDT
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@navajo.stanford.edu>
Subject: Plotkin
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Another possible visiting professor is Gordon Plotkin, who is presently
at CSLI. There is a 50% chance that Gordon will want to remain in
Palo Alto for 88/89.
-v
∂21-Oct-87 0955 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU more light please
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Oct 87 09:55:12 PDT
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 87 09:55:52 PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: more light please
To: nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
cc: ksl-exec@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, clancey@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU,
hayes-roth@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, genesereth@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, keller@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12344283748.50.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Nils, it would be helpful to me, and I think to the unfolding discussion, if
you could be more specific and elaborate on what you have in mind when
you speak of a "theory of knowledge". How would I know one when I saw one?
How would I know if were inadequate and needed to be discarded/improved?
How would I use one to help me build my large knowledge base better?
Clancey at least tried to give some more detail in his message, though I must
admit I didn't understand his short exposition completely. The whole discussion
would benefit if you would turn your mind and keyboard in this direction.
Aiming toward the light,
Ed
-------
∂21-Oct-87 1200 REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU your Participation in the High Noon Lecture Series
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Oct 87 12:00:03 PDT
Date: Wed 21 Oct 87 12:00:21-PDT
From: Rick Reis <REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: your Participation in the High Noon Lecture Series
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: reis@Sierra.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12344306410.24.REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
John:
Greetings. I've been talking with Jim Gibbons about the High Noon - High
Tech - Easy Listening Lecture series for this year and as you might expect your
name came up right away. As I think you know this is a series begun
last year in which recently endowed professors give popular talks on
their research for members of the Stanford Community. The talks are
open to everyone and we usually filled Skilling auditorium with faculty,
staff and students. The talks are given at noon after which the speaker,
Jim Gibbons, Dwain Fullerton and the donor, if available, go to lunch at the
faculty club.
Last year we began with Hank Riggs in NOvember and then had Tony Siegman,
Cal Quate, and Bill Reynolds in January, February and March. This year
we have two endowed profeesorhsips for sure, yours and John Hennessy's
and perhaps we will have more in the months to come. I have already
arranged for John Hennessy to give his lecture on Friday, December 4th
and am writing to ask if we can begin thinking about some dates for
a talk by you in either late January or early February. We also have
to take a look at Jim Gibbons schedule but for now I'd like to know
which of the dates, January 15th, 22nd, 29th, February 5th, or 12th
would be OK with you.
I have heard from a number of people that the talk you gave at, was
it the Forum anniversary? on the history of computer science was
excelent and you might want to consider a version of it for this
presentation. The choice is of course yours, anything you wish to do
would be fine, we just need to remember that it should be geared to
a general audience and about 45 minutes in length.
Please let me know if allthis is acceptable to you and if so your thoughts
about dates. I'll then get back to you after I check with Jim on a
final date.
Thanks John
Rick Reis
Associate Dean for Professional Development
-------
∂21-Oct-87 1613 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of September computer charges.
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Oct 87 16:11:41 PDT
Date: Wed 21 Oct 87 15:53:21-PDT
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of September computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12344348827.38.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for September.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA480 100 109.56 104.75 ***.** .00 5.00 2542.29
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA480 100 .00 .00 6.88 .00 5.00 11.88
MCCARTHY SUSHI SUSHI 100 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Total: 109.56 104.75 ***.** .00 10.00 2554.17
University budget accounts billed above include the following.
Account Principal Investigator Title
2-DMA480 McCarthy DCR 84-14393
The preceding statement is a condensed version of the detailed summary sheet
send monthly to your department.
Please verify each month that the proper university budget accounts are paying
for your computer usage. Please also check the list of account numbers below
the numeric totals. If the organizations/people associated with that account
number should NOT be paying for your computer time, send mail to BEDIT@SCORE.
Please direct questions/comments to BEDIT@SCORE.
-------
∂22-Oct-87 1521 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 22 Oct 87 15:21:18 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA07858; Thu, 22 Oct 87 15:20:29 pdt
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 87 15:20:29 pdt
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8710222220.AA07858@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, air@sail
Subject: meeting
The next QLISP meeting will be held this wednesday, the 28th of October
at 11am in MJH352. In addition to the usual agenda Arkady might tell us
about his experiments with polynomials.
CU there
∂22-Oct-87 1936 @Score.Stanford.EDU:dale%LINC.CIS.UPENN.EDU.#Internet@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Ph.D. Proposal (UPenn)
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 22 Oct 87 19:36:39 PDT
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 22 Oct 87 19:33:40-PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU via Chaosnet; 22 Oct 87 19:17-EDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Thu 22 Oct 87 19:08:28-EDT
Received: from linc.cis.upenn.edu (TCP 1201000140) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 22 Oct 87 19:08:07 EDT
Received: by linc.cis.upenn.edu
id AA11118; Thu, 22 Oct 87 19:06:28 EDT
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 87 19:06:28 EDT
From: dale@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Dale Miller)
Posted-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 87 19:06:28 EDT
Message-Id: <8710222306.AA11118@linc.cis.upenn.edu>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Ph.D. Proposal (UPenn)
Implementing Theorem Provers in Logic Programming
Dissertation Proposal
Amy Felty
(felty@linc.cis.upenn.edu)
Computer and Information Science
University of Pennsylvania
Logic programming languages have many characteristics that indicate
that they should serve as good implementation languages for theorem
provers. For example, they are based on search and unification which
are also fundamental to theorem proving. We show how an extended
logic programming language can be used to implement theorem provers
and other aspects of proof systems for a variety of logics. In this
language first-order terms are replaced with simply-typed
lambda-terms, and thus unification becomes higher-order unification.
Also, implication and universal quantification are allowed in goals.
We illustrate that inference rules can be very naturally specified,
and that the search operations based on this language correspond to
those needed for searching for proofs. We argue on several levels
that this extended logic programming language provides a very suitable
environment for implementing tactic style theorem provers. Such
theorem provers provide extensive capabilities for integrating
techniques for automated theorem proving into an interactive proof
environment. We are also concerned with representing proofs as
objects. We illustrate how such objects can be constructed and
manipulated in the logic programming setting. Finally, we propose
extensions to tactic style theorem provers in working toward the goal
of developing an interactive theorem proving environment that provides
a user with many tools and techniques for building and manipulating
proofs, and that integrates sophisticated capabilites for automated
proof discovery. Many of the theorem provers we present have been
implemented in the higher-order logic programming language Lambda
Prolog.
Date: Friday November 6, 1987
Location: 554 Moore
Time: 1:30 PM
Committee: Val Breazu-Tannen
Robert Constable
Jean Gallier (Chair)
Andre Scedrov
Advisor: Dale Miller
∂23-Oct-87 1043 VAL re: class next week
[In reply to message rcvd 15-Oct-87 12:01-PT.]
I talked on computing circumscription both times. How was your trip?
∂23-Oct-87 1056 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
INFERRING NEGATIVE INFORMATION FROM DISJUNSTIVE DATABASES
Thursday, October 29, 4:15pm
MJH 252
Ken Ross (KAR@ROCKY.STANFORD.EDU)
This talk is based on work done with Rodney Topor at Melbourne University.
A disjunctive database is one in which rules may have a disjunction of
atoms in their heads. Several mechanisms for inferring negative
information have been suggested for this class of databases, all of which
tend to give disjunctions an exclusive interpretation. In some cases,
however, an inclusive interpretation is intended. We propose a new rule,
the "Disjunctive Database Rule" which treats disjunctions inclusively. We
discuss its properties and compare it with other suggested inference rules.
∂23-Oct-87 1434 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU more light please
Received: from TENAYA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Oct 87 14:34:43 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA13521; Fri, 23 Oct 87 14:33:52 PDT
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 87 14:33:52 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8710232133.AA13521@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
To: FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Cc: ksl-exec@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, clancey@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
hayes-roth@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@SCORE.Stanford.EDU,
jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, keller@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Edward Feigenbaum's message of Wed, 21 Oct 87 09:55:52 PDT <12344283748.50.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: more light please
Ed (and kibitzers):
more light (about what I mean by having a theory that helps explain
what it means for AI programs to know) is definitely "on the stack." Right
now I must rush to deal with msgs that have accumulated while at
workshop in Santa Cruz and then deal with various departmental matters, but
you can be sure that you haven't heard the last from me on this matter.
(One example of the kind of theory I have in mind is the explanation
Stan Rosenschein gives about how can it be said that a finite-state machine
knows something about the world.) More later, -Nils
∂23-Oct-87 1748 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Oct 87 17:37:37 PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 23 Oct 87 17:33:14-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Fri 23 Oct 87 20:25:22-EDT
Received: from anl-mcs.ARPA (TCP 3200200067) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 23 Oct 87 20:22:49 EDT
Received: by anl-mcs.ARPA (4.12/4.9)
id AA23123; Fri, 23 Oct 87 16:47:32 cdt
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 87 16:47:32 cdt
From: stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA (Rick L. Stevens)
Message-Id: <8710232147.AA23123@anl-mcs.ARPA>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu
A Review by
Ross Overbeek
of
Automated Reasoning: 33 Basic Research Problems
by Larry Wos
1. Introduction
Seventeen years ago, as a student, I read a paper by George
Robinson and Larry Wos. In it, they gave the axioms for the
problem "In a group, when the cube of any element is the
identity, the expression [[x,y],y] is equal to the identity
for any x and y", where [x,y] is the commutator of x and y.
Their program failed to produce a proof, but they posed it
as a reasonable "challenge" for programs designed to prove
theorems. Working on that specific challenge was one of the
most productive experiences that I've had in my research
career. Solving it led to my doctorate and to insights that
carried over into a fairly wide class of problems.
Students of today are being offered a whole set of
problems, in the form of this latest book by Larry Wos. It
is one of the most remarkable books in automated reasoning
that I have ever read. Wos has worked productively in the
field of automated deduction for twenty-five years. In this
book, he presents his view of the obstacles that must be
overcome for progress to occur. It is not a formal view
from a lofty level; rather, it offers a set of concrete
problems for research with hints on how they could be
approached. For evaluating progress on a given research
problem, the book includes specific sets of axioms, specific
challenges, and some specific suggestions. Any doctoral
student looking for a topic in automated deduction should
find the book a gold mine.
2. The Contents of the Book
The book is divided into seven chapters:
Chapter 1:
A short introduction offers an overview of what
Wos means by automated reasoning and how the book
should be approached.
Chapter 2:
The real issues start being developed in chapter
2. Here Wos presents the central difficulties
encountered with attempting to automate reasoning.
Those
with a theoretical bent, who must understand "what
is really going on", might well find Wos' explana-
tions frustrating. He mixes fairly deep issues
with implementation phenomena and, occasionally,
platitudes. He lists eight central difficulties,
ranging from "inadequate focus" and lack of
"metarules" to "database indexing". The fact that
he does not try to organize these into a more
structured analysis will jar some readers (after
all, one would expect issues of strategy to be
sharply separated from issues of database index-
ing). I'm convinced that he does view the world
differently; his outlook does not lend itself to
the sort of "top-down" organization treasured by
many researchers. His outlook is not right or
wrong -- it's just different (and, it has worked
rather well for him).
Chapter 3:
Having set the stage in chapter 2, in chapter 3
Wos lists 33 research problems in a summary
fashion. The list allows the reader to mull over
these specific problems while covering the over-
view offered in chapter 4.
Chapter 4:
Wos views automated reasoning from the perspective
of what used to be called automated theorem prov-
ing. This outlook is dissimilar in many respects
to the outlook taken by many researchers in AI.
To a large extent, this dichotomy reflects the
historical fact that theorem provers separated
from the mainstream AI community. In any event,
this is where Wos attempts to develop enough of
the basic material to make the 33 problems intel-
ligible.
Chapter 5:
In this chapter, Wos discusses each of the 33
problems in detail. Taken in conjunction with
chapter 6, which includes precise clause sets for
problems, it represents the heart of the chal-
lenge.
Chapter 6:
This chapter includes a variety of problems, com-
plete with clause sets, ranging from algebra to
geometry and nonstandard logics. For most
researchers, this chapter alone justifies the
rather modest price of this book.
Chapter 7:
Wos ends the book on an incredibly optimistic
note, summarizing his view of where the field is
going.
3. Summary
The book is priced at $11.95. I normally would not
mention price in a review, but in this case it seems worth
noting. Because the book is far superior to some that I've
seen priced at over $50, and because it would make such a
perfect supplement to many courses that cover automated
deduction, the fact that its price has been held down so low
is particularly significant.
The book offers one man's assessment of where the dif-
ficulties lie. What makes it significant is that this man's
judgments have proven correct a surprising number of times.
Had someone of less stature attempted such a book, I would
probably take it a lot less seriously. As it is, I consider
the book to be a major contribution, and I recommend it
highly.
∂26-Oct-87 0000 JMC Expired plan
Your plan has just expired. You might want to make a new one.
Here is the text of the old plan:
I am at the University of Texas in Austin for Fall 1987 and
will return to Stanford for Winter Quarter. However, I
will continue to receive email as JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU.
My office number in Texas is 512 471-9558 and my home
number is 512 328-1625. U.S. mail sent to Stanford is
forwarded, by my address in Texas is
Computer Science Department
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
I will be in Europe from October 17 thru October 25.
∂26-Oct-87 0851 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU [nilsson@jeeves.stanford.edu (Nils Nilsson): umbrella contract]
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Oct 87 08:51:44 PST
Date: Mon 26 Oct 87 08:48:35-PST
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [nilsson@jeeves.stanford.edu (Nils Nilsson): umbrella contract]
To: TOB@Sail.Stanford.EDU, Buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
Cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU, Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
Feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, Genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
Latombe@Coyote.Stanford.EDU, DCL@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
ZM@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JLH@Sonoma.Stanford.EDU, LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
BScott@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12345593143.32.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Forwarded, FYI, per Nils' request. - Betty
---------------
Return-Path: <nilsson@jeeves.stanford.edu>
Received: from jeeves.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Sat 24 Oct 87 14:49:56-PDT
Received: by jeeves.stanford.edu (3.2/SMI-DDN)
id AA03103; Sat, 24 Oct 87 14:53:33 PDT
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 87 14:53:33 PDT
From: nilsson@jeeves.stanford.edu (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8710242153.AA03103@jeeves.stanford.edu>
To: bscott@score
Subject: umbrella contract
Betty,
Could you pls forward the following msg to all at Stanford who we
are planning to include in the DARPA umbrella contract?
I talked with Lt. Col. Robert Simpson (a program manager at
DARPA/ISTO) last week in Santa Cruz about our proposed "umbrella
contract." He was not very encouraging. He said that Jack
Schwarz (the new DARPA/ISTO Director) feels negatively about
such umbrella contracts because they tend to sustain the practice
of an "old boys network" in which MIT, CMU, and Stanford get
big DARPA contracts easily and smaller (but worthy) schools have
a harder time of it. (Jack Schwarz comes to DARPA from NYU.)
In conversation with Simpson I pointed out that even if Schwarz's
attitude were to result in a net decrease of DARPA projects at
MIT/CMU/Stanford, nevertheless it was probable that there would
be several projects at Stanford and that it would be easier for
DARPA and other govt. agencies if these projects could be covered
under one umbrella. Simpson conceded the point and thought that
additional discussions with Schwarz may bring him around, but that
it would be premature to send something in now before Simpson
works on Schwarz some more. I am planning to be in Washington
on Nov. 13 and will try to see Schwarz then.
Although Scwarz attended the S.C. meeting briefly, I did not have
an opportunity to talk to him about this matter. (He was always
surrounded by many worried contractors attempting to find out
form him how he felt about their work. Rather than risk a hurried
conversation, I would rather talk with him in a setting that
promotes a more considered response.)
I think it's still worth putting the umbrella proposal together.
After all, we each have only to write a few paragraphs. I'll
keep everyone posted on ensuing discussions with Simpson/Schwarz.
In the meantime, if any of you have occasion to visit program
managers or Schwarz, I don't think it would hurt for us to
continue to bring up the matter of the umbrella contract and to
keep up to date on the latest DARPA party line on this matter.
-Nils
-------
∂26-Oct-87 1023 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU Winter CS101 text
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Oct 87 10:23:19 PST
Date: Mon 26 Oct 87 10:18:40-PST
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Winter CS101 text
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12345609542.33.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I'm in the midst of ordering Winter Quarter textbooks. If you'll be needing
any for CS101, please supply the following for required/optional texts:
Author
Title
Publisher
Required or Optional
Estimated enrollment
Currently, I show a rough estimate for CS101 of 175 students. The last text
used was:
"Computer Chronicles" by Lechner
Thanks.
Claire
-------
∂26-Oct-87 1135 gerry%eusip.edinburgh.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
Received: from ARGUS.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Oct 87 11:34:51 PST
Received: from NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK by argus.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Mon, 26 Oct 87 11:32:43 PST
Received: from eusip.edinburgh.ac.uk by NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id aa10555; 26 Oct 87 17:08 GMT
From: Gerry Altmann <gerry%eusip.edinburgh.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 87 17:09:26 GMT
Message-Id: <4312.8710261709@eusip.ed.ac.uk>
To: JMC%su-ai.stanford.edu@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
Dear Professor McCarthy,
I am organising an international workshop entitled "Speech Processing:
cognitive and computational perspectives" to be held in Italy in May,
1988. I am writing to ask whether AAAI could provide funds for this
workshop. I enclose a brief summary of the aims and objectives of the
workshop, a preliminary list of invited participants, and a breakdown of
our funding requirements.
I am currently receiving support for the workshop from the Centre for
Speech Technology Research, at the University of Edinburgh, and am
negotiating for further funding from a number of institutions both in
Britain and Italy (including the Italian National Research Council and
companies such as Olivetti).
Aside from the collection of papers mentioned in the abstract below, I
certainly envisage being able to provide a report suitable for inclusion
in AI Magazine.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Gerry T.M. Altmann
Centre for Speech Technology Research
University of Edinburgh
80 South Bridge
Edinburgh EH1 1HN.
Scotland.
Tel: (031) 225 8883
e-mail: gerry@eusip.ed.ac.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speech Processing:
cognitive and computational perspectives
The aim of this workshop is to draw together current trends of research
within the field of speech processing. Models of human speech
processing within the framework of cognitive psychology often
concentrate on relatively isolated aspects of the process (e.g. the role
of the syllable), whereas in other cases more global models of the
process have been attempted (e.g. the Cohort model). However, the
mechanisms which have been proposed vary in the degree to which they are
amenable to detailed computational modelling.
Within the framework of AI/Cognitive Modelling, research has led to the
development of new and more powerful computational frameworks within
which to model cognitive processes (e.g. Parallel Distributed
Processing; the Active Chart). This has in turn led to the development
of empirically testable models of psychological processing (e.g. TRACE).
Within the field of Automatic Speech Recognition there has been much
discussion concerned with the architectures which are most suited to the
task (e.g. PDP, Chart, Blackboard), as well as the techniques that
should be used for combining information derived from different
knowledge sources (e.g. parsing; evidential reasoning).
These developments within the various fields suggest that it is time to
consider how to integrate both the different types of behavioural data
and the different computational approaches to modelling that data.
One of the outcomes of the workshop will be a collection of papers
describing current positions within the field, and making clear the
implications for the rest of the field. The collection will highlight
those areas where convergence between different approaches is possible,
as well as those where such convergence is not possible.
Approximately twenty-five researchers from the fields of
Psycholinguistics, AI/Cognitive Modelling, and Computational Linguistics
will be invited to participate (see attached list). The workshop will
last for five days, each morning and afternoon session consisting of two
short presentations followed by extensive plenary discussion. The
workshop will be held in Italy, during the last two weeks of May, 1988.
It is envisaged that about half the participants will come from the US;
the other half from Britain and Europe. On the basis of this, and
estimates received for hotel accomodation (including bed, breakfast,
lunch, and use of a conference room), the total funding required is
14000 pounds sterling (approx. $22400). This includes travel costs for
all participants (see attached budget).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRELIMINARY LIST OF INVITED PARTICIPANTS.
(* = already agreed, in principle, to participate
x = unable to attend)
Jonathan Allen
* Ellen Bard
Ken Church
* Anne Cutler
* Cindy Connine
* Jeff Elman
* Uli Frauenfelder
Janet Fodor
x Francois Grosjean
Barbara Grosz
Geoff Hinton
* Steve Isard
Aravind Joshi
* Bob Ladd
Jay McClelland
Mitch Marcus
* William Marslen-Wilson
* Jacques Mehler
* Dennis Norris
Dominico Parisi
Janet Pierrehumbert
Juan Segui
* Richard Shillcock
Mike Tanenhaus
* Henry Thompson
* Lolly Tyler
* Bonnie Webber
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BREAKDOWN OF FUNDING REQUIRED (in US dollars, assuming $1.6 to the
British pound)
(1) Accommodation
This is based on estimates supplied by the hotels concerned, and
includes nightly accommodation, breakfast, lunch, and conference room
facilities over the full five day period.
per person 216
TOTAL 6048
(2) Travel
It is anticipated that about fifteen participants will be travelling
from Europe, and the remaining from the US.
per person (Europe) 400
per person (US) 720
TOTAL 15360
(3) Organisation
Initial trip to finalise local arrangements 560
Copying costs 432
TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED: $22400
∂26-Oct-87 1147 Yuri_Gurevich@um.cc.umich.edu Operational semantics
Received: from UMIX.CC.UMICH.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Oct 87 11:47:05 PST
Received: by umix.cc.umich.edu (5.54/umix-2.0)
id AA16637; Mon, 26 Oct 87 14:50:31 EST
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 87 14:46:56 EST
From: Yuri_Gurevich@um.cc.umich.edu
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <2417186@um.cc.umich.edu>
Subject: Operational semantics
John,
Do you know any operational approaches that are substantially
different from those of yourself, Landin, VDL, Plotkin ?
Thank you very much,
-Yuri
∂26-Oct-87 1200 Mailer failed mail returned
In processing the following command:
MAIL
The following message was aborted because of a command error,
namely, nonexistent recipient(s):
Yuri
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
26-Oct-87 1200 JMC _Gurevich@um.cc.umich.edu
re: Operational semantics
[In reply to message sent Mon, 26 Oct 87 14:46:56 EST.]
You should ask someone who is more current in the various approaches,
for example, my wife, Carolyn Talcott, clt@sail.stanford.edu.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂26-Oct-87 1215 Mailer failed mail returned
In processing the following command:
MAIL
The following message was aborted because of a command error,
namely, nonexistent recipient(s):
Yuri
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
26-Oct-87 1215 JMC _Gurevich@um.cc.umich.edu
re: Operational semantics
[In reply to message sent Mon, 26 Oct 87 14:46:56 EST.]
You should ask someone who is more current in the various approaches,
for example, my wife, Carolyn Talcott, clt@sail.stanford.edu.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂26-Oct-87 1325 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Oct 87 13:25:34 PST
Date: Mon 26 Oct 87 13:22:30-PST
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Winter CS101 text
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon 26 Oct 87 12:58:00-PST
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12345643009.52.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Ed Feigenbaum taught it last in Winter Quarter of 1985/86.
Claire
-------
∂26-Oct-87 1508 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Umbrella Proposal
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Oct 87 15:08:53 PST
Date: Mon 26 Oct 87 15:05:45-PST
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Umbrella Proposal
To: TOB@Sail.Stanford.EDU, Buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
Cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU, Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
Feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, Genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
Latombe@Coyote.Stanford.EDU, DCL@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
ZM@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JLH@Sonoma.Stanford.EDU,
Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
cc: Nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU, LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
BScott@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12345661803.32.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Concerning Nils' message which I forwarded to you this morning, it is not
necessary at this stage to prepare the financial/budget part of the proposal.
But you should proceed to prepare a scope of work statement. As mentioned
at the meeting we had on October 15, Les is coordinating this aspect of the
proposal preparation.
Betty
-------
∂26-Oct-87 2021 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Gang of four
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Oct 87 20:21:44 PST
Date: Mon 26 Oct 87 20:18:42-PST
From: Ilan Vardi <ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Gang of four
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: ilan@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon 26 Oct 87 08:22:00-PST
Message-ID: <12345718775.14.ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Name is fine. But if you wanted to name it after a tree, the canonical
choice would be Palo, but of course there would also be Ilan.
-------
∂26-Oct-87 2135 JK
Some news:
Shankar just checked with NSF re our proposal; the word is that
all the reviews are in and they are working on the budget for it.
I guess this means that the news is good, so far.
Re MAD: Sorry you couldn't make it for the board meeting. I have
finished re-organizing the staff, I re-defined the product line and
re-designed RelationalLisp. I have an excellent set of managers.
I am currently looking for outside consultants to do a sanity check on
the newest design, both from the Lisp world and data base world.
Any suggestions?
Re GLB: We have determined that a very cheap No Counterexample
Interpretation can be gotten by wrapping code around both the
rewriter and the decision procedure that allows one to catch all of
the unifiers used in a proof. This will make the proof-theoretic
transformations that we were thinking of doing far easier.
Last summer we talked about the problem of controlling the
reasoning process; I have recently been thinking about this in
terms of separating the combinatorics (and controlling combinatorics)
from the logical content of the problem. I have embellished my old
decision procedure so that it is complete. It now creates a
combinatorial problem similar to a kind of graph traversal;
controlling reasoning now becomes equivalent to controlling the
search for a path through this graph. Backward chaining, for example,
corresponds to depth-first search etc. Thus the problem of controlling
reasoning becomes the problem of specifying alogorithms for search.
Is this close to what you were thinking about?
Best Regards,
Jussi.
∂27-Oct-87 0934 ULLMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Paper available
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Oct 87 09:34:42 PST
Date: Tue 27 Oct 87 09:24:45-PST
From: Jeffrey D. Ullman <ULLMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Paper available
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 27 Oct 87 09:22:00-PST
Message-ID: <12345861870.39.ULLMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
OK.
---jdu
-------
∂27-Oct-87 1025 Yuri_Gurevich@um.cc.umich.edu re: Operational semantics
Received: from UMIX.CC.UMICH.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Oct 87 10:25:36 PST
Received: by umix.cc.umich.edu (5.54/umix-2.0)
id AA06762; Tue, 27 Oct 87 13:29:27 EST
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 87 13:26:18 EST
From: Yuri_Gurevich@um.cc.umich.edu
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <2421010@um.cc.umich.edu>
Subject: re: Operational semantics
Thank you. I will ask Carolyn Talcott about various approaches.
-Yuri
∂27-Oct-87 1110 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU greetings
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Oct 87 11:10:48 PST
Date: Tue 27 Oct 87 11:07:44-PST
From: Yoav Shoham <SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: greetings
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12345880618.34.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Beside a greeting note, this is to let you know of some things that are
going on here. One thing you may want to know is that I sort of adopted
Lin, the Chinese guy that hung around here. He's really astounding. He
had the completeness result for the modal version of circumscription
(which may interest you), and now has a very clever result on a
logic of time and knowledge I'm working on (which interests me). Beside
his technical skills, he also has broad intuitions and self
confidence. I arranged to have him supported for while.
I'm looking forward to your return. I've been thinking more about
fuzzy concepts, but my view has changed somewhat. I don't have any
results to report, but I could use an exchange of informal ideas.
I hope you're having a good time, in TX, Scandinavia, or wherever.
Yoav
-------
∂27-Oct-87 1947 QLisp-mailer a reminder
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Oct 87 19:47:03 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA02314; Tue, 27 Oct 87 19:46:27 pst
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 87 19:46:27 pst
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8710280346.AA02314@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: a reminder
The next QLISP meeting will be held this wednesday, the 28th of October
at 11am in MJH352. In addition to the usual agenda Arkady might tell us
about his experiments with polynomials.
CU there
∂28-Oct-87 1333 ZM Mihailov's visit
Hi John,
I delayed my reply to you concerning Mihailov's visit, because I had a hard
time making up my mind. I have had bad experiences with visitors whom I had
not met before they came to Stanford. They took a lot of my time and did not
contribute much to my projects.
I would be happy to talk with Mihailov and (if it works out) to work with
him, but I would hesitate to be his official host.
Zohar
∂28-Oct-87 1347 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU challenge
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Oct 87 13:47:13 PST
Date: Wed 28 Oct 87 13:43:09-PST
From: Yoav Shoham <SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: challenge
To: principia@Score.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
lin@Sail.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, mcdermott@YALE.ARPA,
val@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12346171056.22.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
(Mike, could you forward to mugs? I failed)
Motivation: My definition of causation has a strong syntactic flavor, where
phi |= CAUSES(A,B) if (among other things) []A & <>C => []B is
a *member* of phi, for some C. I want a semantical definition.
Proposal:
phi |= CAUSES(A,B) just in case
phi |= []A & <>C => []B for some C, and
there do not exist phi',C' such that
phi' < phi and
phi' |= []A & <>C' => []B
where phi' < phi stands for (phi => phi' & - (phi' => phi))
(Recall that we can read []X as ``X is known'', and <>X=-[]-X).
Notice that nonmonotonicity plays no role in the definition of
causation (it does in the use of term).
Question: There must be bugs in the definition. What are they? Any cases
which it should cover commonsensically speaking but doesn't formally,
or vice versa?
Yoav
-------
∂28-Oct-87 1352 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU oh, and ..
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Oct 87 13:51:56 PST
Date: Wed 28 Oct 87 13:47:53-PST
From: Yoav Shoham <SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: oh, and ..
To: principia@Score.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
lin@Sail.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, val@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
mcdermott@YALE.ARPA
Message-ID: <12346171917.22.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
of course, the A, B, C are indexed by time, and A, C, C' precede B
Yoav
-------
∂28-Oct-87 1410 AIR re: report on ebos
[In reply to message rcvd 08-Oct-87 21:17-PT.]
It turned out that Less have not sent our report to IBM yet.
Do you think that we should modify it into final report?
Arkady
∂28-Oct-87 1733 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
INFERRING NEGATIVE INFORMATION FROM DISJUNSTIVE DATABASES
Thursday, October 29, 4:15pm
MJH 252
Ken Ross (KAR@ROCKY.STANFORD.EDU)
This talk is based on work done with Rodney Topor at Melbourne University.
A disjunctive database is one in which rules may have a disjunction of
atoms in their heads. Several mechanisms for inferring negative
information have been suggested for this class of databases, all of which
tend to give disjunctions an exclusive interpretation. In some cases,
however, an inclusive interpretation is intended. We propose a new rule,
the "Disjunctive Database Rule" which treats disjunctions inclusively. We
discuss its properties and compare it with other suggested inference rules.
∂28-Oct-87 1825 @RELAY.CS.NET:dlpoole@watdragon.waterloo.edu A question about circumscription.
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Oct 87 18:23:11 PST
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ac14776; 28 Oct 87 17:19 EST
Received: from math.waterloo.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id ag22397; 28 Oct 87 17:05 EST
Received: from watdragon.uucp by watmath; Wed, 28 Oct 87 16:43:06 EST
Received: by watdragon; Wed, 28 Oct 87 16:43:04 EST
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 87 16:43:04 EST
From: David Poole <dlpoole%watdragon.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
Message-Id: <8710282143.AA04297@watdragon.uucp>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: A question about circumscription.
Can circumscription really solve the "birdsfly" example?
Consider the problem of representing the statement:
if X is a bird and you don't know that it is an emu and doesn't fly
then you can assume it flies.
Here we want to be able to write this so we can conclude flies(tweety)
from bird(tweety) AND HAVE NO OTHER SIDE EFEECTS
Reiter's
bird(X) : M flies(X), M not emu(X) / flies(X)
seems to do this (by definition)
Consider, however using the way suggested in McCarthy[86]:
Ax bird(x) & not ab x => flies x
Ax emu x => ab x
bird(tweety)
(here we don't need aspects as I will only use one abnormality)
We want to minimise ab with flies varying.
The problem is whether emu should also be allowed to vary.
There are two cases:
1. emu is not allowed to vary. In this case we cannot say "not ab tweety",
(as this then implies "not emu tweety" and we were not allowed to
affect this) so all we get is "emu tweety == ab tweety" and then can
only conclude "flies tweety or emu tweety" which is not what we
intended.
2. emu is allowed to vary. In this case we then prove (from the
circumscribed database) "not emu tweety" and in fact we can prove
"not emu c" for all constants c. This then goes against our
stipulation of no other side effects.
This is actually a non-trivial side effect, as we will be able to
show that for any x and for any relation r which is exceptional in some
way, "not r x" . For example if we had
australian-animal x == emu x or kangaroo x or dingo x or platypus x
australian-animal bruce
then we could conclude (in an appropriate database)
dingo bruce
(as dingos are the only things in that list which are not exceptional
of the class they are in). This is not what was intended by giving
exceptions to our rules.
So it seems that neither case implements our intended "meaning"
of "birds fly"
Actually I had been trying to solve this "problem" for Theorist (which
actually can be done using constraints, which are not the nicest of
things) by defining an analogous notion of fixed and varying
predicates, but it didn't seem to work.
Is this correct? What am I missing here?
david poole
∂29-Oct-87 0230 @RELAY.CS.NET:dlpoole@watdragon.waterloo.edu re: A question about circumscription.
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Oct 87 02:30:07 PST
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ai19374; 29 Oct 87 0:24 EST
Received: from math.waterloo.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id ab24493; 29 Oct 87 0:03 EST
Received: from watdragon.uucp (watdragon) by watmath; Wed, 28 Oct 87 23:24:46 EST
Received: by watdragon; Wed, 28 Oct 87 23:24:44 EST
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 87 23:24:44 EST
From: David Poole <dlpoole%watdragon.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
Message-Id: <8710290424.AA11835@watdragon.uucp>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, dlpoole%watdragon.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: re: A question about circumscription.
No, the idea begind the dingo example is that the same problem that
rises for emus (i.e. that we can explain "not emu bruce") will arise
for kangaroos and platypuss (eg, because they are abnormal in that they
jump around or that they lay eggs and suckle their young), hovever if,
because of the rest of our knowledge, dingos are the class that is not
abnormal, then we will be able to show that bruce is not a kangaroo,
not an emu and not a platypus, but is an australian animal and so must
be a dingo. The idea is that this side effect (of proving "not emu
bruce" can have an effect on other things in the database).
Does this make sense?
david
∂29-Oct-87 0825 REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: your Participation in the High Noon Lecture Series
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Oct 87 08:25:04 PST
Date: Thu 29 Oct 87 08:24:35-PST
From: Rick Reis <REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: your Participation in the High Noon Lecture Series
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 27 Oct 87 19:21:00-PST
Message-ID: <12346375205.16.REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
John: Thanks, I'll get back to you as soon as I check with Jim Gibbons
on what is best for him.
Rick
-------
∂29-Oct-87 0842 reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET AAAI grant request
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Oct 87 08:42:19 PST
Received: from ai.toronto.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id aa25357; 29 Oct 87 11:29 EST
Received: from ray.ai.toronto.edu (ray.ai) by ai.toronto.edu via UNIX id AA08897; Thu, 29 Oct 87 01:02:48 EST
Received: from reiter by ray.ai.toronto.edu via UNIX with love id AA02595; Wed, 28 Oct 87 15:57:45 EST
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 87 15:57:45 EST
From: Ray Reiter <reiter@ai.toronto.edu>
Message-Id: <8710282057.AA02595@ray.ai.toronto.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: AAAI grant request
Dear John,
Some time ago Ron Brachman requested a 10K grant from AAAI as seed money for a
conference that he, Hector Levesque and I are planning for May of 89. That's
the conference I asked you to serve on the program committee. I'm including our
preliminary call for papers as a reminder. So far we haven't had an answer to
our request. Claudia Mazzetti suggested I contact you on this. Since we have to
put together a budget on this pretty quickly, we need to know soon.
Thanks, and best wishes,
Ray
CALL FOR PAPERS
FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING
[conference site]
Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
∂29-Oct-87 0845 reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET AAAI grant request
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Oct 87 08:44:58 PST
Received: from ai.toronto.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id aa25423; 29 Oct 87 11:33 EST
Received: from ray.ai.toronto.edu (ray.ai) by ai.toronto.edu via UNIX id AA08350; Thu, 29 Oct 87 00:02:46 EST
Received: from reiter by ray.ai.toronto.edu via UNIX with love id AA02595; Wed, 28 Oct 87 15:57:45 EST
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 87 15:57:45 EST
From: Ray Reiter <reiter@ai.toronto.edu>
Message-Id: <8710282057.AA02595@ray.ai.toronto.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: AAAI grant request
Dear John,
Some time ago Ron Brachman requested a 10K grant from AAAI as seed money for a
conference that he, Hector Levesque and I are planning for May of 89. That's
the conference I asked you to serve on the program committee. I'm including our
preliminary call for papers as a reminder. So far we haven't had an answer to
our request. Claudia Mazzetti suggested I contact you on this. Since we have to
put together a budget on this pretty quickly, we need to know soon.
Thanks, and best wishes,
Ray
CALL FOR PAPERS
FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING
[conference site]
Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
∂29-Oct-87 0932 reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET AAAI grant request
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Oct 87 09:32:11 PST
Received: from ai.toronto.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id aa26058; 29 Oct 87 12:20 EST
Received: from ray.ai.toronto.edu by ai.toronto.edu via UNIX id AA02710; Thu, 29 Oct 87 12:02:47 EST
Received: from reiter by ray.ai.toronto.edu via UNIX with love id AA02595; Wed, 28 Oct 87 15:57:45 EST
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 87 15:57:45 EST
From: Ray Reiter <reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
Message-Id: <8710282057.AA02595@ray.ai.toronto.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: AAAI grant request
Dear John,
Some time ago Ron Brachman requested a 10K grant from AAAI as seed money for a
conference that he, Hector Levesque and I are planning for May of 89. That's
the conference I asked you to serve on the program committee. I'm including our
preliminary call for papers as a reminder. So far we haven't had an answer to
our request. Claudia Mazzetti suggested I contact you on this. Since we have to
put together a budget on this pretty quickly, we need to know soon.
Thanks, and best wishes,
Ray
CALL FOR PAPERS
FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING
[conference site]
Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
May 15-18, 1989
Sponsored by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
[other sponsoring organizations - expected: AAAI, CSCSI, SIGART]
The idea of explicit representations of knowledge, manipulated by
general-purpose inference algorithms, underlies much of the work in artificial
intelligence, from natural language to expert systems. A growing number of
researchers are interested in the principles governing systems based on this
idea. This conference will bring together these researchers in a more
intimate setting than that of the general AI conferences. In particular, all
authors will be expected to appear and give presentations of adequate length
to present substantial results. We also hope to avoid parallel sessions.
Accepted papers will be collected in a conference proceedings, to be published
by Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
The conference will focus on principles of commonsense reasoning and
representation, as distinct from concerns of engineering and details of
implementation. Thus of direct interest are logical specifications of
reasoning behaviors, comparative analyses of competing algorithms and
theories, and analyses of the correctness and/or the computational complexity
of reasoning algorithms. Papers that attempt to move away from or refute the
knowledge-based paradigm in a principled way are also welcome, so long as
appropriate connections are made to the central body of work in the field.
Submissions are encouraged in at least the following topic areas:
Analogical Reasoning Diagnostic and Abductive Reasoning
Commonsense Reasoning Planning
Evidential Reasoning Knowledge Representation Formalisms
Inductive Reasoning Theories of the Commonsense World
Nonmonotonic Reasoning Theories of Knowledge and Belief
Qualitative Reasoning Belief Management and Revision
Deductive Reasoning Formal Task and Domain Specifications
REVIEW OF PAPERS
The Program Committee will review extended abstracts (not complete papers).
In order to ensure the highest quality, each submission will be read by at
least two members of the Committee and judged on clarity, significance, and
originality. An important criterion for acceptance of a paper is that it
clearly contribute to principles of representation and reasoning that are
likely to influence current and future AI practice.
Extended abstracts should contain enough information to enable the Program
Committee to identify the principal contribution of the research and its
importance. It should also be clear from the extended abstract how the work
compares to related work in the field. References to relevant literature must
be included.
Submitted papers must never have been published. Submissions must also be
substantively different from papers currently under review and must not be
submitted elsewhere before the author notification date (December 15, 1988).
SUBMISSION OF PAPERS
Submitted abstracts must be at most eight (8) double-spaced pages. All
abstracts must be submitted on 8-1/2" x 11" paper (or alternatively, a4),
and typed in 12-point font (pica on standard typewriter). Dot matrix
printout is not acceptable.
Abstracts must be received no later than November 1, 1988, at the address
listed immediately below. Authors will be notified of the Program Committee's
decision by December 15, 1988. Final camera-ready copies of the full papers
will be due a short time later, on February 15, 1989. Final papers will be at
most twelve (12) double-column pages in the conference proceedings.
Send five (5) copies of extended abstracts [one copy is acceptable from
countries where access to copiers is limited] to
Ron Brachman and Hector Levesque, Program Co-chairs
First International Conference on Principles of
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
c/o AT&T Bell Laboratories
600 Mountain Avenue, Room 3C-439
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
USA
Inquiries of a general nature can be addressed to the Conference Chair:
Raymond Reiter, Conference Chair
First International Conference on Principles of
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
c/o Department of Computer Science
University of Toronto
10 Kings College Road
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4
CANADA
electronic mail: reiter@ai.toronto.edu
IMPORTANT DATES
Submission deadline: November 1, 1988
Author notification date: December 15, 1988
Camera-ready copy due
to publisher: February 15, 1989
Conference: May 15-18, 1989
PROGRAM COMMITTEE
James Allen (University of Rochester)
Giuseppe Attardi
Woody Bledsoe (MCC/University of Texas)
Alan Bundy (Edinburgh University)
Eugene Charniak (Brown University)
Veronica Dahl (Simon Fraser University)
Koichi Furukawa (ICOT)
Johan de Kleer (Xerox PARC)
Herve Gallaire (European Computer Industry Research Center)
Michael Genesereth (Stanford University)
Michael Georgeff (SRI International)
Pat Hayes (Xerox PARC)
Geoff Hinton (University of Toronto)
Bob Kowalski (Imperial College)
Vladimir Lifschitz (Stanford University)
Alan Mackworth (University of British Columbia)
Drew McDermott (Yale University)
Tom Mitchell (Carnegie-Mellon University)
Robert Moore (SRI International)
Judea Pearl (UCLA)
Stan Rosenschein (SRI International)
Stuart Shapiro (SUNY at Buffalo)
William Woods (Applied Expert Systems)
∂29-Oct-87 0951 reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET AAAI grant request
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Oct 87 09:51:43 PST
Received: from ai.toronto.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id aa26247; 29 Oct 87 12:33 EST
Received: from ray.ai.toronto.edu (ray.ai) by ai.toronto.edu via UNIX id AA10613; Thu, 29 Oct 87 04:02:46 EST
Received: from reiter by ray.ai.toronto.edu via UNIX with love id AA02595; Wed, 28 Oct 87 15:57:45 EST
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 87 15:57:45 EST
From: Ray Reiter <reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
Message-Id: <8710282057.AA02595@ray.ai.toronto.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: AAAI grant request
Dear John,
Some time ago Ron Brachman requested a 10K grant from AAAI as seed money for a
conference that he, Hector Levesque and I are planning for May of 89. That's
the conference I asked you to serve on the program committee. I'm including our
preliminary call for papers as a reminder. So far we haven't had an answer to
our request. Claudia Mazzetti suggested I contact you on this. Since we have to
put together a budget on this pretty quickly, we need to know soon.
Thanks, and best wishes,
Ray
CALL FOR PAPERS
FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING
[conference site]
Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
May 15-18, 1989
Sponsored by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
[other sponsoring organizations - expected: AAAI, CSCSI, SIGART]
The idea of explicit representations of knowledge, manipulated by
general-purpose inference algorithms, underlies much of the work in artificial
intelligence, from natural language to expert systems. A growing number of
researchers are interested in the principles governing systems based on this
idea. This conference will bring together these researchers in a more
intimate setting than that of the general AI conferences. In particular, all
authors will be expected to appear and give presentations of adequate length
to present substantial results. We also hope to avoid parallel sessions.
Accepted papers will be collected in a conference proceedings, to be published
by Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
The conference will focus on principles of commonsense reasoning and
representation, as distinct from concerns of engineering and details of
∂29-Oct-87 1024 JDP What I've been doing
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
The purpose of this message is to let you know what I've been working on.
If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know.
I've done a scheduler for Qlisp. After alot of trial and error, the one which
I finally developed is very similar to Halstead's multiple queue organization.
For N processors, there are N stacks of tasks. When a processor has to add
a task, it adds it on its "own" stack. When it has to get a task, it first looks
on its own stack. If it does not find anything, it then begins to cyclicly
examine the other stacks for tasks. So when there is sufficient parallelism
in a program, each processor mainly works from its own stack.
When calculating Fib with QLET T, this setup works at 1/3 efficiency for
sufficiently large fibonacci calculations. That is, with k processors, this
scheduling scheme results in k/3 effective processors. The precise ration
is asymptotic to the amount of computation in a single fib call divided by
the cost of creating the process, plus pushing and popping it from the stack.
Asymptotically, there is no idle time and no inter-processor contention.
This scheduker compares quite favorably with the single queue organization,
where more processors meaans more contention.
An interesting optimization in the nqueue scheduler is a predicate (my-qempty-p).
Calculating Fib using (Qlet (my-qempty-p)...) causes very little process
creation, enqueing, and dequeueing. We get nearly k effective processors
out of k. Asymptotically, on k processors the effective processor usage is
equal to the amount of fibonacci computation divided by the
(NULL (STACK (CURRENT-PROCESSOR))) computation. On Joe's simulator, using
the nqueue scheduler and this predicate results in nearly 80% utilization
of k processors. It could be higher on a real machine, where the compiler
can put the NULL test in-line.
I think that this predicate should be made available to the programmer.
I also started to gather data on the various sorting algorithms developed by Joe
and Igor. I hacked on the Quicksort algorithm and got a method
which yields a speed-up factor of (MIN #processors (log n)), for arrays of size
n≥200 or so. Igor's paper said you couldn't get this much speed-up out of
parallel quicksort for N<10000, but I was able to elegantly parallelize the
partition procedure.
I'm also working on my Hamiltonian Circuit algorithm for sparse graphs. To
make it relevant, it takes a propositional logic expression as input, translates
this to a directed graph. It finds a hamiltonian circuit if there is one.
It tends to run faster when there isn't any hamiltonian circuit, due to brain-
damaged code. Also, the Alliant version doesn't quite run yet.
Well, I guess that is enough communication for now.
-dan
∂29-Oct-87 1406 VAL re: Mikhailov
[In reply to message rcvd 29-Oct-87 14:00-PT.]
OK. As I understand, what Mikhailov needs a letter from Stanford saying that
he would be welcome here.
∂29-Oct-87 1435 VAL re: Mikhailov
[In reply to message rcvd 29-Oct-87 14:19-PT.]
I guess you're right. I've never seen any of Mikhailov's work, so I don't
have any specific ideas about how he would contribute to our project. I'll
explain the situation to Minc.
∂29-Oct-87 1540 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU Ramin Zabih
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Oct 87 15:40:01 PST
Date: Thu 29 Oct 87 15:36:23-PST
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Ramin Zabih
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: ungar@Sonoma.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12346453812.16.TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John, Ramin Zabih has volunteered to speak at the Forum. It looks
like he is a second year student. He says he has some results to
talk about. Can you guide me on this?
Carolyn
-------
∂29-Oct-87 1731 VAL Poole
David Poole from Waterloo will spend the next week in this area. He's doing
some interesting work, and I've invited him to give a talk at our seminar.
His topic is "Issues in Implementing a Default Reasoning System". It would
be nice if we could give him a honorarium. What do you think?
∂29-Oct-87 1747 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTING A DEFAULT REASONING SYSTEM
Thursday, November 5, 4:15pm
MJH 252
David Poole
(dlpoole%watdragon.waterloo.edu@relay.cs.net)
Logic Programming and Artificial Intelligence Group
University of Waterloo
I have been working on the hypothesis that the problem of
nonmonotonicity is not a problem with logic but with how logic is
used. Theorist is a default reasoning system based on theory formation
from a fixed set of possible hypotheses. Various versions have been
implemented. In this talk I will discuss issues which arise in
implementing Theorist and related systems. In particular I wish to
concentrate on four issues:
1. The problem of existential and universally quantified variables in
the instances of defaults one wants to assume.
2. Determining whether some proposition is in every extension (without
generating extensions).
3. Implementing fixed and variable relations.
4. Maintaining explanations when we are using the system not for prediction
but for explanation of observations as an abductive recognition system.
(Notice: This is a different talk to the one David gives at SRI on Monday.)
∂30-Oct-87 0733 PHY
this letter was sent on October 2. Do you still want me to send the one mailed
to me yesterday afternoon?
\jmclet
\vskip 30pt
\address
Prof.\ J. Moses, Head
Dept. of EE and CS
38-403
M.I.T.
Cambridge, MA 02139
\body
Dear Prof.\ Moses:
I have been following Professor Robert H. Halstead's work,
because his approach to parallel execution of LISP is similar
to mine, and in many respects he is ahead of us.
I believe that his Concert Multiprocessor and its use
for implementing his parallel LISP Multilisp is a scientific
and engineering achievement well meriting tenure. I~know
more about the language part than the machine part or the
implementation, and I~consider Multilisp a well designed langauge.
In this narrow field, his is one of three efforts in
the world, our QLISP and Ito's PAILISP at Tohoku University in
Sendai, Japan being the other two. Halstead started implementation
first and is ahead. In the larger field of parallel computing,
I~suppose he is well respected, but I~imagine this depends in part
on whether the other people agree with his approach to parallelism.
I think his is the right approach to parallel symbolic
computation and that parallelism is required for high performance
symbolic computation. Therefore, his work will gain in importance
and recognition.
I don't know about his teaching, but his lectures at meetings
are entirely clear.
His work is well presented both orally and in writing, and
this gives it a leading position. For example, BBN chose to implement
Multilisp on their Butterfly machine even though the Butterfly
architecture is only partly suited for it. Their new project, Monarch,
goes further in Halstead's direction.
I don't know his former graduate students.
He seems to have many more ideas than those involved in
Multilisp and the ability and motivation to implement them, and
therefore I~expect further professional growth.
I have no doubts about recommending him for tenure or
even a full professorship.
\closing
Sincerely,
John McCarthy
Professor
\annotations
JMc/pw
%\smallskip
%cc: R. Askey
%\smallskip
%Enclosure: Nomination of Ullman to American Academy of Arts and Sciences
%\leavevmode\phantom{Enclosures: }Sample page from `Concrete Mathematics'
%\leavevmode\phantom{Enclosures: }copy of {\tt JUMBLES} letter
%\leavevmode\phantom{cc: }Herb Wilf
%\smallskip
%\ps
%P.S. \enspace The $q$-analog seems to be
\endletter
%\makelabel
%\end
%\def\today{June 12, 1987}
\jmclet
\vskip 30pt
%\closing
%re: Roger Hunter
\address
Prof.\ J. Moses, Head
Dept. of EE and CS
38-403
M.I.T.
Cambridge, MA 02139
\body
Dear Prof.\ Moses:
I have been following Professor Robert H. Halstead's work,
because his approach to parallel execution of LISP is similar
to mine, and in many respects he is ahead of us.
I believe that his Concert Multiprocessor and its use
for implementing his parallel LISP Multilisp is a scientific
and engineering achievement well meriting tenure. I~know
more about the language part than the machine part or the
implementation, and I~consider Multilisp a well designed langauge.
In this narrow field, his is one of three efforts in
the world, our QLISP and Ito's PAILISP at Tohoku University in
Sendai, Japan being the other two. Halstead started implementation
first and is ahead. In the larger field of parallel computing,
I~suppose he is well respected, but I~imagine this depends in part
on whether the other people agree with his approach to parallelism.
I think his is the right approach to parallel symbolic
computation and that parallelism is required for high performance
symbolic computation. Therefore, his work will gain in importance
and recognition.
I don't know about his teaching, but his lectures at meetings
are entirely clear.
His work is well presented both orally and in writing, and
this gives it a leading position. For example, BBN chose to implement
Multilisp on their Butterfly machine even though the Butterfly
architecture is only partly suited for it. Their new project, Monarch,
goes further in Halstead's direction.
I don't know his former graduate students.
He seems to have many more ideas than those involved in
Multilisp and the ability and motivation to implement them, and
therefore I~expect further professional growth.
I have no doubts about recommending him for tenure or
even a full professorship.
\closing
Sincerely,
John McCarthy
Professor
\annotations
JMc/pw
%\smallskip
%cc: R. Askey
%\smallskip
%Enclosure: Nomination of Ullman to American Academy of Arts and Sciences
%\leavevmode\phantom{Enclosures: }Sample page from `Concrete Mathematics'
%\leavevmode\phantom{Enclosures: }copy of {\tt JUMBLES} letter
%\leavevmode\phantom{cc: }Herb Wilf
%\smallskip
%\ps
%P.S. \enspace The $q$-analog seems to be
\endletter
\makelabel
\end
∂30-Oct-87 0936 PHY
mail:
`Options' from Internatinal Institute for Appl Systems Analysis
Focus
Bulletin The American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Computing Reviews
Communications of the ACM
Daedalus
reports list from INRIA
The American Math Monthly
Science
∂30-Oct-87 0936 PHY
mail:
`The economics of gateway technologies and network evolution: Lessons from
electricity supply history' by Paul David and Julie Bunn
Social Science History Workshop Program Oct 21, 1987
statement from Teachers Insurance and Annuity Assoc. .. Fund (transactions)
NSF Division of Information, Robotics, and Intelligent Systems -- vacancies
in their division. seeking qualified candidates ...
`Time and tplan user's manual' by John C. Hogge [report - U of Illinois]
`Tplan: a temporal interval-based planner with novel extensions' by Hogge
[report - U of Illinois]
`The compilation of planning operators from qualitative process theory models'
by Hogge [report - U of Illinois]
National Researach Council `News Report'
NSF Fiscaal year 1986 Summary of awards
Values, Technology, Science, and Society: Stanford Porgram (booklet)
Invitation to you from Michael Reinfrank of Dept. of Computer and Information
Science, University of Linkoping to Second Intrnational Workshop
on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, to be held June 13-15, 1988 in Grassau near Munich
Access to Energy
X3J13 Meeting 11/16/87 - 11/18/87 at Fort Collins, Colorado
The Instrument Data Center request foo information on research projects
from IFIP: sorry that you have resigned from your membership to WG 2.2
urgent from Pan Am -- transfer of miles to worldpass deadline Oct. 31.
PSA Executive Flyer Club mileage data
final consideration of Glenn Shafer, U of Kansas, for Harper Distinguished
Professorship. letter of recommendation requested. vita enclosed
needed by Oct. 31. best to call I would say (913) 864-3795 David Shulenburger
Associate Dean at U of Kansas
Stanford benefits newsletter
request for your abstract of the Moscow-Congress 1987 (section 5) paper.
also `Applications of circumscription to formalizing commonsense knowledge'
which I'll send when I find out what the title is to the Moscow paper.
office memo from Bob Eustis regarding Equipment for Instruction and
Non-sponsored Research - proposals wanted
Science - October 16
American Airlines Advantage Program Mileage Summary
Focus - October
The Expert Systems and AI Symposium announcement
Draft report of the September meeting of NASA/JPL TeleRobotics Technology
Advisory Committee
Bulletin of the American Math Society
Japanese journal - volume 57, no. 11, from Iwanami Shoten, Publishers
proposal that Richard Duda be appointed as lecturer for CS 108A Winter
and Spring quarters - vita
invitation to IFIP WG 2.2 meeting in Sophia Antipolis, June 20, 1988
`Reasoning about Change' book by Yoav Shoham
Notices of the American Math Society
letter/proposal for small invited workshop that New Mexico State University
hopes AAAI wil help sponsor with a grant for $5000
letter from National Research Council inviting you to accept appointment
as a member of the committee to study developments in computer science
and technology as they relate to export controls. Reply needed soon.
∂30-Oct-87 0950 RWF re: Who's Who?
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Oct-87 09:16-PT.]
There are in fact several independent publishers of whoswhos.
At least one requires a purchase.
∂30-Oct-87 1117 PHY
Need to know name of abstract (see below) so that I can mail these items.
Request for your abstract of the Moscow-Congress 1987 (section 5) paper.
Also `Applications of circumscription to formalizing commonsense knowledge'
which I'll send when I find out what the title is to the Moscow paper.
∂30-Oct-87 1342 LES Posting
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Oct-87 13:38-PT.]
I have John Reuling trying to chase down the message. Are you pretty
sure that it didn't get out? If so, I can call off the chase.
∂30-Oct-87 1428 Qlisp-mailer Jack Test
To: Qlisp@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Joe Weening <JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Jack Test called me today to say that he is leaving Alliant to join
Kendall Square Research in Cambridge, where they are working on a new
multiprocessor. He will be starting there next week. Someone else at
Alliant will be taking over his job, but in the meantime we can still
call him at (617) 494-1146 with any questions.
∂01-Nov-87 1210 @Score.Stanford.EDU:nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU AI Qual Exams
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Nov 87 12:10:14 PST
Received: from Tenaya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Sun 1 Nov 87 12:04:14-PST
Received: by Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA06683; Sun, 1 Nov 87 12:03:53 PST
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 87 12:03:53 PST
From: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8711012003.AA06683@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
To: Feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, WINOGRAD@CSLI,
JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, Rosenbloom@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
BINFORD@WHITNEY, Shortliffe@SUMEX, shoham, latombe@whitney, nilsson,
weise@score, stan@warbucks.ai.sri.com, val@su-ai, hayes-roth@sumex,
tenenbaum@spar-20, konolige@warbucks.ai.sri.com, duda@sushi,
bmoore@warbucks.ai.sri.com
Subject: AI Qual Exams
Stanford's CS Dept. is giving its "Qualifying Exam" in AI on December
7, 1987. It's a 2 or 2 1/2 hour oral exam (format details will come later),
and we may give Dec. 7 morning and afternoon versions (depending
on how many students sign up to take the exam). Also depending on how
many students sign up, we may have some outside (of Stanford AI
faculty) participate in the exam. Thus, I'm
sending this msg to an omnibus list of persons. Some of you I know
are out of town and/or are on sabbatical, but I'm sending the msg
to you anyway in case you are going to be in town on Dec. 7 and want
to participate in the exam.
Please respond letting me know:
1) Will you be able to participate on Dec. 7?
2) If so, morning, afternoon, and/or both
3) Any other scheduling constraints that day
We didn't have sufficient faculty members participate in the last
exam, so I hope all resident faculty can do so this time. Thanks, -Nils
∂01-Nov-87 1915 JK
Re your message:
I found David Maier (Oregon Graduate Center) as a database
consultant; people tell me he is fairly knowledgeable.
On controlling reasoning: My scheme works roughly as
follows:
(a) It turns out to be surprisingly trivial to modify
my Journal of Theoretical Computer Science algorithm to handle
full predicate logic.
(b) The expanded algorithm does roughly the following:
Given a formula, it constructs a (potentially infinite) graph G
*in a uniform manner* such that the formula is valid iff there is a
path P through the graph such that
(1) the path P is non-empty
(2) for any "non-terminal" node g there is a set S(g)
of successor nodes such that for any such g in P, S(g)
intersects P
(3) P is "non-cyclic" in some technical sense.
Note that any non-terminal g for which S(g) is empty is automatically
irrelevant and can be eliminated from G (and of course, this can be
iterated to eliminate all those g's whose S(g)'s contain only irrelevant
nodes etc.)
Also, this algorithm is incremental; one can add facts (and data)
to the graph. And delete such stuff. Thus the general program implementing
this algorithm would have the following kinds of functions:
(1) adding and deleting facts
This side-effects the corresponding graph.
(2) deleting elements from the graph
This is always legit.
(3) adding an element to the graph.
can be done only if it represents a valid element.
(4) path construction primitives:
(a) deleting an element from the path
(b) adding an element to the path
(5) verifying that the path is valid
i.e. is non-cyclic and satisfies the other conditions
mentioned above.
This functions would translate, say, to a set of Lisp primitives
that would behave as described above and return some special value if
they fail. Proof-search strategies could then be simply implemented
as Lisp functions manipulating these primitives. So postponement,
backward/forward chaining become natural functions to implement.
Jussi
∂02-Nov-87 0800 JMC
amex about pin
∂02-Nov-87 1353 VAL DARPA umbrella proposal
Here is a draft of what I'm planning to send to Les:
Stanford University proposes to carry out research in basic artificial
intelligence with the goals of identifying and overcoming limitations of
present expert system technology, especially in the area of reasoning
about rational agents, about the knowledge they may possess and about the
effects of their actions on the state of the world. Examples of the kinds
of tasks that will be undertaken in this area include: development of
formalizations of commonsense knowledge and reasoning; development of
computational non-monotonic reasoning; development of general-purpose
knowledge bases; development of systems for computer reasoning and for
computer-assisted human reasoning.
Stanford University proposes to carry out research in mathematical theory
of computation with the goals of clarifying existing programming paradigms
and developing flexible and robust programming methodologies. Examples of
the kinds of tasks that will be undertaken in this area include: developing
a mathematical theory of computing with higher order abstractions (function,
control, assignment, process); developing logical formalisms for reasoning
about programs that use abstraction and reflection; analyzing existing and
proposed languages for specifying, writing, and transforming programs;
developing and implementing tools for computer-aided reasoning about and
operating on programs.
Stanford University proposes to carry out research in the methodology of
symbolic programming with the goal of making significant advances in
the use of shared-memory parallel computing environments in artificial
intelligence. Examples of the kinds of tasks that will be undertaken in
this area include the design of parallel algorithms for such domains as
computer algebra, rule-based systems and AI heuristic search problems,
and refining language implementations to better support efficient
implementation of those algorithms.
∂02-Nov-87 1934 ME UDP1 disk drive working and available
To: DKE@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, ZM@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, RWW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
SF@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
HPM@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, TOB@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, ME@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, TD@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
TPH@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
The UDP1 disk drive is now available, since the disk controller and the
disk channel have been gotten to work again.
Note that there is only one working disk drive, so you will have to share
the drive with other UDP users. Also, since the drive and the packs
haven't been used much lately, I would like you NOT to mount your own disk
packs but rather to ask me to mount them for you, at least for the next
few days. This is to try to avoid any head crashes that might be caused
by dust. Basically, I will want each pack to spin for at least 10 minutes
before having the heads loaded -- this requires removing the drive ID plug
when mounting the pack.
I suggest that you move all your data from the UDP packs to more
dependable media (e.g., tape or other disks). This old disk equipment is
hard to maintain, and it will probably be retired as soon as practicable.
I also recommend that you make tape backups of your pack(s) as soon as
possible. If you need help doing this, let me know. I will be doing
this for some old system packs. The data from one UDP should fit on
one or two 6250-bpi tapes.
∂03-Nov-87 1029 VAL re: DARPA umbrella proposal
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Nov-87 10:16-PT.]
What if I add "analyzing and improving existing operation systems for
concurrent hardware architectures" as a task in the last paragraph?
∂03-Nov-87 1155 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Nov 87 11:55:24 PST
Date: Tue 3 Nov 87 11:51:32-PST
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Winter CS101 text
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon 26 Oct 87 12:58:00-PST
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12347723601.33.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Any decision on the Winter CS101 text yet? I'm trying to get all our orders
in by this Friday, Nov. 6.
Thanks again.
Claire
-------
∂03-Nov-87 1511 LES re: conversation with Jack Schwartz
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Nov-87 12:28-PT.]
As I mentioned earlier, DARPA already put up $250k for the basic AI
project but SPAWASYSCOM accidentally added it to Qlisp funds. Pucci then
told us they were going to move it to the right place, but later changed
his mind and didn't tell us. When I asked last week when the basic AI
project would be funded, he said "soon" but was evasive about the date.
∂03-Nov-87 1738 LES Reprints needed
We needs copies of some of your publications. I expect that a few of these
exist in your files. Do you happen to know which ones you have or where we
should look? -Les
∂02-Nov-87 0915 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU JMC
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Nov 87 09:15:43 PST
Date: Mon 2 Nov 87 09:12:15-PST
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: JMC
To: les@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12347432460.19.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Les,
Could you help me get copies of the following?
-Anne
-----
1. McCarthy, J., ``Programs with Common Sense,'' {\it Mechanisation
of Thought Processes, Proceedings of the Symposium of the National
Physics Laboratory}, Vol.~I\@. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationary
Office, 1958, pp.\ 77--84. (Reprinted in Minsky,~M. (ed.), {\it
Semantic Information Processing}. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968,
pp.\ 403--410.
2. McCarthy, J., ``Situations, Actions and Causal Laws,'' Memo~2.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Artificial Intelligence Project,
1963. Reprinted in Minsky,~M. (ed.), {\it Semantic Information
Processing}. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968, pp.\ 410--418.)
3. McCarthy, J., ``Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and
Their Computation by Machine,'' {\it Communications of the Association
for Computing Machinery}, 3(4):\ 184--195, 1960.
4. McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P., ``Some Philosophical Problems from the
Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence,'' in Meltzer,~B. and Michie,~D.
(eds.), {\it Machine Intelligence~4}. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh
University Press, 1969, pp.\ 463--502.
(Also in Webber,~B.~L. and
Nilsson,~N.~J. (eds.), {\it Readings in Artificial Intelligence}. Los
Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1981.)
5. McCarthy, J., ``Circumscription---A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning,''
{\it Artificial Intelligence}, 13(1--2):\ 27--39, 1980.
(Also in Webber,~B.~L. and Nilsson,~N.~J. (eds.), {\it Readings in
Artificial Intelligence}. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1981.)
6. McCarthy, J., ``Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing
Commonsense Knowledge,'' {\it Artificial Intelligence}, 28(1):\ 89--116,
1986.
-------
∂03-Nov-87 2011 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:bose@faraday.ece.cmu.edu theorem proving example
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Nov 87 20:11:45 PST
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 3 Nov 87 20:08:13-PST
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Tue 3 Nov 87 23:05:09-EST
Received: from faraday.ece.cmu.edu (TCP 20000575402) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 3 Nov 87 22:54:24 EST
Received: by faraday.ece.cmu.edu (5.51/5.17)
id AA17727; Tue, 3 Nov 87 21:18:30 EST
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 87 21:18:30 EST
From: Soumitra Bose <bose@faraday.ece.cmu.edu>
Message-Id: <8711040218.AA17727@faraday.ece.cmu.edu>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: theorem proving example
Hi, CAn you help me with an example which I am unable to solve by hand.
I need a solution to debug a program. I am looking for an ordered linear
resolution refutation proof of the following theorem on Abelian groups.
The first clause is the top clause. The sign "V" is logical OR.
~p(b,a,c);
p(e,X,X);
p(X,e,X);
p(a,b,c);
~p(X,Y,U) V ~p(Y,Z,V) V ~p(X,V,W) V p(U,Z,W);
~p(X,Y,U) V ~p(Y,Z,V) V ~p(U,Z,W) V p(X,V,W);
p(X,X,e).
I will be grateful if you can mail me the solution of this theorem (using
OL resolution). thanks a lot, soumitra bose.
∂03-Nov-87 2111 LES re: JMC
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Nov-87 21:02-PT.]
Thanks. I don't think anyone is using the office.
∂04-Nov-87 0804 TALEEN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: more jokes
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Nov 87 08:04:36 PST
Date: Wed 4 Nov 87 08:01:04-PST
From: Taleen Marashian <TALEEN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: more jokes
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 3 Nov 87 16:20:00-PST
Message-ID: <12347943790.21.TALEEN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Actually, I had thought of that too. The day following "the big plunge"
I spoke to a broker who said that he's been the busiest ever.
(But I still thought the jokes were "cute".)
-------
∂04-Nov-87 0834 MACMILK@Score.Stanford.EDU critics on su-etc
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Nov 87 08:33:55 PST
Date: Wed 4 Nov 87 08:30:03-PST
From: Katie MacMillen <MACMILK@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: critics on su-etc
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12347949065.33.MACMILK@Score.Stanford.EDU>
i never did like mr. bennet(t?) to begin with.
-katie
p.s. it's Mac Millen
-------
∂04-Nov-87 1432 NSH
To: JK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, cs.talcott@R20.UTEXAS.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
The word on the NSF proposal.
I just talked to Dr. Macon, Dr. Keenan's successor at NSF,
about our NSF proposal. Coincidentally, he had the proposal
on his desk and said he was trying to have his part of the
work on it completed today. He said it would be upto
six weeks before we got any definitive word on it since it
has to trickle through various administrative channels.
He gave me his thoughts on the matter with the disclaimer that
they were purely his personal thoughts.
1. He thought that the amount requested was too large, especially
with Stanford's 73% overhead. With the resources at his disposal,
he felt he could only afford to fund Ketonen for 6 months (rather
than a year), myself for 3 months (rather than 6), and Carolyn for
3 months (as requested). He felt that the requested Sun workstation
was dispensable as there are enough of those around (?). He thought
the single graduate student slot was reasonable.
2. His opinion was that with the Stanford's overhead, Stanford
should bear part of the cost.
3. He said the reviews of our proposal were unusually thorough
compared to those for other proposals he had seen.
His phone number is: (202)357-7375; his arpa address should be
macon@nsf.arpa.
Shankar
∂04-Nov-87 1648 Mailer Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTING A DEFAULT REASONING SYSTEM
Thursday, November 5, 4:15pm
MJH 252
David Poole
(dlpoole%watdragon.waterloo.edu@relay.cs.net)
Logic Programming and Artificial Intelligence Group
University of Waterloo
I have been working on the hypothesis that the problem of
nonmonotonicity is not a problem with logic but with how logic is
used. Theorist is a default reasoning system based on theory formation
from a fixed set of possible hypotheses. Various versions have been
implemented. In this talk I will discuss issues which arise in
implementing Theorist and related systems. In particular I wish to
concentrate on four issues:
1. The problem of existential and universally quantified variables in
the instances of defaults one wants to assume.
2. Determining whether some proposition is in every extension (without
generating extensions).
3. Implementing fixed and variable relations.
4. Maintaining explanations when we are using the system not for prediction
but for explanation of observations as an abductive recognition system.
∂04-Nov-87 2027 FRANTS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Gorbachev speech
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Nov 87 20:27:19 PST
Date: Wed 4 Nov 87 19:50:18-PST
From: Leonid Frants <FRANTS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gorbachev speech
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 4 Nov 87 15:51:00-PST
Message-ID: <12348072900.5.FRANTS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Just as I did a few months back, I would like to applaud JMC's cynicism
towards the Soviet's goodwill and honorable intentions. His views are a
welcome deviation from the standards around Universities set by the
Liberals. They are based on the history and experience, which most liberals,
however fair their ideas may appear, fail to appreciate and take into account.
Needless to say my views are identical to his and if Russians ever get here
we will probably both be hung on the same tree. In order to avoid this
sorry ending to our existence I would urge people to listen more to his
opinions. Thank you,
Leonid.
-------
∂04-Nov-87 2027 FRANTS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU previous message.
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Nov 87 20:27:23 PST
Date: Wed 4 Nov 87 19:53:25-PST
From: Leonid Frants <FRANTS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: previous message.
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12348073467.5.FRANTS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
By mistake the last message I wrote was sent to you instead of the
bboard su-etc. I did not use the mailer correctly. I wonder if you could
possibly redirect it to the bboard.su-etc or send it back to me and I'll
post it myself as I do not have a copy.
Thank you,
Leonid.
-------
∂05-Nov-87 0549 LARSEN%UMDC.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu report on September ttac meeting
Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Nov 87 05:49:40 PST
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Thu, 5 Nov 87 05:48:31 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 5 Nov 87 05:49:08 PST
Received: by UMDC (Mailer X1.23b) id 1832; Thu, 05 Nov 87 08:48:22 EST
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 87 08:43:14 EST
From: Ron Larsen <LARSEN%UMDC.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: report on September ttac meeting
In-Reply-To: Message received on Wed, 4 Nov 87 19:36:08 EST
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Thanks for the note regarding "shirt sleeve" qualification
for space-borne computers. I don't think the situation is
much improved for mil-spec, since the 1750A architecture which
NASA cites for space use is the mil-spec machine. Outside of
some special purpose signal processing gear, I am not aware of
high performance, "general purpose" mil-spec machines. Are you?
I like the idea of encouraging NASA to liberalize the space
qualification requirements for computers onboard manned platforms,
though.
∂05-Nov-87 1215 HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Nov 87 12:15:16 PST
Date: Thu 5 Nov 87 12:10:41-PST
From: Thomas Henzinger <HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Logic-of-Programs Seminar
To: LOP: ;
Message-ID: <12348251375.22.HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
**************************************
* LOGIC OF PROGRAMS [LOP] Seminar *
**************************************
Fridays 11:30-12:30, MJH 301 [bring-your-own-lunch style]
November 6: Dr. J.-L. Lassez (IBM Watson Research Center),
"Constraint Logic Programming"
Friday 13: Marianne Baudinet (Stanford Univ.),
"Semantics and Verification of Prolog Programs"
-------
∂05-Nov-87 1254 LES EBOS etc.
1. Arkady mentioned that a final report on EBOS should be sent to IBM, but
he had no address to send it to. Your message mentioned Wegman, so I sent
him the following message.
∂29-Oct-87 1504 LES Final Report on Editor-based Operating System
To: wegman@IBM.COM
John McCarthy says that we should send you the final report on the EBOS
project that was funded by your group. Please give me your address.
---------------
A week has gone by with no reply, but today I received a copy of a letter
from a Christine Carlin of IBM's "Business and Government Relations" to
the Stanford Controller's office with the same request. It too does not
specify an addressee. I guess that I will send the report to Carlin
unless you have a better idea.
2. I just discovered that Shankar has not been reimbursed for the Moscow
trip because the approval request got lost between the Stanford ONR office
and SPAWASYSCOM. The paperwork has been resent and I have requested that
he be reimbursed using unrestricted funds as backup. Are you perhaps in
the same boat?
3. Nils seems to have chosen a new Associate Chairman, who will start in
a week and a half. I plan to move back upstairs, eventually with Shankar
and Arkady, but in the interest of productivity it might be sensible for
me to camp in your office until your return is imminent. Sound
reasonable?
∂05-Nov-87 1418 PHY
mail:
request for you to review `An artificial intelligence approach to legal
reasoning' by Anne von der Lieth Gardner. SIAM REVIEW - if you cannot,
suggest an alternate please.
`Approximate polynomial preconditioning applied to biharmonic equations on
vector supercomputers' by Yau Shu Wong and Hong Jiang (report)
Neil D. Jones - request to be a guest professor here. Vita, many reports.
request for comments on `Towad Hypertext Publishing: Preserving Rights in a
Distributed System' and `Toward Hypertext Publishing: Issues and
Choices in Database Design'
The Inamori Foundation requests you to nominate candidates for the Kyotot
Prize 1988 in Advanced Technology and in Basic Sciences
memo from Jim Gibbons - Joe Goodman new chairman of the Elec. Eng. Dept.
High Frontier Newswatch
NSF listings of awards in Information, Robotics, and Intelligent Systems
`Levels of Knowledge in Distributed Computing' by Rohit Parikh and Paul Krasucki
Annual graduate division Decline Study
batch of technical reports from Linkoping University - which I've put in
your office for filing
ACM membership renewal
thank you or evaluation of Donald Perlis - from U of Maryland
put in your office for filing
2 reports from J.B. Paris and A. Vencovska
put in your office for filing
∂05-Nov-87 1427 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU flak on overhead rate
Received: from TENAYA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Nov 87 14:27:34 PST
Received: by Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA10937; Thu, 5 Nov 87 14:27:22 PST
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 87 14:27:22 PST
From: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8711052227.AA10937@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 04 Nov 87 1443 PST <8711042245.AA09911@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: flak on overhead rate
OK, I'll see that it gets to the right place.
∂05-Nov-87 1434 LES re: EBOS etc.
[In reply to message rcvd 05-Nov-87 13:20-PT.]
I believe that Vladimir has just submitted his expense request.
I guess that I will still be charged to the department a small amount
(say, 10%) for the foreseeable future. The answer to your question about
whether you can afford me is "yes" if one just looks at the current
numbers, but there are longer term issues to consider. Projects are
inevitably resource limited, so there are tradeoffs between employing one
person or another, buying additional computer equipment, or taking trips,
to mention a few alternatives. If we run out of money at some future time,
it will be necessary to get rid of something or someone.
If you would like to manage your projects in a different way, I can find
something else to do. I would enjoy getting more involved with your
research projects, having found departmental bureaucracy not very tasty,
but there are other things that I can do out there in the world if that is
your preference. I also could timeshare some more, providing assistance
to other research groups if that seems sensible.
∂05-Nov-87 1451 REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: your Participation in the High Noon Lecture Series
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Nov 87 14:51:19 PST
Date: Thu 5 Nov 87 14:52:26-PST
From: Rick Reis <REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: your Participation in the High Noon Lecture Series
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: reis@Sierra.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 27 Oct 87 19:21:00-PST
Message-ID: <12348280819.32.REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
John: The 29th of January for the High Noon Lecture is fine with Jim
Gibbons. Please let me know if that will be OK with you.
Thanks
Rick
-------
∂05-Nov-87 1636 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM Paper by Arbab I sent you for review
Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Nov 87 16:36:33 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 05 NOV 87 16:31:16 PST
Date: 5 Nov 87 16:31 PST
Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
Subject: Paper by Arbab I sent you for review
To: JMC@SAIL.stanford.EDU
cc: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM,MGardner.pa@Xerox.COM
Message-ID: <871105-163116-1668@Xerox>
John,
I sent "On the Paradox of the Name Relation" by Arbab in April. Could I
get at least a brief review from you quickly.
danny
∂05-Nov-87 1725 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU Mike Genesereth
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Nov 87 17:25:45 PST
Date: Thu 5 Nov 87 17:22:03-PST
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Mike Genesereth
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12348308057.42.TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Inference asked Mike Genesereth to be the featured speaker at a
workshop they are holding. He is doing it as the Forum visit that
we owed them. The liaison fee is $2500 and should be split between
you and Mike. I propose $2K to Mike and $500 to you. They are
asking more of him than we would normally expect to give them.
Is this satisfactory with you?
Carolyn
-------
∂06-Nov-87 1031 simpson@vax.darpa.mil Re: addendum to previous
Received: from VAX.DARPA.MIL by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Nov 87 10:31:30 PST
Posted-Date: Fri 6 Nov 87 13:31:47-EST
Received: by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA02952; Fri, 6 Nov 87 13:31:49 EST
Date: Fri 6 Nov 87 13:31:47-EST
From: Bob Simpson <SIMPSON@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Re: addendum to previous
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: schwartz@vax.darpa.mil, simpson@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <563221907.0.SIMPSON@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
In-Reply-To: <8711032044.AA03297@vax.darpa.mil>
Mail-System-Version: <VAX-MM(215)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
John: Jack and I have determined that we will be able to support your proposal
but not at the requested funding levels. Could you please send an updated
budget that is no higher than $400K for the first year and grows to no higher
than $450K in the third year of support? I hope this is not an extreme
difficulty. Hopefully this will allow us to get this moving. -- Bob
-------
∂06-Nov-87 1058 VAL re: basic research contract
[In reply to message rcvd 06-Nov-87 10:51-PT.]
Is this an "extreme difficulty"?
∂06-Nov-87 1147 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
A CIRCUMSCRIPTIVE THEOREM PROVER
Matt Ginsberg (GINSBERG@SUSHI)
Stanford University
Thursday, November 12, 4:15pm
MJH 252
This talk discusses the use of an ATMS in the construction of a
theorem prover for a wide class of circumscriptive theories.
The ideas to be discussed have been implemented, and the resulting
system has been applied to the canonical birds flying example, to a
non-separable circumscription, and to the Yale shooting problem. In
all of these cases, the implementation returned the circumscriptively
correct answer.
∂06-Nov-87 1415 LES
March 3, 1987 1
Proposal to DARPA
for
Research in Formal Reasoning
Budget for Three Years beginning 1 June 1987
Personnel Annual Cost
Prof. John McCarthy (17% acad. yr., 35% Sum.) 20,010
Yoav Shoham, Asst. Professor (25% acad. yr., 33% Sum.) 14,399
Vladimir Lifschitz, Sr. Research Assoc. (100%) 60,504
Lester Earnest, Sr. Research Assoc. (15%) 11,695
Robert Givan, Student Res. Ast. (50% acad. yr., 100% Sum.) 14,325
--------, Student Res. Assist. (50% acad. yr., 100% Sum.) 14,325
--------, Student Res. Assist. (50% acad. yr., 100% Sum.) 14,325
Rutie Adler, Secretary (35%) 8,371
---------
Annual salary subtotal 157,954
Annual budget begin dates 6/1/87- 6/1/88- 6/1/89-
End dates 5/31/88 5/31/89 5/31/90
Annual salary subtotal 157,954 157,954 157,954
Allowance for salary increases 7,108 16,585 26,062
(6% beginning 9/1/87,
12% beginning 9/1/88,
18% beginning 9/1/89)
--------- --------- ---------
Salary total by year 165,062 174,539 184,016
Staff benefits (24.7% till 9/1/87, 42,380 46,296 49,960
26.0% till 9/1/88, 26.7% till 9/1/89,
27.3% thereafter)
Travel (3 East Coast trips/year 5,500 5,500 5,500
@ $1000, 5 Western trips/yr.
@ $500)
Computer time costs 60,000 60,000 60,000
Other direct costs (publications, 18,000 18,000 18,000
supplies, telephones and
other services)
--------- --------- ---------
Subtotal 290,942 304,335 317,476
Indirect Costs (73%) 212,388 222,165 231,757
--------- --------- ---------
Total by year 503,330 526,500 549,233
--------- --------- ---------
Cumulative totals 503,330 1,029,830 1,579,063
∂06-Nov-87 1430 D.DOUG@OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU re: largest state.
Received: from OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Nov 87 14:30:00 PST
Date: Fri 6 Nov 87 14:29:37-PST
From: Droppa MaPantz <D.DOUG@OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: largest state.
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Fri 6 Nov 87 13:40:00-PST
Message-ID: <12348538810.110.D.DOUG@OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU>
Probably not. People just don't live that long.
-D
-------
∂06-Nov-87 1455 RWF re: San Diego's Market/MLK street
[In reply to message rcvd 06-Nov-87 13:35-PT.]
Weren't there earlier replacements that were mandatory, I think
replacing artcles on Trotsky and/or the Old Bolsheviks purged
in the thirties? Looss leaf was facetious.
∂06-Nov-87 1507 VAL re: basic research contract
[In reply to message rcvd 06-Nov-87 10:51-PT.]
Les said the earliest starting date would be Jan. 1. Also he apparently
believes that, with this budget, we can't even think about taking new
people.
∂06-Nov-87 1817 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA Final CADE-9 Call for Papers
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Nov 87 18:17:41 PST
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 6 Nov 87 18:12:37-PST
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Fri 6 Nov 87 20:51:29-EST
Received: from anl-mcs.ARPA (TCP 3200200067) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 5 Nov 87 18:16:36 EST
Received: by anl-mcs.ARPA (4.12/4.9)
id AA18378; Wed, 4 Nov 87 12:45:07 cst
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 87 12:45:07 cst
From: stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA (Rick L. Stevens)
Message-Id: <8711041845.AA18378@anl-mcs.ARPA>
To: aiout@anl-mcs.ARPA
Subject: Final CADE-9 Call for Papers
Final Call for Papers
9th International Conference on Automated
Deduction
May 23-26, 1988
CADE-9 will be held at Argonne National Laboratory (near
Chicago) in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the
discovery of the resolution principle at Argonne in the sum-
mer of 1963. Papers are invited in the following or related
fields:
Theorem Proving Logic Programming
Unification Deductive Databases
Term Rewriting ATP for Non-Standard Logics
Program Verification Inference Systems
The Program Committee consists of:
Peter Andrews Ewing Lusk
W.W. Bledsoe Michael MacRobbie
Alan Bundy Hans-Jorgen Ohlbach
Robert Constable Ross Overbeek
Seif Haridi William Pase
Larry Henschen Jorg Siekmann
Deepak Kapur Mark Stickel
Dallas Lankford Jim Williams
Jean-Louis Lassez
Papers are solicited in three categories:
Long papers: 20 pages, about 5000 words
Short papers: 10 pages, about 2500 words
Extended Abstracts of Working Systems: 2 pages
Problem sets: 5 pages
Long papers are expected to present substantial research
results. Short papers are a forum for briefer presentations
of the results of ongoing research. Extended abstracts are
descriptions of existing automated reasoning systems and
their areas of application. Problem sets should present a
complete, formal representation of some collection of
interesting problems for automated systems to attack. The
problems should currently unavailable in the existing
literature. Three copies should be sent to arrive before
November 23rd, 1987 to
Ewing Lusk and Ross Overbeek, chairmen
CADE-9
Mathematics and Computer Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
Schedule:
November 23, 1987: papers due
January 25, 1988: notification of authors
February 21, 1988: final manuscripts due
Questions should be directed to E. L. Lusk (lusk@anl-
mcs.arpa, phone 312-972-7852) or Ross Overbeek
(overbeek@anl-mcs.arpa, phone 312-972-7856)
∂06-Nov-87 2349 bellcore!ulysses!ihlpm!tracy@RUTGERS.EDU Technological Opportunities for Humanity
Received: from RUTGERS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Nov 87 23:49:34 PST
Received: by RUTGERS.EDU (5.54/1.14) with UUCP
id AA07135; Sat, 7 Nov 87 02:52:38 EST
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 87 02:52:38 EST
Message-Id: <8711070752.AA07135@RUTGERS.EDU>
Received: by mtune.ATT.COM (smail2.5)
id AA02509; 7 Nov 87 02:44:45 EST (Sat)
From: bellcore!ulysses!ihlpm!tracy@RUTGERS.EDU
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA18400; 6 Nov 87 10:45:55 CST (Fri)
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Technological Opportunities for Humanity
John,
I took a course from you about a year and a half ago dealing
with Technological Opportunities for Humanity. At that time, you had
mentioned publishing a book on this subject. Was such a book ever
published and if so, under what title? I would still be very
interested in such a book.
--Kim Tracy, (312)416-7185
..ihnp4!ihlpm!tracy
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Room: IHP-1D-528
200 Park Plaza
Naperville, IL 60566
∂07-Nov-87 2235 JSW Visit to MIT
To: JMC, LES
I'm planning a trip to MIT and other places in the Boston area
December 9-11. So far there's no agenda other than to visit with
Bert Halstead, but I'll arrange other visits soon.
Would the Qlisp project be willing to pay for any part of this
(such as hotel costs)?
∂08-Nov-87 0028 Qlisp-mailer next meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Nov 87 00:28:20 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA04366; Sun, 8 Nov 87 00:26:22 pst
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 87 00:26:22 pst
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8711080826.AA04366@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: next meeting
Will be on thursday at 3pm (by popular demand) in MJH352 (as usual)
It will feature Dan's account of some sorting experiments.
CUthere
Igor
∂08-Nov-87 1212 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU ai courses
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Nov 87 12:12:22 PST
Date: Sun 8 Nov 87 12:07:20-PST
From: Yoav Shoham <SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: ai courses
To: nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, winograd@CSLI.Stanford.EDU,
zm@Sail.Stanford.EDU, shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
latombe@Whitney.Stanford.EDU, binford@Whitney.Stanford.EDU,
clancey@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU,
reges@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12349037197.12.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Nils has asked me to coordinate the meeting to discuss the AI curriculum.
Do you have a problem with any of the following six datetimes:
December 10,11 or 14
at 12 or 3
?
Also, is there anyone not on the list what should be? (I copied the names
from Nils' message).
Yoav
-------
∂08-Nov-87 1322 VAL Advice needed
Last night I met a family that came to California this summer after being
refuseniks for 6 years. One of them is a young man who finished 3 years of
college in Moscow, majoring in applied math. He's already found a job as a
programmer here, but he wants to continue his education and to do theoretical
work. He said his goal is an M.S in Computer Science and a Ph.D. in Mathematics.
He applied at the University of Santa Clara, they said he's ready for their
Master's program, and he'll be starting there in January. But he says they
don't offer the theoretical courses that he wants. (In Moscow he's taken,
for instance, courses in abstract algebra and in the theory of algorithms,
so he's apparently ready for quite advanced things.) He'd like to study in
Berkeley or Stanford. What strategy do you think he should accept? Can he
go with his papers to Berkeley and Stanford right now and say that he wants to
transfer to their Master's program from Santa Clara, even though he hasn't
started there yet?
∂08-Nov-87 1527 aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Mail via ARPANET Gateway to UK
Received: from NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Nov 87 15:27:17 PST
Received: from cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk by NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id aa05947; 8 Nov 87 23:24 GMT
From: Aaron Sloman <aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 87 23:21:04 GMT
Message-Id: <19714.8711082321@csuna.cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk>
To: pop <@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK,@relay.cs.net:pop@cs.umass.edu>,
"bobrow.pa" <@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK:bobrow.pa@xerox.com>,
rjb <@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK,@btl.csnet:rjb@allegra>,
buffett <@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK:buffett@nprdc.arpa>, norman@nprdc.arpa,
frisch@b.cs.uiuc.edu,
hinton <@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK,@relay.cs.net:hinton@ai.toronto.edu>,
shardy@teknowledge-vaxc.arpa, barrow@spar-20.arpa, hayes@spar-20.arpa,
kirsh <@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK:kirsh@ai.ai.mit.edu>,
mack <@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK:mack@vision.ubc.cdn>, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
owen@nprdc.arpa,
ronys <@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK,@wiscvm.wisc.edu:ronys@wisdom.bitnet>,
sw <@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK,@relay.cs.net:sw@ai.ai.mit.edu>,
webber <@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK,@relay.cs.net:webber@upenn>,
phils%karri.unsw.oz@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
Subject: Mail via ARPANET Gateway to UK
In case you had not heard, it is now necessary to add "nss" to the
"ucl.cs" site name, i.e. either
uk.ac.ucl.cs.nss or nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk.
So Email addresses for me are now:
ARPANET : aarons%uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
As a last resort (it costs us more...)
UUCP: ...mcvax!ukc!cvaxa!aarons
This requirement to add 'nss' applies to all mail to UK academic
sites via UCL.
Aaron
∂08-Nov-87 1533 binford@boa-constrictor ai courses
Received: from BOA-CONSTRICTOR by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Nov 87 15:33:33 PST
Received: by boa-constrictor (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AB00292; Sun, 8 Nov 87 15:30:57 PST
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 87 15:30:57 PST
From: binford@boa-constrictor (Tom Binford)
Message-Id: <8711082330.AB00292@boa-constrictor>
To: SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU
Cc: nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, winograd@CSLI.Stanford.EDU,
zm@Sail.Stanford.EDU, shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
latombe@Whitney.Stanford.EDU, clancey@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU, reges@Score.Stanford.EDU
Subject: ai courses
Yoav
You might include tenenbaum on the list.
Tom
∂08-Nov-87 1540 binford@boa-constrictor ai courses
Received: from BOA-CONSTRICTOR by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Nov 87 15:39:55 PST
Received: by boa-constrictor (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AB00295; Sun, 8 Nov 87 15:37:21 PST
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 87 15:37:21 PST
From: binford@boa-constrictor (Tom Binford)
Message-Id: <8711082337.AB00295@boa-constrictor>
To: SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU
Cc: nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, winograd@CSLI.Stanford.EDU,
zm@Sail.Stanford.EDU, shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
latombe@Whitney.Stanford.EDU, clancey@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU, reges@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Yoav Shoham's message of Sun 8 Nov 87 12:07:20-PST <12349037197.12.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: ai courses
Yoav
Dec 10 at 12 or 3 pm are ok
Dec 14 at 3 pm is ok.
Other times are conflicts.
Tom
∂09-Nov-87 0929 JDP
On getting a sun
In order to hack up a decent debugging/inspection utility for
Joe's simulator running on the alliant, we need a Sun. There are several
unsupported suns in the department, and so I believe it would cost roughly 200
dollars a month in maintenance to obtain one. There are a lot of pros for getting
a sun; Lucid works on suns; there is a sophisticatd, portable window system
interface called X windows; the window system makes a decent debugging system
implementation possible. The only argument against getting a sun is that
my efforts would not be on developing our Minimal Macsyma. However, between
all of us, there is enough programming experience to handle the polynomial
manipulation system; it seems appropriate for me to investigate user interfae
issues via Joe's simulator and X Windows. However, the decision is yours.
Les knows about the financial details of getting one. -dan
P.S. I heard that you are using a Lisp Machine for the first time. Do you
like it?
∂09-Nov-87 1324 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU second try
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Nov 87 13:24:02 PST
Date: Mon 9 Nov 87 13:13:59-PST
From: Yoav Shoham <SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: second try
To: nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, winograd@CSLI.Stanford.EDU,
zm@Sail.Stanford.EDU, shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
latombe@Whitney.Stanford.EDU, binford@Whitney.Stanford.EDU,
clancey@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU,
weise@Mojave.Stanford.EDU, reges@Score.Stanford.EDU,
snow@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12349311473.33.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I got eight replies to my last message. Of the six datetimes I proposed,
3:00 on 12.14 is the least harmful (we only lose three - Ted, Jean-Claude
and Bill). Please reserve this for now, but let's try to find a better date.
That would have to be after 1.1.88. How are 6,7,8 December at
9, 12 or 3 (9 datetimes)?
Yoav
-------
∂09-Nov-87 1329 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU month change
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Nov 87 13:29:04 PST
Date: Mon 9 Nov 87 13:19:40-PST
From: Yoav Shoham <SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: month change
To: nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, winograd@CSLI.Stanford.EDU,
zm@Sail.Stanford.EDU, shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
latombe@Whitney.Stanford.EDU, binford@Whitney.Stanford.EDU,
clancey@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU,
weise@Mojave.Stanford.EDU, reges@Score.Stanford.EDU,
snow@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12349312509.33.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Sorry, that's January 6,7,8 and not December. Yoav
-------
∂10-Nov-87 0850 JDP
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JDP@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
On getting a Sun
The consensus here is that we should get a smart terminal for the Alliant.
The code developed for such a terminal should be "portable" in some sense,
and this is why Sail terminals are inadequate. The Zenith terminals are
simply too primitive to support a good interface; a good interface supports
a mouse and graphics. By developing a Qlisp interface on a Sun terminal
with X-windows, we will have a fairly flexible development future. Joe,
Igor and I agree that we should develop the interface on a Sun. We are all
used to the Lisp machine kind of environment; and we can approximate this very
cheaply on a Sun hooked up to the Alliant.
I apologize for lack of Email expertise. I will try to send this file
to multiple people, but I may end up doing so one at a time from within E.
In case it does not get to everyone at once, it is being sent to: JMC,CLT,
IGS,JSW,LES, and JDP.
∂10-Nov-87 1223 CLT qlisp interface
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
JDP@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
What precisely is meant by qlisp interface.
I would agree that developing tools for interacting
with qlisp and monitoring processes etc. would be of
value and relevant to the goals of qlisp.
I do not think we should spend a lot of effort building
yet another generic lisp software development environment.
∂10-Nov-87 1252 JSW Qlisp interface
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
JDP@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
The idea is just to use a Sun as a fancy terminal interface to the
Alliant, not to run Lisp on the Sun or do any development of a Lisp
environment.
The advantages of a Sun over a normal terminal are screen size (much more
can be displayed than on a Zenith or SAIL terminal, or even a Symbolics
screen), multiple windows, and graphics. The X window system from MIT can
run on the Sun, and a Lisp program on the Alliant can send it commands
telling it what to display. There is already a public domain Common Lisp
interface to X that is used at Lucid, and I don't forsee any problems
using it.
The cost is minimal, since we can use department Sun 2 workstations for
something like $150 per month for CSD-CF support. (These are the ones
that were bought a few years ago with part of the Stauffer grant money.)
Most of this is to cover space on the fileserver (Jeeves). If we want to
get more of these, we might run into the limitation of the number of
workstations that a single fileserver can support, since it's already very
close to full, but I don't think there is any problem with adding one Sun
at this point.
∂10-Nov-87 1257 CLT qlisp interface
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
JDP@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Then I think I am for it.
∂10-Nov-87 1344 VAL WICS
Joleen Barnhill wants to know if we want to do our common sense course again.
If we do, we should give the dates (it should be between July 11 and Aug. 19)
and decide whether we want any changes in the brochure.
∂10-Nov-87 1510 VAL re: WICS
[In reply to message rcvd 10-Nov-87 14:00-PT.]
Joleen suggested Aug. 8-12. Also she said they won't be able to pay me directly
this time, and the money will have to be placed into a Stanford account that I
can use. I hope we'll be able to arrange somehting reasonable.
∂10-Nov-87 1551 ME re: user disk pack
To: JMC
CC: LES
I'll get the UDP from your office and dump it to tape just like the
others I'm doing.
∂10-Nov-87 1615 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU re: SPO Advisory Committee
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 10 Nov 87 16:15:18 PST
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 87 16:15:43 PST
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: SPO Advisory Committee
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, Les@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
BScott@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue, 10 Nov 87 15:17:00 PST
Message-ID: <12349606700.22.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
John, SPO = Sponsored Research Office. They are Stanford's legal interface
with federal, industrial, and private funding sources for sponsored research --
i.e., they are delegated the authority and responsiblity to review, negotiate,
sign, and administer grants and contracts. They are also involved in related
issues like intellectual property rights, whether "gift" funding really
qualifies as a gift, etc. If you want to know more, ask Les or Betty Scott --
they have done most of the dealing with SPO for your group.
I think the address lists I used includes Sr. Research Associates.
Tom R.
-------
∂10-Nov-87 1627 VAL reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 10-Nov-87 16:21-PT.]
No I didn't. What is SPO?
∂10-Nov-87 1631 PASTERNACK@KL.SRI.Com re: Where is JMC?
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 10 Nov 87 16:31:40 PST
Date: Tue 10 Nov 87 16:32:48-PST
From: Henry Pasternack <PASTERNACK@KL.SRI.Com>
Subject: re: Where is JMC?
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 10 Nov 87 12:19:00-PST
Message-ID: <12349609811.29.PASTERNACK@KL.SRI.Com>
Thanks for the info. I had thought that there was a central
distribution point for the bulletin board; apparently that's not the
case.
-Henry
-------
∂10-Nov-87 1712 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU re: SPO Advisory Committee
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 10 Nov 87 17:12:32 PST
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 87 17:11:55 PST
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: SPO Advisory Committee
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue, 10 Nov 87 16:19:00 PST
Message-ID: <12349616933.22.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Well, I have a list of things we have run into but I didn't want that to bias
the comments of others in the department. I intend to circulate a composite
list of issues for review before the meeting on the 20th. My list includes
things like:
1) more timely and expert follow up on contract negotiations. We have numerous
delays of many months from SPO screw-ups.
2) coordinate more closely with PI's in negotiations so proper pressures can be
put through funding sponsors (e.g., DARPA, ONR, etc.) on contracting agents
(e.g., SPAWASYSCOM).
3) ensure that high quality people are recruited and retained in SPO -- over
the past year or so, we have lost a number of very good people.
4) use electronic communications tools more effectively to route, review, and
track proposal materials.
5) help keep PI's informed of funding opportunities and information from
sources not generally available to faculty (e.g., Commerce Business Daily,
Federal Register, etc.)
6) better coordination between SPO, OTL, and the PI in negotiating intellectual
property rights. There have been long delays on university principle when no
software or property of concern is involved.
7) develop more constructive policies to encourage industrial support of
Stanford research. Industrial support is hit with a higher indirect cost rate
and Stanford is unwilling to give industry the same intellectual property
rights it gives the gov't as a matter of course. With DARPA going sour for a
while, we are going to need more industrial support.
Tom R.
-------
∂10-Nov-87 2145 R.ROLAND@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: Ginsburg and pot
Received: from LEAR.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 10 Nov 87 21:45:37 PST
Date: Tue 10 Nov 87 21:46:23-PST
From: Roland van Gaalen <R.ROLAND@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Ginsburg and pot
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: su-etc@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, R.ROLAND@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 10 Nov 87 16:44:00-PST
Message-ID: <12349666898.312.R.ROLAND@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
I read that Wall Street Journal editorial. To the extent that
Ginsburg was brought down by liberals, I agree with the editorial
(in fact, I was reassured by all those revelations about Ginsburg
concerning his running a computer dating service and smoking pot,
and his wife performing abortions, all of which led me to believe
that Ed Meese just might have picked a good nominee after all!).
I don't think that liberals played much of a role, however,
in persuading Ginsburg to withdraw, either directly or indirectly.
If Senator Hatch is to be believed, the Administration, especially
the Secretary of Education (!), gave Ginsburg mixed signals.
--Roland
-------
∂11-Nov-87 0842 PHY
mail:
request for you to review `An artificial intelligence approach to legal
reasoning' by Anne von der Lieth Gardner. SIAM REVIEW - if you cannot,
suggest an alternate please.
`Approximate polynomial preconditioning applied to biharmonic equations on
vector supercomputers' by Yau Shu Wong and Hong Jiang (report)
Neil D. Jones - request to be a guest professor here. Vita, many reports.
request for comments on `Towad Hypertext Publishing: Preserving Rights in a
Distributed System' and `Toward Hypertext Publishing: Issues and
Choices in Database Design'
The Inamori Foundation requests you to nominate candidates for the Kyotot
Prize 1988 in Advanced Technology and in Basic Sciences
memo from Jim Gibbons - Joe Goodman new chairman of the Elec. Eng. Dept.
High Frontier Newswatch
NSF listings of awards in Information, Robotics, and Intelligent Systems
`Levels of Knowledge in Distributed Computing' by Rohit Parikh and Paul Krasucki
Annual graduate division Decline Study
batch of technical reports from Linkoping University - which I've put in
your office for filing
ACM membership renewal
thank you or evaluation of Donald Perlis - from U of Maryland
put in your office for filing
2 reports from J.B. Paris and A. Vencovska
put in your office for filing
∂11-Nov-87 0900 JMC
emacs Dvorak taylor 5.114
∂11-Nov-87 0900 JMC
expenses searle think
∂11-Nov-87 0947 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM Are you there?
Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Nov 87 09:47:42 PST
Received: from Salvador.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 11 NOV 87 09:48:38 PST
Date: 11 Nov 87 09:47 PST
From: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Are you there?
To: JMC@SAIL.stanford.EDU
cc: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
Message-ID: <871111-094838-7137@Xerox>
John,
Could you respond to this message so I can see I have the right net
address for you please.
thanks
danny
∂11-Nov-87 1043 BOUSSE@Sierra.Stanford.EDU Ginsburg's experience
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Nov 87 10:43:09 PST
Date: Wed 11 Nov 87 10:44:27-PST
From: Luc J. Bousse <BOUSSE@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Ginsburg's experience
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12349808540.20.BOUSSE@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
I agree, judicial experience is not the only type of possibly relevant
experience. So Ginsburg had quite a few things going for him:
Harvard professor, Justice Department job, etc...
Another point is that some other justices this century (William Douglas ?)
have been appointed at a young age with little experience, yet have
had long and distinguished careers.
But it is a matter of speculation whether Ginsburg would have turned out
that way. The point is moot now, of course, but I have a suspicion that
Ginsburg would have turned out to be more of a libertarian than a moral
majority-type conservative.
-------
∂11-Nov-87 1333 ME failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to recipient(s):
helen@LABREA.STANFORD.EDU
Here is how the remote host replied to this mail address:
helen@LABREA.STANFORD.EDU
550 <helen@LABREA.STANFORD.EDU>... User unknown
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
11-Nov-87 0837 Mailer re: Question of clarification on Ginsburg
To: helen@WHITE.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: helen@LABREA.STANFORD.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from helen@white.stanford.edu sent Tue, 10 Nov 87 22:14:07 PST.]
Helen, you have caught me and the Wall Street Journal jumping to
a conclusion. The WSJ implied that it was liberals at Harvard Law
School zapping Ginsburg. Here's the relevant passage.
"Suddenly Harvard Law School - the sanctum sanctorum of individual
privacy rights - has become a dangerous place for future Supreme
Court justices. Judge Ginsburg's accusers no doubt spoke only on
the understanding that their names would not be used. They made
clear that Harvard Law School believes in privacy rights but only
some of the time. After the accusations surfaced, his former
colleagues watched in silence as Douglas Ginsburg twisted in the
wind. In the pragmatic world of modern liberal theory, individual
rights such as privacy or confronting your accuser take second
place to political results, especially if the individual is a
conservative Presdident's nominee to the Supreme Court."
The editorial finishes with a fine Sodom-and-Gomorrah flourish.
"Washington, D.C. is a city lying in the gutter, wallowing in
hypocrisy. It has become a bizarre sinkhole of character
assassination and smirking self-righteousness. It will eagerly
cast not only the first stone, but any other rocks it can lay
its hands on."
My opinion is that there is probable cause to suspect liberals,
but certainly not evidence that would convict anyone. My guess
is that the reason the White House wanted Ginsburg to bow out
is that the ACLU asked Biden to take at least 60 days before
holding hearings on the nomination, and there was reason to
believe that he would do it. This would delay Reagan's next
chance by a probable three months.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂11-Nov-87 1416 LES Formal Reasoning budget
Here is a revised budget that meets the specified constraints. It hurt
a bit, but looks workable. Shoham says that he has put himself into
several pots but still has no support, so he wants to still be listed.
-----------------------------
Proposal to DARPA
for
Research in Formal Reasoning
Budget for Three Years beginning 1 January 1988
Personnel Annual Cost
Prof. John McCarthy (10% acad. yr., 25% Sum.) 13,512
Yoav Shoham, Asst. Professor (25% acad. yr., 33% Sum.) 14,399
Vladimir Lifschitz, Sr. Research Assoc. (100%) 63,384
Lester Earnest, Sr. Research Assoc. (15%) 12,150
--------, Student Res. Assist. (50% acad. yr., 100% Sum.) 14,325
--------, Student Res. Assist. (50% acad. yr., 100% Sum.) 14,325
--------, Secretary (30%) 7,380
---------
Annual salary subtotal 139,475
Annual budget begin dates 1/1/88- 1/1/89- 1/1/90-
End dates 12/31/88 12/31/89 12/31/90
Annual salary subtotal 139,475 139,475 139,475
Allowance for salary increases 2,790 11,158 19,527
(6% beginning 9/1/88,
12% beginning 9/1/89,
18% beginning 9/1/90)
--------- --------- ---------
Salary total by year 142,265 150,633 159,002
Staff benefits (26.2% till 9/1/88, 37,700 41,173 44,627
27.1% till 9/1/89, 27.8% till 9/1/90,
28.6% thereafter)
Travel (2 East Coast trips/year 4,000 4,000 4,000
@ $1000, 4 Western trips/yr.
@ $500)
Computer time costs 35,000 35,000 35,000
Other direct costs (publications, 12,000 12,000 12,000
supplies, telephones and
other services)
--------- --------- ---------
Subtotal 230,965 242,806 254,629
Indirect Costs (73%) 168,604 177,248 185,879
--------- --------- ---------
Total by year 399,569 420,054 440,508
--------- --------- ---------
Cumulative totals 399,569 819,623 1,260,131
∂11-Nov-87 1435 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Re: misguided missive
Received: from PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Nov 87 14:35:06 PST
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Wed, 11 Nov 87 14:34:20 PST
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 87 14:34:20 PST
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: misguided missive
Cc: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU
It is true. I am unknown at Labrea. And a good thing, too!
As for lunch, I would enjoy that very much. We seem to have many things
to talk about.
-helen
∂11-Nov-87 1553 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Joe Weening
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Nov 87 15:53:07 PST
Date: Wed 11 Nov 87 15:49:14-PST
From: Sharon Hemenway <HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Joe Weening
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12349864023.18.HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Joe's Ph.D. candidacy expires at the end of this quarter and he is in the
process of filing for an extension. He has asked for one through Spring
Quarter. As a student's advisor must ordinarily sign the Application
for Extension of Candidacy form, I wanted to make sure that you approved
of this extension before processing the associated paperwork.
Thanks for your help.
--Sharon Hemenway
-------
∂11-Nov-87 1608 LES Revised Formal Reasoning budget
OK, I've added two Sun workstations in the second year and inflated
some of the support costs a bit so as to gobble up available funds.
Should I ship it to Simpson or would you like to?
---------------------------
November 11, 1987
Proposal to DARPA
for
Research in Formal Reasoning
Budget for Three Years beginning 1 January 1988
Personnel Annual Cost
Prof. John McCarthy (10% acad. yr., 25% Sum.) 13,512
Yoav Shoham, Asst. Professor (25% acad. yr., 33% Sum.) 14,399
Vladimir Lifschitz, Sr. Research Assoc. (100%) 63,384
Lester Earnest, Sr. Research Assoc. (15%) 12,150
--------, Student Res. Assist. (50% acad. yr., 100% Sum.) 14,325
--------, Student Res. Assist. (50% acad. yr., 100% Sum.) 14,325
--------, Secretary (30%) 7,380
---------
Annual salary subtotal 139,475
Annual budget begin dates 1/1/88- 1/1/89- 1/1/90-
End dates 12/31/88 12/31/89 12/31/90
Annual salary subtotal 139,475 139,475 139,475
Allowance for salary increases 2,790 11,158 19,527
(6% beginning 9/1/88,
12% beginning 9/1/89,
18% beginning 9/1/90)
--------- --------- ---------
Salary total by year 142,265 150,633 159,002
Staff benefits (26.2% till 9/1/88, 37,700 41,173 44,627
27.1% till 9/1/89, 27.8% till 9/1/90,
28.6% thereafter)
Travel (2 East Coast trips/year 4,000 4,000 4,000
@ $1000, 4 Western trips/yr.
@ $500)
Computer time costs 35,000 36,750 38,590
Other direct costs (publications, 12,000 12,600 13,230
supplies, telephones and
other services)
--------- --------- ---------
Subtotal 230,965 245,156 259,449
Indirect Costs (73%) 168,604 178,964 189,398
Capital equipment: 2 Sun 3/50MQ-8 0 9,000 0
Workstations
--------- --------- ---------
Total by year 399,569 433,120 448,847
--------- --------- ---------
Cumulative totals 399,569 832,689 1,281,536
∂11-Nov-87 1647 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
A CIRCUMSCRIPTIVE THEOREM PROVER
Matt Ginsberg (GINSBERG@SUSHI)
Stanford University
Thursday, November 12, 4:15pm
MJH 252
This talk discusses the use of an ATMS in the construction of a
theorem prover for a wide class of circumscriptive theories.
The ideas to be discussed have been implemented, and the resulting
system has been applied to the canonical birds flying example, to a
non-separable circumscription, and to the Yale shooting problem. In
all of these cases, the implementation returned the circumscriptively
correct answer.
∂11-Nov-87 1658 LES re: Revised Formal Reasoning budget
[In reply to message rcvd 11-Nov-87 16:37-PT.]
OK, I sent it. I didn't mention SAIL's prospective demise because that
information apparently would not affect the amount we will get and money
is money.
∂12-Nov-87 2256 HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU LOP
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Nov 87 22:56:22 PST
Date: Thu 12 Nov 87 11:08:36-PST
From: Thomas Henzinger <HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: LOP
To: LOP: ;
Message-ID: <12350075081.17.HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
**************************************
* LOGIC OF PROGRAMS [LOP] Seminar *
**************************************
Fridays 11:30-12:30, MJH 301 [bring-your-own-lunch style]
November 13: Marianne Baudinet (Stanford Univ.),
"Semantics and Verification of Prolog Programs"
November 20: Dr. Moshe Vardi (IBM):
"Temporal Logic vs. Automata Theory"
-------
∂12-Nov-87 1409 LES re: Revised Formal Reasoning budget
[In reply to message rcvd 12-Nov-87 13:37-PT.]
The budget has to go through Stanford channels.
∂12-Nov-87 1511 POSER@CSLI.Stanford.EDU fugu & polygraphs
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Nov 87 15:11:36 PST
Date: Thu 12 Nov 87 15:07:47-PST
From: Bill Poser <POSER@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: fugu & polygraphs
To: su-etc@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
cc: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12350118623.24.POSER@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In the absence of systematic data on the correlation between
fugu consumption and political naivete, I can only make a couple of
anecdotal observations. First, ex-Prime Minister Nakasone is almost certainly
a fugu-eater. I doubt that anybody would consider him politcally naive.
Second, at least such fugu-eaters as MRC and myself are not naive enough
to take Wall Street Journal editorials seriously. WSJ editorials are almost
invariably ignorant knee-jerk hype containing nothing even approaching
rational argument and devoid of factual content.
On the subject of polygraphs, JMC may well be right that the law
will be badly written. If so, that is a valid criticism of the drafting of
the law, but surely not of the law's intention. But I don't think that it is
fair to accuse opponents of polygraph testing of being either strictly
anti-technological or against any and all measures preventing cheating of
the system. First, my impression is that lots of people who like technology
are opposed to polygraph testing. I would include myself in that category.
Can JMC produce any statistics showing a correlation? Second, we have to
analyze the notion "cheating the system". I have no objection to methods
that allow the government or business to carry out legitimate functions,
such as verifying identity for security purposes or testing the condition
of a worker. I oppose techniques that allow them to obtain information that
they have no right to obtain, such as most information about past drug use,
or information about political views and labor activity. Third, the
validity of polygraph testing has been seriously questioned for many years.
There have indeed been scientific studies of its use, which for the most
part have caused courts to refuse to admit polygraph evidence. Moreover,
studies not directly related to the use of the polygraph bear directly on
its validity. There is plenty of psychological work on galvanic response,
voluntary control of respiration, and so forth. In any case, the burden of
proof in validating such a technique is surely on its proponents, not its
detractors.
One thing that it is important to take into account here is that
polygraph testing has little scientific or engineering tradition behind it.
Its proponents are mainly police officers and private detectives who are
not well trained scientifically and do not carry out scientific
nvestigations. To take a similar example from an area I am better
acquainted with, speaker identification from spectrograms is something
pushed by police and intelligence agencies but of very low repute
among phoneticians. In the absence of careful, properly conducted studies
validating the use of the polygraph, it should not be used.
-------
∂12-Nov-87 1640 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU polygraph testing
Received: from CRYSTALS by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Nov 87 16:40:48 PST
Received: by crystals ; Thu, 12 Nov 87 16:39:53 pst
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 87 16:39:53 pst
From: William J. Poser <poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-Id: <8711130039.AA16158@crystals>
To: jmc@sail, su-etc@score
Subject: polygraph testing
1. If we are talking about the government forbidding citizens from doing
something then I agree that the burden of proof is on proponents of the
restriction. However, the polygraph law is a bit different. There are
three parties involved: the government, the agencies and businesses that want
to use polygraph testing, and the people who will be subjected to testing.
Here it isn't so simple - restricting the rights of those who want to test
protects the rights of those who would be tested. In this situation I submit
that the burden of proof should be on those who want to use a dubious technique
for purposes that have a major impact (loss of job, criminal prosecution)
on those tested.
2. In light of JMC's belief about the burden of proof being on proponents of
restriction, I invite him to justify the illegality of marijuana, or to agree
with me that it should not have been outlawed.
3. I have no objection to companies finding out who is stealing from them,
provided that the privacy of the employees be respected to reasonable extent.
So I would probably consider the use of polygraph tests to be alright for
employees who were reasonably suspected of stealing (if, contrary to fact,
I thought that polygraph tests were reliable) but would probably object to
mass screening. Questions about things like political and labor activity
may be illegal. I intended them as examples of the sort of thing that
people may legitimately be unwilling to answer, not as examples of things
that I know to be significant problems. However, I have the impression
(which I cannot justify with references) that one aspect of the movement
toward polygraph testing and drug testing is a desire to obtain more
information about employees than companies have any right to know.
4. It is possible that one motivation for opposition to polygraph testing
is indeed a desire to cheat the system. However, there are plenty of others.
The nefarious motivations of one group of advocates do not have much
bearing on the issue itself.
5. Voluntary use of polygraph testing to clear oneself is tricky.
At first glance, I would say that it ought to be permitted and that any
law restricting the use of polygraph testing should restrict only
involuntary testing. However, there are two problems here. One is that
it may be very difficult to permit truly voluntary testing while still
protecting people from involuntary testing. The other is that insofar as
polygraph testing can produce false negatives as well as false positives,
there are situations in which people ought not to be able to use it
to clear themselves. I wouldn't want to see a criminal released on the basis
of a falsely negative polygraph test.
∂12-Nov-87 1644 LES re: Revised Formal Reasoning budget
[In reply to message rcvd 12-Nov-87 14:24-PT.]
Yes, I emailed the budget to Simpson, who has now replied as follows.
Les: The only problem I see (and this is my fault for not passing this info
along in my previous message) is that Jack will approve of support at the
100% level for Lifschitz for only thru the 88-89 academic year. Please
also note that Jack felt that computer charges in excess of $125K per year
Amend that to ... in excess of $40K per year are unacceptable.
Please make these adjustments and send in the new budget.
Sorry for not passing along all the info the first time. -- Bob
-------
I am puzzled by the remark about Vladimir. Has Schwartz invented a new
policy about the maximum percentage of people that they will support?
Is he perhaps under the misimpression that Vladimir is a faculty member?
The remark about computer charges in excess of $40k per year is also puzzling
because:
(1) our budget is under that figure, not counting the Sun workstations,
(2) this makes no sense as a general policy -- surely the acceptable
amount to be spent on computer charges is related to the project
being performed and the number of people working on it.
Do you wish to get involved in the resolution of these questions or should
I continue the dialogue with copies to you?
∂12-Nov-87 1645 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU polygraph
Received: from CRYSTALS by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Nov 87 16:45:21 PST
Received: by crystals ; Thu, 12 Nov 87 16:44:24 pst
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 87 16:44:24 pst
From: William J. Poser <poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-Id: <8711130044.AA16166@crystals>
To: jmc@sail, su-etc@score
Subject: polygraph
To follow up on Helen's observation about the difference
between conservatives and liberals, I suggest that JMC's position on the
burden of proof regarding the validity of polygraph testing reflects
it very nicely. If one views the government as the source of all
oppression, as conservatives do, then the burden of proof is invariably
to be put on the government. But if one is less naive and realizes that
there are powerful oppressive forces other than the government, so that
the government can be used to create greater freedom by constraining the
oppressors, we sometimes want the burden of proof to be on those
who want to do things that affect other people, such as polygraph testing.
∂12-Nov-87 1701 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Polygraphs and the liberal/conservative boundary
Received: from PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Nov 87 17:01:54 PST
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 12 Nov 87 16:59:58 PST
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 87 16:59:58 PST
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Polygraphs and the liberal/conservative boundary
Cc: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU
Ok, fair enough. The assumption underlying my "experiment"
was that JMC speaks for the conservatives, so I have to consider
the data of this experiment as evidence against the hypothesis...
-helen
∂12-Nov-87 1839 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU message
Received: from CRYSTALS by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Nov 87 18:39:17 PST
Received: by crystals ; Thu, 12 Nov 87 17:08:01 pst
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 87 17:08:01 pst
From: William J. Poser <poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-Id: <8711130108.AA16283@crystals>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: message
Could you forward that last message to su-etc? I forgot to tell
the mailer that su-etc was on another machine, and until I get one of the
better mailers installed here I am stuck with the default Berkeley UNIX
mailer, which doesn't save outgoing mail. Thanks.
Bill
∂12-Nov-87 1839 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU polygraph
Received: from CRYSTALS by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Nov 87 18:39:30 PST
Received: by crystals ; Thu, 12 Nov 87 17:05:47 pst
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 87 17:05:47 pst
From: William J. Poser <poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-Id: <8711130105.AA16272@crystals>
To: jmc@sail, su-etc@crystals.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: polygraph
Miraculously, I agree with JMC on two points. Too many laws
and badly drafted laws are a menace. Also, although I am no lover of
nuclear weapons, I voted against the Palo Alto nuclear-free zone on the
grounds that it would have no impact other than to make life much more
difficult here (in part because of its dreadful formulation).
∂13-Nov-87 0618 PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Ginsburg
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Nov 87 06:18:51 PST
Date: Fri 13 Nov 87 06:13:42-PST
From: Oren Patashnik <PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ginsburg
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12350283539.9.PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
> As a law school professor, Ginsburg must have published quite a bit.
> It's just that he didn't hit some of the points that concerned the
> Senate liberals.
Actually, he didn't publish all that much for a law school professor;
as I recall, his tenure was either held up a year or he barely made it
because he hadn't published that much.
> Incidentally, yesterday's Wall Street Journal has
> an indignant editorial commenting on the anonymous character of
> accusations against Ginsburg apparently from some of his Harvard
> Law School colleagues. The editorial sees this as typifying a
> two-faced attitude on privacy by liberals.
Apparently the WSJ didn't hear Nina Totenberg(sp?), who broke the
story, tell her tale on MacNeil/Lehrer. First, his main HLS "accuser"
was his best friend Hal Scott (who, I believe, isn't a liberal), and
he came out on the record. Second, she usually got people to admit it
(that he'd smoked dope) only after presenting them with evidence that
he obviously had, and the usual reaction was something like "You're
not really going to print that, are you?" She gave the definite
impression that people, presumably most of them liberals, were
uncomfortable having this information coming out. I suspect that this
is partly because Ginsburg has libertarian leanings, and many HLS
liberals wouldn't have been all that unhappy with Ginsburg; Alan
Dershowitz came out and said as much.
All in all, the WSJ piece---at least the part of it you sent to bboard
---was long on rancor and short on substance and fairness (including
the last paragraph, which I mostly agreed with). For example their
statement "They made clear that Harvard Law School believes in privacy
rights but only some of the time" ignores the distinction in the law
(as it exists, not just as liberals would want it) between public and
private individuals (besides ignoring that the HLS liberals were
probably uncomfortable with the dope dope coming out anyway). The
privacy rights that HLS liberals argue for most strenuously are meant
to apply (mainly) to private individuals, so there's no double
standard in this case, other than the obvious one recognized by law.
And although I believe there's truth to their assertion that liberals
aren't above politics, I think their assertion doesn't stand up to the
evidence in this case.
> My opinion is that there is probable cause to suspect liberals,
> but certainly not evidence that would convict anyone.
I'm sure that many liberals, myself not included (mostly because I
really wanted to hear Ginsburg's views---I suspect I would have been
able to live with Ginsburg on the court even more than with Kennedy),
wallowed in the conservatives self-destructing; however, it was the
right-wing conservatives who stopped this nomination, because they
were uncomfortable with his life style. Had they supported him
throughout the process (which they might not have, had his libertarian
views surfaced), I think there would have been a good chance he would
have been confirmed (say, 60%). And by the way, not all liberals
stayed quiet. Biden came out and said that he thought that pot use
shouldn't be an issue (primarily, I strongly feel, because he really
meant it, not because of the possible political ramifications
mentioned in the next paragraph).
> My guess is that the reason the White House wanted Ginsburg to bow
> out is that the ACLU asked Biden to take at least 60 days before
> holding hearings on the nomination, and there was reason to believe
> that he would do it. This would delay Reagan's next chance by a
> probable three months.
I agree with your general point, but not the 60-day specific one.
Based on what I heard from Specter, I think the Judiciary Committee
would have stuck to their schedule of starting hearings on December
7th (or whatever the date in early December was). I think, however,
that the White House (and a lot of others) underestimated Ginsburg's
chances to weather the storm had they been able to keep the right wing
in the fold.
--Oren
-------
∂13-Nov-87 0923 luke@glacier.stanford.edu Question
Received: from GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Nov 87 09:23:22 PST
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu; Fri, 13 Nov 87 09:24:18 PST
Date: 13 Nov 1987 0924-PST (Friday)
From: Luke Meisenbach <luke@glacier.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Cc:
Subject: Question
What is a "yellow dog contract"?
Luke
∂13-Nov-87 0933 HOLSTEGE@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Polygraph testing, acerbic remarks
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Nov 87 09:29:00 PST
Date: Fri 13 Nov 87 09:23:30-PST
From: Mary Holstege <HOLSTEGE@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Polygraph testing, acerbic remarks
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Thu 12 Nov 87 14:22:00-PST
Message-ID: <12350318092.12.HOLSTEGE@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Must you always assume that everyone you disagree with is uninformed,
stupid, and irrational? I have considered negative effects; I find
them more than outweighed by the the negative aspects of the use of
technology itself. I find your assertion that I am some sort of
technophobe insulting. I also find it ironic that someone who would
expound at length about how horrible such a thing would be if practiced
by a government employer (say, the Soviet government?) thinks any and
all intrusions by private US employers is OK. Presumably freedom to
starve or submit is more virtuous in your world than freedom to be
exiled or submit.
I also find insulting your implication that I want to "cheat" the
system, to protect drug addicts and thieves. This is a fine old
debating trick: if you don't support invasions of privacy to fight X,
you must be in favour of X. If I oppose censorship I must be a
pornographer, right? If I support the right of the Klan to march,
I must be a racist bigot myself. Ah yes, the old line "What have you
got to hide, anyway?" The fact is, I have seen lives destroyed by
this technology, and I am eager to see and end to it. This makes be a
mindless technophobe junkie, does it?
It is my understanding that the measure in question is written to
ban devices that measure galvanic skin response, temperature, and other
physiological responses to stress. So your fear of future methods
of determining truthfulness from physiological measurements is a
red herring.
I do not consider your first "undesirable side effect" undesirable.
My employer has no business poking around in my brain, period. Your
"fancy computer program" is a complete red-herring: the fact is that
*STRESS* is measured, not truthfulness. Any measurement based on levels
of stress cannot pick out pathological liars, nor can it save the person
who has *something* they wish to keep private from being declared
guilty. Some of us don't think that employers have any business knowing
every detail of our lives from day one.
Polygraphs do not protect the innocent when there is "presumptive
evidence" against them -- they are likely to be nervous, and perhaps
have something they wish to keep private, perhaps this is why there
is "presumptive evidence" in the first place. This will increase stress.
Informal studies (at least; there may also be formal studies) have
shown that polygraphers are more likely to "fail" someone if they have
been told that there is some reason to suspect that person.
Finally, it is my experience that there is a common belief that
polygraph tests are *effective*, not ineffective as you state. The
latter view is backed up by scientific studies; the former is backed
up by vague claims by polygraphers, testimonials, and alleged reductions
in losses due to petty theft. (As I stated, hot irons would have an
effect here too, no doubt. That doesn't make it right.) The fact that
you are unaware of this only demonstrates your own ignorance of the
facts. An OMB study concluded that polygraphing was "ineffective"
in distinguishing liars from truthful people.
This seems to be one more lynch mob attitude towards the freedom of
individuals to which conservatives have been prone recently. There may
also be a residue of the Reagan-revolution view that anything that
protects employees is bad.
-------
∂13-Nov-87 1352 LES Simpson discussion
I reached Bob Simpson by phone and reviewed the budget issues. He hadn't
noticed that our revised computer budget was already below $40k -- his
remark was based on the earlier budget that had computer time at $60k.
With respect to Vladimir, he said that he couldn't explain the general
principal behind the remark that his support level should be reduced -- he
was simply relaying the remark from Schwartz. Upon further questioning,
Simpson said that Schwartz wants to shift the support to other agencies,
if any, and that he is giving us some time to do it. When I asked about
what he thought would be acceptable, Simpson suggested reducing Vladimir's
support to 50% in calendar year 1990.
So, should I do it and resubmit?
∂13-Nov-87 1544 luke@glacier.stanford.edu re: Question
Received: from GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Nov 87 15:44:13 PST
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu; Fri, 13 Nov 87 15:44:57 PST
Date: 13 Nov 1987 1544-PST (Friday)
From: Luke Meisenbach <luke@glacier.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: luke@glacier.stanford.edu
Subject: re: Question
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> /
13 Nov 87 0928 PST.
Thanks,
Luke
∂13-Nov-87 2059 PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Ginsburg
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Nov 87 20:59:16 PST
Date: Fri 13 Nov 87 20:54:10-PST
From: Oren Patashnik <PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Ginsburg
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Fri 13 Nov 87 16:27:00-PST
Message-ID: <12350443824.20.PATASHNIK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
> The WSJ editorial certainly didn't take into account the information
> you cited. I wonder if it appeared before or after the information
> became available. I think I agree with most of your points.
I looked up your original message mentioning the WSJ editorial; the
message was on Tuesday, meaning that the editorial itself came out
Monday. Nina Totenberg's bit on MacNeil Lehrer was on Monday, too, I
think (though perhaps Tuesday), but in any case it was after the
editorial came out. However, she indicated that many news
organizations had called her to ask about the story when it broke last
week, so it's not clear whether the WSJ knew about it when they wrote
the editorial.
--Oren
-------
∂13-Nov-87 2151 mcvax!litp!queinnec@uunet.UU.NET 1st IWoLES
Received: from UUNET.UU.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Nov 87 21:51:26 PST
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14) with UUCP
id AA26906; Sat, 14 Nov 87 00:50:57 EST
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl; Sat, 14 Nov 87 04:56:52 +0100 (MET)
Received: by inria.inria.fr; Fri, 13 Nov 87 22:43:37 +0100 (MET)
Received: by litp.unip6-7.fr (5.51/5.17)
id AA27072; Fri, 13 Nov 87 21:34:49 +0100
Date: 13 Nov 1987 21:23-EST
From: mcvax!inria.inria.fr!queinnec@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: 1st IWoLES
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: inria!inria.inria.fr!queinnec@uunet.UU.NET
Message-Id: <563833410/queinnec@litp>
You accepted to talk to the 1st IWoLES and we thank you.
This letter is intended to give you more accurate details
on this workshop and ask you a few question.
- We need your precise address for all administrative
mailing.
- We plan to edit some proceedings so we ask you to write
(in about five pages) the main lines of your lecture.
These pages should be ready for December, 31. I shall soon
mail you the precise format in TeX form.
- The final agenda is (with a little hole not yet filled):
-----------------------------------------------------------
1988 February, 22
10.00 am F. Genuys Introduction to the Workshop
AFNOR
10.15 am R. Mathis, C. Queinnec State and Interest of Lisp Standardization
ANSI, Universit∞ Paris VI- LITP
10.45 am Break
11.00 am J. McCarthy Future of Lisp
Stanford University
11.45 am (Ito|Yuasa) Standardization Peculiarities
12.15 am Lunch
Today Lisp
2.00 pm L. Masinter Common Lisp Cleanup and Improvements
Xerox PARC
3.00 pm D. Bobrow, P. Cointe Objects
Xerox PARC, Rank Xerox France
4.00 pm Break
4.15 pm W. Clinger, J. Padget UnCommon Lisps
Tektronix, University of Bath
5.15 pm Debate Why a standardization, which standardization ?
-----------------------------------------------------------
1988 February, 23
Today Use
9.00 am K. Pitman Interactions
Symbolics
10.00 am JM. Hullot, M. Devin Environments
NeXT, ILOG
11.00 am Break
11.15 am R. Gabriel, G. Kahn Performances and Apertures
LUCID, INRIA
12.15 am Lunch
Hardware
2.00 pm P. Dussud, J.P. Sansonnet Lisp Hardware
Texas Instruments, CGE/LdM
3.30 pm P. Greussay Future Hardware
Universit∞ Paris VIII-LITP
4.30 pm Debate Future of Lisp in industrial World.
-----------------------------------------------------------
- AFCET (a kind of french ACM) will organize the workshop. They
can make local arrangements for you (hotel reservation).
AFCET address is
AFCET IWoLES
156 Boulevard Pereire
France - 75017 PARIS
- Each of you coming from countries other than France will
have their stay (during the two days of the workshop) endorsed
by IWoLES. You just have a standard 2000 (two thousand french francs,
approximatively 250 $) fee to address to AFCET. That amount will
easily cover hotel and dinners.
- Your lunches for the two days are endorsed by IWoLES.
We reserve a private lunching room for all lecturers in the building
of AFNOR.
- Your flying ticket will be endorsed by AFCET which will
contact you for further details.
- If you have any questions, just ask us !
Best regards,
Christian Queinnec J∞r→me Chailloux
seismo!mcvax!inria!{queinnec|chailloux}
∂14-Nov-87 1318 LYN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: traffic safety
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Nov 87 13:17:57 PST
Date: Sat 14 Nov 87 13:17:56-PST
From: Lyn Bowman <LYN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: traffic safety
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Sat 14 Nov 87 13:09:00-PST
Message-ID: <12350622914.17.LYN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
I figure that the only thing worse than the present condition which
might go wrong would be that cars wouldn't start. That's fine with me.
-------
∂14-Nov-87 1631 LES re: Revised Formal Reasoning budget
To: SIMPSON@VAX.DARPA.MIL
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 12 Nov 87 14:14:17-EST.]
Here is a revised budget that I believe meets the constraints that we
discussed. It will start through the Stanford pipeline Monday morning
and the official submission should reach you in a week or so. Please
let us know if any additional issues appear.
Les
Proposal to DARPA
for
Research in Formal Reasoning
Budget for Three Years beginning 1 January 1988
Personnel Annual Cost
Prof. John McCarthy (10% acad. yr., 25% Sum.) 13,512
Yoav Shoham, Asst. Professor (25% acad. yr., 33% Sum.) 14,399
Vladimir Lifschitz, Sr. Research Assoc. (100%) 63,384
(Reduced to 50% in 3rd year 31,692)
Lester Earnest, Sr. Research Assoc. (15%) 12,150
--------, Student Res. Assist. (50% acad. yr., 100% Sum.) 14,325
--------, Student Res. Assist. (50% acad. yr., 100% Sum.) 14,325
--------, Secretary (30%) 7,380
Annual budget begin dates 1/1/88- 1/1/89- 1/1/90-
End dates 12/31/88 12/31/89 12/31/90
Annual salary subtotal 139,475 139,475 107,783
Allowance for salary increases 2,790 11,158 15,090
(6% beginning 9/1/88,
12% beginning 9/1/89,
18% beginning 9/1/90)
--------- --------- ---------
Salary total by year 142,265 150,633 122,873
Staff benefits (26.2% till 9/1/88, 37,700 41,173 34,486
27.1% till 9/1/89, 27.8% till 9/1/90,
28.6% thereafter)
Travel (2 East Coast trips/year 4,000 4,000 4,000
@ $1000, 4 Western trips/yr.
@ $500)
Computer time costs 35,000 36,750 34,600
Other direct costs (publications, 12,000 12,600 13,230
supplies, telephones and
other services)
--------- --------- ---------
Subtotal 230,965 245,156 209,189
Indirect Costs (73%) 168,604 178,964 152,708
Capital equipment: 2 Sun 3/50MQ-8 0 9,000 0
Workstations
--------- --------- ---------
Total by year 399,569 433,120 361,897
--------- --------- ---------
Cumulative totals 399,569 832,689 1,194,586
∂15-Nov-87 1231 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU Liaison visit to Inference
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Nov 87 12:30:59 PST
Date: Sun 15 Nov 87 12:25:50-PST
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Liaison visit to Inference
To: hiller@Score.Stanford.EDU
cc: genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12350875572.13.TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Bonnie, Mike Genesereth made the liaison visit to Inference.
Please transfer $2,000 to him and $500 to John McCarthy.
Carolyn
-------
∂16-Nov-87 0915 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Nov 87 09:15:10 PST
Date: Mon 16 Nov 87 09:10:04-PST
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Winter CS101 text
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 3 Nov 87 12:00:00-PST
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12351102078.33.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Any decision on the Winter CS101 texts?
Claire
-------
∂16-Nov-87 1319 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM re: Are you there?
Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Nov 87 13:19:27 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 16 NOV 87 13:18:43 PST
Date: 16 Nov 87 13:18 PST
Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
Subject: re: Are you there?
In-reply-to: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>'s message of 11 Nov
87 09:55 PST
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
Message-ID: <871116-131843-5001@Xerox>
John,
Do you have the paper you are suposed to review with you???
danny
∂16-Nov-87 1329 VAL re: regards from Nepeivoda
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Nov-87 13:05-PT.]
Thank you.
∂16-Nov-87 1339 BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: expenses
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Nov 87 13:39:13 PST
Date: Mon 16 Nov 87 13:33:29-PST
From: Sharon Bergman <BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: expenses
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon 16 Nov 87 12:55:00-PST
Message-ID: <12351150032.29.BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Please send the information to Phyllis.
-Sharon
-------
∂16-Nov-87 1344 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM McCarthy on Arbab
Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Nov 87 13:44:07 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 16 NOV 87 13:43:43 PST
Date: 16 Nov 87 13:43 PST
Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
Subject: McCarthy on Arbab
To: MGardner.pa@Xerox.COM
cc: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM, JMC@SAIL.stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <871116-134344-5056@Xerox>
Mimi,
I spoke to John McCarthy, and he gave me his verbal review of Arbab.
Basically it was a rejection based on the misunderstanding of Arbab of
John's work. John's comments were passed on to Lifschitz, the other
referee, and are incorporated in
that review. This is a reject for that paper.
danny
∂16-Nov-87 1355 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
CIRCUMSCRIPTION IN A MODAL LOGIC
Fangzhen Lin (LIN@SAIL)
Hua Chiao University and Stanford University
Thursday, November 19, 4:15pm
MJH 252
This talk is about extending circumscription to a propositional modal
logic of knowledge of one agent. Instead of circumscribing a predicate,
we talk about circumscribing the knowledge operator K in a formula.
In order to have a nontrivial circumscription schema, we extend the
S5 modal logic of knowledge by adding another modality Val and a
universal quantifier over base sentences (sentences which do not contain
any modality). Intuitively, Val(P) means that P is a valid formula. It
turns out that by circumscribing the knowledge operator in a formula,
we completely characterize reasoning in the maximally ignorant models of
the formula (models of the formula where agents have minimal knowledge).
∂16-Nov-87 1612 VAL Visit to Austin
I am coming to Austin on Monday, Nov. 30, at 6:20pm, and will be staying
until Thursday, Dec. 3. Please tell me if you want me to give a lecture
or a seminar.
∂16-Nov-87 1907 ME UDP?
To: JMC
CC: ME
I couldn't find any UDP in your office. Are you talking about the
JMC UDP? It is in the tape room with the other UDPs, and in fact
I'll be dumping it next. If there's another one somewhere, do you
know what its name is?
A list of the known UDPs can be found in ALL.LST[UDP,SYS]. Those
with questionmarks have not been located.
∂16-Nov-87 1928 ME UDPs
I'm putting directory listings of all the UDPs into the files
DSK:*.UDP[UDP,SYS]. These files can thus be scanned very quickly
for any file(s) you might be looking for. The name of each listing
file matches that of the UDP whose files it lists.
∂17-Nov-87 1624 TEICH@Sushi.Stanford.EDU cs101
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Nov 87 16:24:31 PST
Date: Tue 17 Nov 87 16:19:11-PST
From: David Teich <TEICH@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: cs101
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12351442339.17.TEICH@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
I'm looking for a course to ta next quarter, since I have college work-study
money, and I saw that you are going to be teaching a course with an interesting
title. What will you be covering in cs101, and will you need a ta?
david
-------
∂18-Nov-87 0811 PHY
mail:
hardcopy version of the electronic mail sent to you by Gerry Altmann
on speech processing: cognitive and computational perspectives
workshop
cc: to referee -- letter to Prof. T. Krishnaprasad accepting his paper for IPL
membership dues request for Princeton Alumni
Letter from Moshe Vardi, inviting you to attend Second Conference on
theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, March 6-9, 1988
at Asilomar Conference Center. Must register before December 24.
If not registered by then, will be assumed that you are NOT coming.
Lots of info about conference.
AMS MAA SIAM 1987-1988 Membership List
Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Princeton Today
International Federation for Information Processing - invitation to next meeting
in Warsaw June 20-24, 1988
To: Committee to study international developments in CS and technology
from National Research Council
regarding Dec 3-4, 1987 committee meeting at National Academy of Sciences
Georgetwon Facility, Washington D.C.
Retirement plan for staff members of MIT - re: variable fund
carbon copy of letter from Sponsored Projects to Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Command re your contract -
letter from WICS - brochure description of Giving Programs Common Sense
course .. needs updating. cc to Vlad tentative dates are August 8-12
Computers in Science
Center for Democracy, copies of reports to the NED. from Yuri Yarim-Agaev
∂18-Nov-87 1825 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
CIRCUMSCRIPTION IN A MODAL LOGIC
Fangzhen Lin (LIN@SAIL)
Hua Chiao University and Stanford University
Thursday, November 19, 4:15pm
MJH 252
This talk is about extending circumscription to a propositional modal
logic of knowledge of one agent. Instead of circumscribing a predicate,
we talk about circumscribing the knowledge operator K in a formula.
In order to have a nontrivial circumscription schema, we extend the
S5 modal logic of knowledge by adding another modality Val and a
universal quantifier over base sentences (sentences which do not contain
any modality). Intuitively, Val(P) means that P is a valid formula. It
turns out that by circumscribing the knowledge operator in a formula,
we completely characterize reasoning in the maximally ignorant models of
the formula (models of the formula where agents have minimal knowledge).
∂19-Nov-87 1255 HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Nov 87 12:54:59 PST
Date: Thu 19 Nov 87 12:46:03-PST
From: Thomas Henzinger <HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Logic-of-Programs Seminar
To: LOP: ;,
LOP: ;
Message-ID: <12351927829.38.HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
**************************************
* LOGIC OF PROGRAMS [LOP] Seminar *
**************************************
Fridays 11:30-12:30, MJH 301 [bring-your-own-lunch style]
November 20: Dr. Moshe Vardi (IBM),
"Temporal Logic vs. Automata Theory"
November 27: turkey leftovers
December 4: Prof. Amir Pnueli (Weizmann Institute),
"State Charts: Syntax and Semantics"
-------
∂19-Nov-87 1638 gluck@psych.Stanford.EDU re: QUERRY: Is there anyway to get books electronically??
Received: from PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Nov 87 16:38:27 PST
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 19 Nov 87 16:35:46 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 87 16:35:46 PST
From: gluck@psych.Stanford.EDU (Mark Gluck)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: QUERRY: Is there anyway to get books electronically??
Thanks. Do you know how I met get copies of the files of Wuthering Heights
and Grimm onto my account on the psych system? Much obliged for the
info.
=mark
∂19-Nov-87 1645 ME bike lockers installed and usable
To: bhayes@CASCADE.STANFORD.EDU, LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
RSF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: ME@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
The bike lockers have been re-installed in the courtyard behind Margaret
Jacks Hall, and they have now been adjusted so that they open and close
easily. Consequently you can now resume using your locker immediately (if
you haven't already). The Pony will resume charging for the lockers on
1 Dec 87. I'm sorry it took so long to get them re-installed and opening
smoothly.
∂19-Nov-87 1937 gluck@psych.Stanford.EDU re: QUERRY: Is there anyway to get books electronically??
Received: from PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Nov 87 19:37:30 PST
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 19 Nov 87 19:34:51 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 87 19:34:51 PST
From: gluck@psych.Stanford.EDU (Mark Gluck)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: QUERRY: Is there anyway to get books electronically??
thanks
∂19-Nov-87 2200 JMC
cate schwartz banks workshops
∂20-Nov-87 1350 GOLDBERG@CSLI.Stanford.EDU re: moral responsibility for the Sandinistas
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 20 Nov 87 13:50:27 PST
Date: Fri 20 Nov 87 13:43:31-PST
From: Jeffrey Goldberg <GOLDBERG@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: moral responsibility for the Sandinistas
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Fri 20 Nov 87 12:10:00-PST
Phone: (415) 326-8301
Message-ID: <12352200433.45.GOLDBERG@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
My answer is this:
Those Americans who advocate cutting off funds for the Contras do not
have any responsibility if the Sandinistas turn out badly. In exactly the
same way that we are not to be help responsible for Albania turning out
badly.
Those Americans who praise the Sandinistas and actively support them are
to be held responsible.
-jeff goldberg
(My choice of Albania is a random example. I know very little about the
history of the country and am assuming that the US had very little to
do with it.)
-------
∂20-Nov-87 1459 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA PROLOG BENCHMARKING WORKSHOP
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 20 Nov 87 14:59:18 PST
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 20 Nov 87 14:54:04-PST
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Fri 20 Nov 87 16:23:38-EST
Received: from anl-mcs.ARPA (TCP 3200200067) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 20 Nov 87 16:27:00 EST
Received: by anl-mcs.ARPA (4.12/4.9)
id AA11499; Fri, 20 Nov 87 15:20:20 cst
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 87 15:20:20 cst
From: stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA (Rick L. Stevens)
Message-Id: <8711202120.AA11499@anl-mcs.ARPA>
To: aiout@anl-mcs.ARPA
Subject: PROLOG BENCHMARKING WORKSHOP
ANNOUNCING
=============
A PROLOG BENCHMARKING WORKSHOP
During the last SLP there was some concern that the benchmark programs
being quoted in the literature did not reflect real Prolog programming
practices. Now is your chance to do something about it. A workshop
on benchmarking Prolog programs will be held at The Aerospace
Corporation in Los Angeles. The main function of this workshop is to
collect and measure a large number of modern production (real
application) Prolog programs.
The workshop will last three days, and will be held sometime during
the first two weeks of February. The exact date will be selected to
enable the most people to attend. The workshop will be sponsored by
The Aerospace Corporation and is being held under the auspices of the
Association of Logic Programming. Since resources for running the
benchmarks will be limited the meeting will be open only to those who
contact the organizers.
The first half of the workshop will be spent discussing the performance
issues we wish to address, porting of code, and instrumenting of
Prolog programs and implementations. The second half will be spent
running the code and collecting and analyzing the data.
We hope to publish the results either as a widely available Technical
Report or as a special journal article in a journal such as the Journal
of Logic Programming or New Generation Computing.
Attendance at the workshop will be limited to those who either bring
an implementation of Prolog or 1,000 or more lines of "original"
Prolog source. Programs with more than 1,000 lines will certainly be
accepted. The thing we wish to guard against is toy programs that
don't reflect the serious use of the language.
Of course, we would like code that has been written recently and that
reflects the best of Prolog style. But any ``real'' Prolog application
would be acceptable. ( No code with more that 3 cuts per clause.
:-)). Hopefully those in attendance will represent a balance between
University and Commercial applications.
The code brought should be covered by a GNU type ``copyleft''. That
is unlimited distribution of unmodified sources. The object is to get
unmodified copys of programs and input data sets to as many people as
possible. The Aerospace Corporation, a non-profit organization will
distribute the benchmark suite.
We would like to have the environment set up in advance so as much time
as possible can be spent on performance analysis. To do this
we will set up a mail address where code can be e-mailed in advance.
Participants can also bring a UNIX tar tape. The computers available at
Aerospace include a Sequent, VAXes, Suns, and various types of
PCs. We will try to have as many different implementations of Prolog
available as possible.
A limited amount of financial support from the Aerospace Corporation
will be available for University attendees.
Please let us know by December 15, 1987 if you intend to attend.
If you want to attend, please send us your
name,
e-mail address,
country of citizenship,
smail address,
date, if you have a preference
if you will need financial support
date that would be best for you, and
what you'll bring.
Send responses to:
prolog-workshop@anl-mcs.arpa
If you can't get ahold of us through e-mail, you can use:
Carl Kesselman Rick Stevens
MS M1/102 Math and Computer Science Division
The Aerospace Corporation Argonne National Laboratory
P.O. Box 92957 Argonne IL 60439
Los Angeles, CA 90009-9295 (312) 972-3378
(213) 336-6691
If you have a problem with the distribution agreement, questions or
suggestions, please contact us at the above address.
Hope to see you there.
Rick Stevens Carl Kesselman
stevens@anl-mcs.arpa carl@aerospace.aero.org
Argonne National Laboratory The Aerospace Corporation
∂20-Nov-87 1504 PHY
mail:
Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning by Matt Ginsberg
Algorithmic Information Theory by G. J. Ghaitin
proposal from Office of Grants and Contracts of
New Mexico State University for AAAI by Dr. Jordan Pollack
sent Airborne Express
LISP - the programming language of artificial intelligence,
written in Romanian, plus letter (English), paper `Explicit
computation of a Godel independent sentence in a theory of pure
LISP programs' by Ileana Streinu
cc of letter from Sponsored Projects Office to DARPA re revision of your
research proposal Basic Research inmathematical theory of computation
and in artificial intelligence and formal reasoning
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences Annual report 1987
request for article for Techne: Journal of Technology Studies
VTSS office, bldg 370, room 372
first announcement and call for papers Summer School and Conference
on Mathematical Logic - Sep 13-23, Bulgaria
letter from Stanford Computer Forum - transfer of funds Company Inference
to McCarthy $500.00
∂20-Nov-87 1556 VAL re: Austin
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Nov-87 21:09-PT.]
OK. I've almost finished a write-up on the method of compiling curc'n into
Prolog that we discussed briefly during our last meeting, and I hope we can
talk more about it.
I am supposed to arrive in Austin relatively early, at 6:20, so we can
meet for or after dinner Monday night, if you wish. If you have other plans,
tell me when I can meet with you Tuesday.
∂20-Nov-87 1635 VAL re: Austin
[In reply to message rcvd 20-Nov-87 16:11-PT.]
I didn't rent cars during my other visits to Austin this fall, because both
times my hotels were close to campus. But I can do it this time if you`re
sure that UT won't mind paying for it. Another possibility for me would be
to take a cab from the airport to the restaurant and ask you to give me a
ride to the hotel after dinner.
Is there any special occasion for the Wednesday dinner? I hope you're not
celebrating your acceptance of a permanent position at UT.
∂20-Nov-87 1643 VAL re: Austin
[In reply to message rcvd 20-Nov-87 16:39-PT.]
Fine. I'll call you from the airport, and we'll meet at the hotel.
∂22-Nov-87 0919 Qlisp-mailer Fortune
To: Qlisp@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Joe Weening <JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
When I logged in to Gang-of-Four this morning, the "fortune" program
gave me the following:
Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly
as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a posthole in sixty seconds;
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a posthole in one second.
∂22-Nov-87 2141 DON say what?
Shipyard zealot snapshot kitchenmaid midst goldenrod; thunderstorm,
puma miaou, anticlimax.
-- Don.
∂23-Nov-87 0333 enea!LISBET.LiU.SE!M-REINFRANK@uunet.UU.NET nmr-workshop
Received: from UUNET.UU.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Nov 87 03:32:45 PST
Received: from enea.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14) with UUCP
id AA14800; Mon, 23 Nov 87 06:32:22 EST
Received: by enea.se (5.57++/1.11)
id AA08006; Mon, 23 Nov 87 12:07:31 +0100 (MET)
Received: from LISBET (lisbet.liu.se) by majestix.liu.se; Mon, 23 Nov 87 11:35:56 +0100
Date: Mon 23 Nov 87 11:36:22
From: Michael Reinfrank <liuida!mre@uunet.UU.NET>
Subject: nmr-workshop
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: M-REINFRANK@lisbet.liu.se
Message-Id: <6P6SGQT.R.M-REINFRANK@LISBET>
Dear John McCarthy:
I wonder whether you received our invitation to attend the NMR-Workshop
in Munich. We'd greatly appreciate your participation. The only other
"unconditional" invitation went to Pat Hayes.
Best regards,
Michael Reinfrank
-------
∂23-Nov-87 0859 Qlisp-mailer New version of Qlisp available
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Nov 87 08:59:05 PST
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA06868; Mon, 23 Nov 87 08:56:47 pst
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Mon, 23 Nov 87 08:57:19 PST
Received: from bhopal.lucid.com by edsel id AA17356g; Fri, 20 Nov 87 17:56:17 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA22452g; Fri, 20 Nov 87 17:56:50 PST
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 87 17:56:50 PST
From: Ron Goldman <edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8711210156.AA22452@bhopal.lucid.com>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: New version of Qlisp available
A new version of Qlisp is now available on gang-of-four. To use it run:
/lucid/bin/qlisp
In general, there will be three versions of Qlisp on /lucid/bin:
1) new-qlisp - the newest semi-working version
2) qlisp - a "stable" "working" version
3) old-qlisp - the previous stable working version
Right now, old-qlisp points to the original Qlisp version on /usr/local/bin,
and new-qlisp points to the new qlisp.
To use the new Qlisp, fire it up and just load in your code; it should work
with both compiled and interpreted code. Note: you will NOT be able to load
any files compiled with older versions of Lisp/Qlisp, but need to recompile
them using the new Qlisp. Unfortunately, this need to recompile old files for
each new version of Qlisp won't go away for some time.
Only (QLET T ...) and (QLET NIL ...) are currently implemented. Other Qlisp
related functions and global variables are described below, along with various
limitations of the current Qlisp. Note: you can now cons freely within Qlisp
code; the garbage collector also now works when in multi-processor mode.
You can run your Qlisp code by invoking either of the macros (QEVAL form) or
(QTIME form), e.g. (qeval (qfib 10)). This starts up Qlisp in multi-processor
mode, creating a process to evaluate the form. When the form finishes, you
will again be in regular uni-processing mode. If you attempt to run Qlisp
code in uni-processing mode, i.e. not inside a QEVAL or QTIME form, it will
run ok, but each (QLET T ...) will be treated as if it was a (QLET NIL ...).
Both QEVAL and QTIME return the value of the form; QTIME also prints out some
timing information. For now QTIME is just (TIME (QEVAL form)). Note that
QEVAL and QTIME can be part of a user function and compiled, or entered at
Lisp top level.
If you wish to abort your Qlisp code use (QL-FINISH value-to-return). This
will exit multi-processor mode and cause the initiating QEVAL or QTIME to
return "value-to-return". If no value is given, QL-FINISH returns the
string "abort back to Lisp". A synonym for (QL-FINISH) is (QQUIT).
Catch and throw should now work WITHIN a process. If you throw to a tag
outside of the active process the result is currently undefined. If you
throw outside the call to QEVAL or QTIME then you should return to normal
uni-processing mode (which is actually how ql-finish works).
The initial stack size used for each spawned process is 2048 long words.
This should be enough for most user code, but if not you may lose badly.
There is currently no way to check for stack overflow, so if your Qlisp
code dies mysteriously, you may not have a large enough stack allocated.
Also, if you create more than about 2000 processes, you will use up all
of the currently available stack space and Qlisp will die. (This will
get fixed sometime soon, so that you drop into the debugger instead of
limbo...) To change the size of the stack allocated to each process,
call the function (CHANGE-PROCESS-STACK-SIZE new-size) when running in
regular Lisp mode (i.e. uni-processing). Absolutely no checks are made
of the value to see if it is reasonable. Note that all of these stack
problems will be fixed when the automatic-stack-extend code is added to
Qlisp in the next month or so.
A few minimal lock primitives currently exist. They are:
(a) (make-lock) -- returns a new lock
(b) (get-lock lock) -- acquires the lock, busy waiting if necessary
(c) (try-get-lock lock) -- acquires the lock if free, else returns NIL
(d) (check-lock lock) -- returns T if the lock is in use
(e) (release-lock lock) -- clears the lock
(f) (lock-p lock) -- predicate returning T if lock is really a lock
(g) (lock-count lock) -- a fixnum field associated with each lock
(h) (lock-owner lock) -- another field associated with each lock
(currently neither lock-count nor lock-owner is being used)
More lock primitives will be available soon.
Some global variables that may be of interest:
(a) *number-of-processors* -- number of concurrent processors to use
(only used when calling QEVAL or QTIME)
(b) *processes-in-use* -- number of processes currently in use
(c) *processes-blocked* -- number of processes currently blocked
(currently can only block when waiting for children to finish)
(d) *processes-used* -- total number of processes that have been used
(e) *processes-scheduled* -- total number of processes that have been
put in the run queue (counts each time scheduled/rescheduled)
Note that variables (b)-(e) are reset by QEVAL & QTIME.
Right now the basic Lisp debugger doesn't work when running in multi-processor
mode. This also means that you can't interrupt your code with a ↑C keyboard
interrupt, since the Lisp interrupt handler calls the debugger. This will
be fixed in few weeks. (Until then don't write code with errors....)
The current version of Qlisp also has a minor bug with disksave, in that
after running Qlisp code if you then disksave, the resulting Qlisp image may
die when you start it up, if you do a GC before running some Qlisp code.
This should be fixed in the next Qlisp image.
Report any and all bugs to me, likewise any comments. In another week or so
an initial implementation of QLAMBDA should be ready for use. Stay tuned.
∂23-Nov-87 0923 PHY
RESENT MAIL MSG...
∂18-Nov-87 0811 PHY
To: JMC
mail:
hardcopy version of the electronic mail sent to you by Gerry Altmann
on speech processing: cognitive and computational perspectives
workshop
FORWARD
cc: to referee -- letter to Prof. T. Krishnaprasad accepting his paper for IPL
FILE
membership dues request for Princeton Alumni
DISCARD
Letter from Moshe Vardi, inviting you to attend Second Conference on
theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, March 6-9, 1988
at Asilomar Conference Center. Must register before December 24.
If not registered by then, will be assumed that you are NOT coming.
Lots of info about conference.
FORWARD
AMS MAA SIAM 1987-1988 Membership List
FILE
Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
FILE
Princeton Today
DISCARD
International Federation for Information Processing - invitation to next meeting
in Warsaw June 20-24, 1988
FILE
To: Committee to study international developments in CS and technology
from National Research Council
regarding Dec 3-4, 1987 committee meeting at National Academy of Sciences
Georgetwon Facility, Washington D.C.
FORWARD
Retirement plan for staff members of MIT - re: variable fund
FORWARD
carbon copy of letter from Sponsored Projects to Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Command re your contract -
FILE
letter from WICS - brochure description of Giving Programs Common Sense
course .. needs updating. cc to Vlad tentative dates are August 8-12
FILE
Computers in Science
FORWARD
Center for Democracy, copies of reports to the NED. from Yuri Yarim-Agaev
FORWARD
Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning by Matt Ginsberg
FORWARD
Algorithmic Information Theory by G. J. Ghaitin
FILE
proposal from Office of Grants and Contracts of
New Mexico State University for AAAI by Dr. Jordan Pollack
sent Airborne Express
FORWARD
LISP - the programming language of artificial intelligence,
written in Romanian, plus letter (English), paper `Explicit
computation of a Godel independent sentence in a theory of pure
LISP programs' by Ileana Streinu
FILE
cc of letter from Sponsored Projects Office to DARPA re revision of your
research proposal Basic Research inmathematical theory of computation
and in artificial intelligence and formal reasoning
FILE
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences Annual report 1987
DISCARD
request for article for Techne: Journal of Technology Studies
VTSS office, bldg 370, room 372
FORWARD
first announcement and call for papers Summer School and Conference
on Mathematical Logic - Sep 13-23, Bulgaria
DISCARD
letter from Stanford Computer Forum - transfer of funds Company Inference
to McCarthy $500.00
FILE
∂23-Nov-87 1620 simpson@vax.darpa.mil re: Revised Formal Reasoning budget
Received: from VAX.DARPA.MIL by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Nov 87 16:20:25 PST
Posted-Date: Mon 23 Nov 87 19:19:32-EST
Received: by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA04773; Mon, 23 Nov 87 19:19:34 EST
Date: Mon 23 Nov 87 19:19:32-EST
From: Bob Simpson <SIMPSON@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: re: Revised Formal Reasoning budget
To: LES@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: SIMPSON@vax.darpa.mil, JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <564711572.0.SIMPSON@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
In-Reply-To: <8711150032.AA01468@vax.darpa.mil>
Mail-System-Version: <VAX-MM(215)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Les: The budget appears to meet the constraints. I will let you know if I
encounter any additional problems. -- Bob
-------
∂23-Nov-87 1641 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU an example sentence for you
Received: from [128.114.129.2] by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Nov 87 16:40:55 PST
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.57/1.1)
id AA15128; Mon, 23 Nov 87 16:42:27 PST
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 87 16:42:27 PST
From: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8711240042.AA15128@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: barwise@csli.stanford.edu
Subject: an example sentence for you
Cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Overheard in the post office:
"Are they raising stamps next year?"
" Yes they are" (without any hesitation!)
The elided "price of" was easily supplied and the
ambiguity of resolving the referent of "They" caused no
difficulty to the post office clerk--people not known for
exceptional intelligence. Imagine this sentence being
uttered in a greenhouse where they raise flowers, or with
"flags" substituted for "stamps". Or in an artist's studio
where they design stamps.
∂23-Nov-87 1907 mogul@decwrl.dec.com illumination
Received: from [128.45.0.240] by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Nov 87 19:07:16 PST
Received: from acetes.dec.com by sonora.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
id AA07005; Mon, 23 Nov 87 19:07:01 PST
Received: by acetes.dec.com (5.54.3/4.7.34)
id AA11459; Mon, 23 Nov 87 19:06:53 PST
From: mogul@decwrl.dec.com (Jeffrey Mogul)
Message-Id: <8711240306.AA11459@acetes.dec.com>
Date: 23 Nov 1987 1906-PST (Monday)
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: illumination
I found your summary of the responses illuminating. I must admit
that I don't really care that others have written stupid paeans to
the Sandinistas to justify their opposition to the Contras; dumb
arguments in favor of a position do not prove that it is wrong.
You (apparently) heard me (or someone) say that the misbehavior
of the Sandinistas did not justify U.S. intervention and misunderstood
that to mean that the behaviour of the Sandinistas is irrelevant.
I specifically wrote that there are times when intervention in the
affairs of a sovereign nation are justified and that this is not
one of them.
I understand that your belief is that the Sandinistas have a high
probability of doing something horrible (if you believe that this
probability is identically 1.0, then I have less respect for your
powers of inference). I suppose (to put it into invalidly mathematical
terms) if
(eqn. 1)
Expected value of Sandista mayhem given no contra funding +
Expected value of contra mayhem given no contra funding
is greater than
Expected value of Sandista mayhem given contra funding +
Expected value of contra mayhem given contra funding
then I would agree with you that the results of cutting off contra
funding would be unfortunate; I would NOT agree that this IN
ITSELF justified such funding:
(1) ends do not just means; if E(contra mayhem) is very
large then the moral responsibility weighs heavily on
us even if the "sum" of the results is (in some perverse
sense) "good".
(2) there is a threshold for intervention; that is,
if badness = E(mayhem without contra funding) - E(with funding)
then if badness is, say, a few hundred people in jail then
I submit that this in no way justifies our intervention. I
would be loath to set a specific threshold in advance, but
if the Sandinistas started wholesale killings then my
position would change.
At the moment (according to all human rights reports aside from those
tainted by Reaganist disinformation) the Sandinistas are arresting people
and shutting presses, which is bad, but the Contras are doing the
massacres, which is evil. Moreover, the contras are clearly not
succeeding in overthrowing the Sandinistas; they don't even have
the minimal support from the populace that the Afghan or Salvadorean
or Filipino guerrillas enjoy (they don't even have much support from
Nicaraguan refugees in this country, according to a front-page article in
the Wall Street Journal last week), so I submit that the enthusiasm held
by Reaganists for the Contras has little to do with improving the
lives of Nicaraguans and a lot to do with what a punk rock song
once called "macho insecurity".
I see no indication that the inequality expressed in eqn 1 holds today;
you will have a hard time proving to me that it will hold.
-Jeff
∂23-Nov-87 2243 enea!LISBET.LiU.SE!M-REINFRANK@uunet.UU.NET re: nmr-workshop
Received: from UUNET.UU.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Nov 87 22:43:42 PST
Received: from enea.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14) with UUCP
id AA24372; Tue, 24 Nov 87 01:43:21 EST
Received: by enea.se (5.57++/1.11)
id AA22484; Tue, 24 Nov 87 00:27:52 +0100 (MET)
Received: from LISBET (lisbet.liu.se) by majestix.liu.se; Mon, 23 Nov 87 19:11:48 +0100
Date: Mon 23 Nov 87 19:12:15
From: Michael Reinfrank <liuida!mre@uunet.UU.NET>
Subject: re: nmr-workshop
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: M-REINFRANK@lisbet.liu.se
In-Reply-To: <8711231745.AA22561@uunet.UU.NET>
Message-Id: <6P6UEI1.R.M-REINFRANK@LISBET>
Fine!
Here's the ack. Maybe you sent the first reply to Munich, and the
forwarding service didn't work properly.
Regards,
Michael
-------
∂24-Nov-87 0900 JMC
Schwartz
∂24-Nov-87 0956 REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU High Noon Lecture Series
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Nov 87 09:56:05 PST
Date: Tue 24 Nov 87 09:56:05-PST
From: Rick Reis <REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: High Noon Lecture Series
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: reis@Sierra.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12353207608.33.REIS@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Hi John:
It turns out that John Hennessy had to cancel his December 4th lecture
because of a pressing out of town engagement so we rescheduled him for
January 29th, the date we had tentatively set for you. This means we
will need to find another date probably in late February for you. I
trust this is not a problem for you and I'll get back to you after
the holidays on this.
Have a nnice holiday wherever you are.
Cheers
Rick
-------
∂24-Nov-87 1800 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU Re: Searle essay
Received: from ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Nov 87 18:00:15 PST
Received: by ernie.Berkeley.EDU (5.58/1.23)
id AA21431; Tue, 24 Nov 87 18:00:14 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 18:00:14 PST
From: vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Vijay Ramamoorthy)
Message-Id: <8711250200.AA21431@ernie.Berkeley.EDU>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Searle essay
Hi,
Sorry this reply is a bit late - I'm not sure exactly what you're
referring to - but it would no doubt be interesting to receive and
alert Searle of your text.
-Vijay
∂24-Nov-87 1923 Qlisp-mailer QLAMBDA now working
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Nov 87 19:23:47 PST
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA02568; Tue, 24 Nov 87 19:21:30 pst
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Tue, 24 Nov 87 19:21:47 PST
Received: from bhopal.lucid.com by edsel id AA15805g; Tue, 24 Nov 87 18:36:55 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA05135g; Tue, 24 Nov 87 18:37:43 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 18:37:43 PST
From: Ron Goldman <edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8711250237.AA05135@bhopal.lucid.com>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: QLAMBDA now working
/lucid/bin/new-qlisp contains a new version of Qlisp that supports QLAMBDA.
Evaluating the form:
(qlambda pred (arg-list) body)
with pred non-null will spawn a new process to evaluate the specified body,
and will return a funcall-able closure that when called will pass it's
arguments to the qlambda process. For example:
(let ((f (qlambda t (x &optional (y 3)) (+ x y))))
(list (funcall f 1) (apply f '(2 5))))
would return the list (4 7). Note that for now it is an error to say
(function (qlambda ....)) or #'(qlambda ...), though at some point we
will probably get around to making QLAMBDA look more like real Common Lisp.
In addition to QLAMBDA, there are also QFLET & QLABELS which generalize
FLET & LABELS so that the functions defined can be spawned as qlambda
processes. The syntax is as you would expect:
(qflet pred ((f1 (arg-list-1) body-1)
...
(fn (arg-list-n) body-n))
flet-body)
(qlabels pred ((f1 (arg-list-1) body-1)
...
(fn (arg-list-n) body-n))
flet-body)
Finally there are now two forms WAIT & NO-WAIT which can be used to insure
that the calling process either waits or doesn't wait for the qlambda process
to evaluate the arguments sent it. Syntax is
(wait form) & (no-wait form)
If a call to a qlambda process occurs outside of a NO-WAIT then the calling
process now always will wait for the qlambda to finish, at some point in the
(distant) future the compiler will hopefully be able to detect calls in a
value-ignoring position and automatically supply the NO-WAIT.
Have fun.
Ron
∂25-Nov-87 1035 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU ai courses
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 25 Nov 87 10:34:35 PST
Date: Wed 25 Nov 87 10:29:19-PST
From: Yoav Shoham <SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: ai courses
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12353475801.37.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John,
A while ago I sent out two notes concerning an AI-courses-meeting. I think
your absence would hurt such a meeting. Will you be back by early January?
We're considering the 7th as a date.
Yoav
-------
∂25-Nov-87 1111 VAL
Les told me that DARPA doesn't want to support me full time during the 3rd year.
How serious is it?
∂26-Nov-87 2115 PEYTON@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Nicaragua & Carter
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 26 Nov 87 21:15:27 PST
Date: Thu 26 Nov 87 21:09:58-PST
From: Liam Peyton <PEYTON@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Nicaragua & Carter
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Thu 26 Nov 87 19:54:00-PST
Message-ID: <12353854573.10.PEYTON@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks,
Spelling, or rather attention to spelling, has always been
a shortcoming of mine.
---Liam
-------
∂27-Nov-87 0304 mcvax!ermhs!.thh%hra@uunet.UU.NET RE: for Christos Papadimitriou
Received: from UUNET.UU.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Nov 87 03:03:39 PST
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14) with UUCP
id AA15690; Fri, 27 Nov 87 06:03:08 EST
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl; Fri, 27 Nov 87 11:53:23 +0100 (MET)
Received: by ariadne.UUCP (5.51/5.17)
id AA03673; Thu, 26 Nov 87 09:39:09 +0200
Received: by ermhs.patras.uucp (4.12/JIM-3.2)
id AA04341; Thu, 26 Nov 87 09:01:22-0200
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 87 09:01:22-0200
Message-Id: <8711261101.AA04341@ermhs.patras.uucp>
From: mcvax!ermhs!.thh%hra@uunet.UU.NET (THANASIS HADZILACOS)
To: ."ariadne!mcvax!sail.stanford.edu!jmc"@ermhs.arpa, thh@hra.arpa
Subject: RE: for Christos Papadimitriou
I just received your message.
The prospect is of some interest to me.
What would be the funding agency and framework?
Is there a more effective way to express my interest?
---Christis
∂27-Nov-87 1359 nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU Course Discussion Meeting
Received: from TENAYA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Nov 87 13:59:18 PST
Received: by Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA00166; Fri, 27 Nov 87 13:55:27 PST
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 87 13:55:27 PST
From: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8711272155.AA00166@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU>
To: nilsson@tenaya.Stanford.EDU, jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU, winograd@csli.Stanford.EDU,
zm@sail.Stanford.EDU, shortliffe@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU,
buchanan@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@score.Stanford.EDU,
latombe@coyote, binford@coyote.Stanford.EDU, tenenbaum@spar-20.arpa,
clancey@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU, shoham@score.Stanford.EDU,
weise@mojave.Stanford.EDU, reges@score.Stanford.EDU,
snow@sushi.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Course Discussion Meeting
Yoav Shoham has been helping me make arrangements for a meeting of the
AI faculty (including those with an interest in such matters) to
discuss the AI courses for 88/89. Apparently there is not a time that
all of us can make, but it appears that all but one can come to a
meeting at 3 pm, on Thursday, January 7, 1988. Please save the time
and date, rm 220 (my conference) room. I'm asking Stuart to attend to
help us with catalog and timing matters. We should be ready to look
at the curriculum as it currently exists and to decide who will teach
what next year. Thanks, -Nils
∂27-Nov-87 1412 narain%pluto@rand-unix.ARPA Re: reference
Received: from RAND-UNIX.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Nov 87 14:11:54 PST
Received: by rand-unix.rand.org; Fri, 27 Nov 87 14:01:57 PST
Received: from localhost by pluto.arpa; Fri, 27 Nov 87 14:01:31 PST
Message-Id: <8711272201.AA03962@pluto.arpa>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: narain%pluto@rand-unix.ARPA
Subject: Re: reference
In-Reply-To: Your message of 26 Nov 87 19:41:00 PST.
<8711270343.AA16987@rand-unix.rand.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 87 14:01:28 PST
From: narain%pluto@rand-unix.ARPA
From the copy of the paper I have, it is not obvious where it appeared.
However, I will be happy to mail you a xerox of it on Monday when the
offices reopen.
-- Sanjai
∂27-Nov-87 2134 mcvax!ermhs!MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.UU.NET Returned mail: User unknown
Received: from UUNET.UU.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Nov 87 21:33:54 PST
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14) with UUCP
id AA10035; Sat, 28 Nov 87 00:33:33 EST
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl; Sat, 28 Nov 87 05:14:48 +0100 (MET)
Received: by ariadne.UUCP (5.51/5.17)
id AA04206; Sat, 28 Nov 87 03:44:00 +0200
Received: by ermhs.patras.uucp (4.12/JIM-3.2)
id AA19557; Sat, 28 Nov 87 02:47:06-0200
Date: 27 Nov 87 0902 PST
From: mcvax!ermhs!MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.UU.NET (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Message-Id: <8711280447.AA19557@ermhs.patras.uucp>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
----- Transcript of session follows -----
mail11: %MAIL-E-SYNTAX, error parsing '.'
syslog: send: Network is unreachable
550 .thh%hra... User unknown
syslog: send: Network is unreachable
syslog: send: Network is unreachable
----- Unsent message follows -----
Return-Path: <ariadne!mcvax!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC>
Received: by ermhs.patras.uucp (4.12/JIM-3.2)
id AA19555; Sat, 28 Nov 87 02:47:06-0200
Received: by ariadne.UUCP (5.51/5.17)
id AA03972; Sat, 28 Nov 87 00:50:37 +0200
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl; Fri, 27 Nov 87 18:33:27 +0100 (MET)
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14)
id AA21768; Fri, 27 Nov 87 12:02:38 EST
Message-Id: <8711271702.AA21768@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 27 Nov 87 0902 PST
From: John McCarthy <ariadne!mcvax!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC>
Subject: re: for Christos Papadimitriou
To: ermhs!.thh%hra
[In reply to message sent Thu, 26 Nov 87 09:01:22-0200.]
How can I reach you by phone?
∂28-Nov-87 1447 SCOTT@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: History and JMC
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Nov 87 14:47:25 PST
Date: Sat 28 Nov 87 14:47:25-PST
From: Greg Scott <SCOTT@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: History and JMC
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Sierra.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Thu 26 Nov 87 22:53:00-PST
Message-ID: <12354309220.11.SCOTT@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
I, for one, would be interested in seeing the quotes from the
Sandinista leaders regarding their adherence to Marxism-Leninism. I've heard
that the leaders run the gamut from the hardline Marxism of Tomas Borge to
the pragmatism of Daniel Ortega, but perhaps the State Department knows
better.
-------
∂28-Nov-87 1613 SCOTT@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: History and JMC
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Nov 87 16:13:03 PST
Date: Sat 28 Nov 87 16:13:02-PST
From: Greg Scott <SCOTT@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: History and JMC
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Sat 28 Nov 87 15:22:00-PST
Message-ID: <12354324805.19.SCOTT@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Sounds good to me. Mail to Greg Scott in McCullough 251.
-------
∂30-Nov-87 1104 ENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU Looking for a first name
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Nov 87 11:04:44 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 87 11:02:17 PST
From: Bob Engelmore <Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Looking for a first name
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, les@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Office-Phone: (415) 723-8444
Message-ID: <12354792521.21.ENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
John,
What is (or was -- I don't even know if he is still alive) the first name
of F. J. Corbato?
Thanks,
Bob
-------
∂30-Nov-87 1143 LES re: Looking for a first name
To: Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 30 Nov 87 11:02:17 PST.]
Fernando.
∂30-Nov-87 1154 ENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU re: Looking for a first name
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Nov 87 11:54:14 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 87 11:53:47 PST
From: Bob Engelmore <Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Looking for a first name
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon, 30 Nov 87 11:24:00 PST
Office-Phone: (415) 723-8444
Message-ID: <12354801899.21.ENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Thanks, John.
-------
∂30-Nov-87 1421 Qlisp-mailer QLISP meeting this week
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Nov 87 14:21:35 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA02660; Mon, 30 Nov 87 14:19:12 pst
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 87 14:19:12 pst
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8711302219.AA02660@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: QLISP meeting this week
Will be held on Friday the 4th of December at 11am in MJH352 (where else?).
CU There
Igor
∂30-Nov-87 1556 LES Topologix transputers
Have you gotten sales literature from Topologix on their "parallel" Lisp
system? I received in the mail today a fancy brochure about some boards
that plug into Sun workstations that each carry four transputers having
"peak performance of 80 RISC MIPS." It is not a shared memory system.
They claim to have a parallel Common Lisp. We probably should educate
ourselves about what they really have. If you haven't gotten the literature,
I will be happy to send you a copy, or you could request it from the
company, which is in Denver (303 421-7700). Their President's name is
Jack Harper. It might be better to request more literature -- all I have
is a six page glossy brochure.
∂30-Nov-87 1601 mhs@ht.ai.mit.edu word problem (the Byzantine generals meet Eratosthenes)
Received: from HT.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Nov 87 16:01:22 PST
Received: by ht.ai.mit.edu; 30 Nov 87 18:59:55 est
Date: 30 Nov 87 18:59:55 est
From: Mark Shirley <mhs@ht.ai.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <8711302359.AA20473@ht.ai.mit.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: word problem (the Byzantine generals meet Eratosthenes)
Dr. McCarthy,
I ran across the word problem below recently. Some friends and I have
solved it, but our solution uses a fair amount of brute force (we did it with
a program that runs in a few seconds, involving enough bookeeping that I
wouldn't want to do it by hand). I've been told this problem's been around
longer than easily available computers, so I suspect it *can* be solved by
hand, but I don't see an approach. Several people have mentioned that you
have looked at this or similar problems (Ken Forbus and my advisor, Randy
Davis to name two). Have you written anything about this sort of problem, or
can you suggest another place I could look?
Thank you,
Mark Shirley
The problem:
1 : i,j are distinct integers in [2,100]
2 : Mr. P is told i*j. Mr. S is told i+j.
3 : P: I don't know what the numbers are.
4 : S: I knew you didn't know them. I don't know them either.
5 : P: Aha. Now I know what they are.
6 : S: Oho. Then so do I.
∂30-Nov-87 1646 Qlisp-mailer QLISP meeting change, take note
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Nov 87 16:46:24 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA03118; Mon, 30 Nov 87 16:43:57 pst
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 87 16:43:57 pst
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8712010043.AA03118@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: QLISP meeting change, take note
Due to gripes from certain quarters, the meeting is hereby rescheduled
for THURSDAY (the third) at 11am, as opposed to friday, as previously
advertised. The room is also changed from 352 to 301.
Igor
∂30-Nov-87 2130 Qlisp-mailer new qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Nov 87 21:30:13 PST
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA03974; Mon, 30 Nov 87 21:27:47 pst
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Mon, 30 Nov 87 21:27:14 PST
Received: from bhopal.lucid.com by edsel id AA03230g; Mon, 30 Nov 87 21:21:32 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA29549g; Mon, 30 Nov 87 21:22:46 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 87 21:22:46 PST
From: Ron Goldman <edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8712010522.AA29549@bhopal.lucid.com>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: new qlisp
A new version of /lucid/bin/new-qlisp is now available. The main changes
are:
1) the debugger should now work while running in parallel mode,
2) you can once again interrupt a running program with ↑C,
3) the minor disksave bug is now fixed, and
4) the QLET, QLAMBDA, QFLET, and QLABELS macros are now more robust.
While the debugger is again working there are several things to be aware of:
1) When one process enters the debugger, all the other processes will
continue to run on the other processors. This is also true for
interrupts: one processor, chosen at random, will take the
interrupt and enter the debugger; the other processors will
continue executing Qlisp processes.
2) There is not any interlock on entering the debugger, so if two
processes both get errors and try to enter the debugger you
will lose. This will probably get fixed sometime soon.
Ron
∂30-Nov-87 2152 RPG reprint request
it's Qlisp.
-rpg-
∂01-Dec-87 0051 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU re: Searle essay
Received: from ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Dec 87 00:51:29 PST
Received: by ernie.Berkeley.EDU (5.58/1.23)
id AA12425; Tue, 1 Dec 87 00:26:21 PST
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 87 00:26:21 PST
From: vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Vijay Ramamoorthy)
Message-Id: <8712010826.AA12425@ernie.Berkeley.EDU>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: re: Searle essay
Hi,
Sure, I'll check with Searle about the matter and get back to you within
the next few days. - VR
∂01-Dec-87 1050 RPG
∂01-Dec-87 0036 JMC
Is it the original paper or a revised version?
It is revised. I will place on SAIL the proper TEX sources for it.
For now, please forward these requests to me and I'll handle them.
-rpg-
∂01-Dec-87 1157 JSW Paper for Codevilla
I'll try to get it to him today.
∂01-Dec-87 1228 JSW Paper for Codevilla
I've delivered it to his secretary.
∂01-Dec-87 1322 Qlisp-mailer What do you get when four processors print to the screen at once?
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Dec 87 13:22:40 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA05307; Tue, 1 Dec 87 13:20:08 pst
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 87 13:20:08 pst
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8712012120.AA05307@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@gang-of-four
Cc: RTC@SAIL
Subject: What do you get when four processors print to the screen at once?
The following is a series of four or more error messages from QLISP.
Apparently, each processor wanted to say something at the same time.
Notice particularly the ":C instead to continue" messages piling up near the
end.
----------------
Nasty recursive error in debugger.Serious problems. Will attempt return to top level of lisp...
>>>
>>
ErrorTTCr yi n:sCt eiands tteoa dc otnot icnounet.inue
TTCr yi n:sCt eiands tteoa dc otnot icnounet.inue
.
::n:iicKoeenryt binonuaumreed.ric
Nasty recursive error in debugger.
>>
>>
Error: Ani nesrtreoard htaos coocnctuirnrue.d idne btuhgeg edre biutgsge
el Ani nesrtreoard htaos coocnctuirnrue.d idne btuhgeg edre biutgsge
elrf .itself.
Serious problems. Will attempt return to top level of lisp...
instead to continue.
instead to continue.
TCCT T Ci o ncotnintuien.ue.
ncotnintuien.ue.
∂01-Dec-87 1518 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Dec 87 15:16:41 PST
Date: Tue 1 Dec 87 15:11:24-PST
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Winter CS101 text
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 3 Nov 87 12:00:00-PST
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12355100017.42.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Anything yet on your CS101 text order? (Haven't forgotten you.) We're
very late, but can most likely get the books here on time.
Thanks.
Claire
-------
∂01-Dec-87 1655 LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: book the Green Library should get
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Dec 87 16:55:16 PST
Date: Tue 1 Dec 87 16:44:23-PST
From: Math/Computer Science Library <LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: book the Green Library should get
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 7 Oct 87 10:05:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12355116944.39.LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
TO: John
FROM: Rebecca Lasher
DATE: 12/1/87
SUBJECT: Book "The Ugly Chinaman"
I will send a notice to the Green Library. This book is not yet
available according to "Books in Print" or "Forthcoming Books in Print".
Maybe the critic had a galley.
Hope you are enjoying Austin. I will be there at Christmas to sample
real winter weather.
-------
∂01-Dec-87 1724 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 1 December 1987
Current Charges 4.00 (bicycle lockers)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 4.00
PAYMENT DELIVERY LOCATION: CSD Receptionist.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
Please deliver payments to the Computer Science Dept receptionist, Jacks Hall.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your PONY ACCOUNT NAME on your check.
Note: The recording of a payment takes up to three weeks after the payment is
made, but never beyond the next billing date. Please allow for this delay.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.0% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
An account with a credit balance earns interest of .33% per month,
based on the average daily balance.
∂01-Dec-87 2111 Qlisp-mailer Yet another QLISP meeting move
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Dec 87 21:11:02 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA00895; Tue, 1 Dec 87 21:08:38 pst
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 87 21:08:38 pst
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8712020508.AA00895@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Yet another QLISP meeting move
Due to continued complaints from some parties, the QLISP meeting will
move yet again, to 2:30 Thursday afternoon. No further requests for
changing the time will be entertained. Watch this space for location.
Igor
∂01-Dec-87 2157 Mailer Re: random points and lines in the plane
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Dec 87 21:57:29 PST
Date: Tue 1 Dec 87 21:52:08-PST
From: Ilan Vardi <ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: random points and lines in the plane
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, ilan@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 1 Dec 87 16:35:00-PST
Message-ID: <12355172968.13.ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Well JMC's message was a positive note, however you could also pose
the question of random lines in the hyperbolic plane where the results
are rather negative. This is because the ``probability'' that
two lines are parallel is no longer zero, and is quite high I would
say. Can anyone compute it?
-------
∂02-Dec-87 0848 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Sr. Faculty Meeting
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Dec 87 08:48:38 PST
Date: Wed 2 Dec 87 08:43:14-PST
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Sr. Faculty Meeting
To: binford@Coyote.Stanford.EDU, buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, rwf@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
golub@Score.Stanford.EDU, guibas@decwrl.dec.com, jlh@Sonoma.Stanford.EDU,
dek@Sail.Stanford.EDU, zm@Sail.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
ejm@Shasta.Stanford.EDU, nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU,
papa@Score.Stanford.EDU, pratt@Navajo.Stanford.EDU,
ullman@Score.Stanford.EDU
cc: bscott@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12355291496.12.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Following discussion of the Mayr promotion at the sr. faculty meeting on
Tuesday, January 7 there will be discussion of the Oliger and Wiederhold
promotion cases.
-Anne
-------
∂02-Dec-87 1257 PHY
mail:
American Airlines Program Mileage Summary
I returned to Behavioral Sciences a manuscript they wanted to you to
comment on - said you were unavailable.
letter from Hajime Yoshino wanting to know if you've received his letters
sent since September regarding LESA symposium. wants your report of `86
to be put in the LESA 86-87 published reports
forward
request for your comments on a paper `Cardinalities and well orderings
in a common-sense set theory' by W. Zadrozny
forward
Faculty night Janury 27 from Rosse
forward
photo of your induction into the National Academy of Engineering
file
additional material from National Research Council to: Committee to
Study International Developments in CS and Technology
forward
request for you to apply for Chairmanship at Illinois Inst of Technology
Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering
tell them no
Computing Reviews - TO BE FILED
and several journals which I've put in your office
Technology Transfer Institute - computer seminars of excellence winter 1988
file
contract award notice from Sponsored Projects ONR $241,302
forward
∂02-Dec-87 1535 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Dec 87 15:35:16 PST
Date: Wed 2 Dec 87 15:29:58-PST
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Winter CS101 text
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 2 Dec 87 15:33:00-PST
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12355365540.38.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks for the text order.
Claire
-------
∂02-Dec-87 1707 Qlisp-mailer meeting location
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Dec 87 17:06:59 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA07167; Wed, 2 Dec 87 17:04:33 pst
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 87 17:04:33 pst
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8712030104.AA07167@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: meeting location
Cc: edsel!jlz@labrea.stanford.edu
Due to all the excitement, we can get 352 from 2:30 to 3 and 252
thereafter. So see you tomorrow at 2:30 in 352.
Igor
∂03-Dec-87 1540 HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Dec 87 15:40:42 PST
Date: Thu 3 Dec 87 15:33:20-PST
From: Thomas Henzinger <HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Logic-of-Programs Seminar
To: LOP: ;
Message-ID: <12355628297.56.HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
**************************************
* LOGIC OF PROGRAMS [LOP] Seminar *
**************************************
Fridays 11:30-12:30, MJH 301 [bring-your-own-lunch style]
December 4: Prof. Amir Pnueli (Weizmann Institute),
"State Charts: Syntax and Semantics"
December 11: Prof. Ugo Montanari (Univ. of Pisa and SRI Int.),
"Operational Semantics of Concurrency"
-------
∂03-Dec-87 1914 ibuki!rww@labrea.stanford.edu open house
Received: from LABREA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Dec 87 19:14:13 PST
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Thu, 3 Dec 87 19:08:21 PST
Received: by ibuki.UUCP (5.52/4.7)
id AA03464; Thu, 3 Dec 87 18:36:51 PST
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 87 18:36:51 PST
From: ibuki!rww@labrea.stanford.edu (Richard Weyhrauch)
Message-Id: <8712040236.AA03464@ibuki.UUCP>
To: clt@sail.Stanford.EDU, jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: open house
If you are around please come.
OPEN HOUSE IBUKI OPEN HOUSE IBUKI OPEN HOUSE IBUKI OPEN HOUSE
IBUKI invites you to an OPEN HOUSE featuring: FOOD, FUN and ENTERTAINMENT.
TIME: Monday, December 14
6:00 PM til ...
AT: IBUKI
1447 Stierlin Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
Further details: Phone (415) 961-4996.
Join in celebrating our NEW LOCATION and the new release of IBUKI Common Lisp
∂04-Dec-87 1046 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Winter CS101 text
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Dec 87 10:45:55 PST
Date: Fri 4 Dec 87 10:39:56-PST
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Winter CS101 text
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 2 Dec 87 15:33:00-PST
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12355837029.34.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
The Bookstore has ordered two of your textbooks, but is having trouble with
the "Fifth Generation Computers" by Barlow and Horwood. You mentioned that
it is published by a subsidiary of Wiley. They've apparently contacted Wiley,
but with negative results. Can you pass on any further information--something
to help the Bookstore track down the publisher?
Thanks again.
Claire
-------
∂04-Dec-87 1441 JSW Symbolics multiprocessor
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Carl White (our local Symbolics salesman) told me that they are
looking for beta-test sites for their multiprocessor based on the
Ivory Lisp chip. I don't know if we're interested, but he's
willing to come out and describe it to us. He will call back in
the first week of January to arrange a time.
∂05-Dec-87 0123 SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU re: `Radfem' - etymology and equivalence [was Re: Plus ca change]
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 5 Dec 87 01:23:24 PST
Date: Sat 5 Dec 87 01:22:52-PST
From: Harinder Singh <SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: `Radfem' - etymology and equivalence [was Re: Plus ca change]
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Fri 4 Dec 87 21:41:00-PST
Message-ID: <12355997764.12.SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Good point :-)
Thought I'd let it slide and not befuddle my dear friend
Helen any more than absolutely necessary.
Inder
-------
∂07-Dec-87 1245 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
UNFOUNDED SETS AND WELL-FOUNDED SEMANTICS
FOR GENERAL LOGIC PROGRAMS
Allen Van Gelder (AVG@SATURN.UCSC.EDU)
University of California at Santa Cruz
Kenneth Ross (KAR@ROCKY.STANFORD.EDU)
Stanford University
Thursday, December 10, 4:15pm
MJH 252
A general logic program is a set of rules that have both positive
and negative subgoals. It is common to view a deductive database as a
general logic program consisting of rules (IDB) sitting above elementary
relations (EDB, facts). It is desirable to associate one Herbrand model
with a program and think of that model as the "meaning of the program,"
or its "declarative semantics." Ideally, queries directed to the program
would be answered in accordance with this model. We introduce unfounded
sets and well-founded partial models, and define the well-founded
semantics of a program to be its well-founded partial model. If the well-
founded partial model is in fact a model, we call it the well-founded
model and say the program is "well-behaved". We show that the class of
well-behaved programs properly includes previously studied classes of
"stratified" and "locally stratified" programs. Gelfond and Lifschitz
have proposed a definition of "canonical model" for general logic
programs. We show that a program has a canonical model if it has a well-
founded model, in which case they are the same. We discuss why the
converse is not true.
∂07-Dec-87 1329 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Sr. Faculty Meeting
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 Dec 87 13:29:40 PST
Date: Mon 7 Dec 87 13:23:54-PST
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Sr. Faculty Meeting
To: full-tenured@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12356653311.28.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Correction: following discussion of the Mayr promotion at the sr. faculty
meeting on Tuesday, January *5* there will be discussion of the Oliger and
Wiederhold promotion cases.
-Anne
-------
∂08-Dec-87 0047 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Re: Address for Henry Firdman
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Dec 87 00:47:12 PST
Date: Sun 6 Dec 87 11:11:52-EST
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Address for Henry Firdman
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Sat 5 Dec 87 16:13:00-EST
Message-ID: <12356334364.21.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
I had spoken with Firdman in response to your recommendation that we seek a
out emigres. He indicated that he now follows Soviet trends only casually.
You can reach him at:
Henry Firdman & Assoc., Inc., 2954 Alta Vista Drive, Fallbrook, CA 92028
619/723-2806
Good luck. I'll send you another updated copy of the list.
Regards...Marjory Blumenthal
-------
∂08-Dec-87 0530 MEERSMAN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Your invited talk at the Canton, China conference, July 1988
Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Dec 87 05:30:32 PST
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Tue, 8 Dec 87 05:27:53 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 8 Dec 87 05:29:25 PST
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 87 14:26 N
From: <MEERSMAN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: Your invited talk at the Canton, China conference, July 1988
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
X-Original-To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Dear Prof. McCarthy,
I have sent this request also by ordinary mail to Stanford. If you have alre
already responded, all is fine. We need the title of your invited talk quite
urgently for our Call for Participation. Can you e-mail it to me asap?
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Robert Meersman.
∂08-Dec-87 0957 littell@navajo.stanford.edu Sept. expenditure statement
Received: from NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Dec 87 09:57:09 PST
Received: by navajo.stanford.edu; Tue, 8 Dec 87 09:53:12 PST
Date: 8 Dec 1987 0953-PST (Tuesday)
From: Angelina Littell <littell@navajo.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: littell@navajo.stanford.edu
Subject: Sept. expenditure statement
A second reminder, please sign and return September's expendture
statements as soon as possible.
Accounts: 2-DMA404, 2-DMA705, 2-DMA762, 2-DMA781, 2-DMA786, 2-DMA901.
Thank you,
Angie
∂08-Dec-87 1300 JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU Oliver Radkey
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Dec 87 13:00:43 PST
Date: Tue 8 Dec 87 12:55:16-PST
From: Julia Baskett <JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Oliver Radkey
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12356910243.30.JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear John,
Pleass
-------
∂08-Dec-87 1302 JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU Oliver Radkey
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Dec 87 13:02:39 PST
Date: Tue 8 Dec 87 12:57:13-PST
From: Julia Baskett <JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Oliver Radkey
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12356910598.30.JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John,
Please do me a favor and check to see if my old Russian history
professor, Oliver Radkey, is alive and well in the history department
at Austin,
Thank you very much for your help.
Your friend,
Julia Baskett
-------
∂08-Dec-87 1343 JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Oliver Radkey
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Dec 87 13:43:10 PST
Date: Tue 8 Dec 87 13:37:45-PST
From: Julia Baskett <JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Oliver Radkey
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 8 Dec 87 13:07:00-PST
Message-ID: <12356917977.40.JULIA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Thank you, John, for the information.
Julia
-------
∂08-Dec-87 1521 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS COMMITTEE
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 8 Dec 87 15:20:43 PST
Date: Tue 8 Dec 87 18:13:26-EST
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS COMMITTEE
To: DUANE.ADAMS@C.CS.CMU.EDU, DONGARRA@ANL-MCS.ARPA,
GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, JAHIR@ATHENA.MIT.EDU,
HEARN@RAND-UNIX.ARPA, JLH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU, JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
OUSTER@ginger.Berkeley.EDU, CWeissman@DOCKMASTER.ARPA, RALSTON@MCC.COM
cc: GOODMAN%UAMIS.@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Message-ID: <12356935395.23.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
December 7, 1987
MEMORANDUM
__________
TO: Committee to Study International Developments in Computer Science
and Technology
FROM: Marjory S. Blumenthal, Staff Director
RE: Notes from December 3-4, 1987 Meeting
Attached are notes from the first committee meeting, held last week in
Washington. This productive meeting included briefings from the study
sponsor, the Department of State, as well as from the Central Intelligence
Agency, which monitors Eastern Bloc development and acquisition of
computer science and technology. During the second day, the group
identified a key set of technology areas, component topics, and
cross-cutting issues. After preliminary analysis is done by technology
areas, the committee will assess their implications.
As the action items note, the goal for each technology-area group is to
prepare preliminary drafts and deliver them to this office for assembly
and circulation by March 4, 1988. I encourage you to set up internal,
_____________
group schedules to meet this goal as soon as possible.
If I or my office can be of assistance to you in your work, please let me
know.
Attachment
NOTES FROM FIRST MEETING OF COMMITTEE TO STUDY INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TECHONLOGY 12/3-4/87
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEFINGS
S. Goodman: Study can address all of computer science and technology
(CS&T), worldwide. Of interest are both export control/technology
transfer and U.S. competitiveness. Goal is to describe and analyze
technology and business/commercial trends, addressing the international
diffusion of technology. The study will provide the background for policy
analysis, although it will not provide comprehensive policy analysis. The
committee has been asked to do something that hasn't been done before, and
its product will be helpful for the new administration as well as the
current one. Challenge is to massage what is essentially a matrix of
technologies and countries into a linear report.
J. Kahan (Dept. of State): This study is taking up a large proportion of
the Department's research budget. It is a potential model for studies on
other technology areas.
A. Locke (Dept. of State): Complex bureaucratic context for technology
transfer policy. Key concept: Whether a technology or product can make a
significant contribution to the military potential of another country.
Also important are the nature and level of foreign availability.
Don't overestimate the audience for the study report: detail and
explanation are valuable. Look out from now through 5-10 years--as far
out in time as possible.
R. Lerner (Dept. of Commerce): Ironically, a technology so new that it is
not on the COCOM list can be shipped without an export license...
Special briefing: NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION/BACKGROUND ONLY. Technology
Transfer Assessment Center--Technology Implications Group, Transfer
Analysis Group, Operations Support Group. Technology Transfer
Intelligence Committee--interagency group (enforcement, policy, and
intelligence personnel). Key: application of technology to weapons
systems. Examples where Soviet tech acquisition saved time; other
examples where adoption of the technology hasn't been successful or where
the Soviets have done better than us.
Intelligence evidence goes against the view that you can survive
militarily just by running faster--can't guarantee being faster or
fast enough. [This perspective is controversial.]
Indifference curve analysis: On plot of technology v. volume, with
potential third access representing Sov. capability for production and
absorption, plot tradeoff isoquants (curves) by year. As technology
changes, isoquants move out. Key question: How will the shape
change? Answer is function of the third axis. Key issue: Is that
axis biased toward volume (x-axis) or technology (y-axis)? If biased
toward tech, export controls will be less valuable. What are the
shape of the isoquants and the pace of movement out from the origin?
Soviets operate on assumption of domestic availability, of doing
themselves. If they can get Western technology, their capabilities
are enhanced.
Channels of Soviet technology acquisition: open source/legal (source
of under 5% of militarily critical technology for Soviets, but
identifies who is doing the work), illegal trade/COCOM violation
(Through W. business sources/trade diversion. Supplements
capabilities and frees native resources. Characterized by large
volumes of dual use mfg and test equipment--millions of ICs, thousands
of computers, hundreds of machine tools.), or intelligence operations
(characterized by very specific requests for samples or design
information--that with which the Soviets can reverse-engineer). U.S.
defense contractor and high-tech sector as prime source.
Production line manipulation: Broker can get something produced
faster by submitting a quantity order, then dumping what is not
needed, which passes through the second-hand market (see below).
Distribution licenses are tanatamount to a "KGB Relief Act."
DEC VAX number one computer target. Serviced by the 'DEC
diaspora'--people trained by DEC and circulating around Europe, moving
in and out of E. Bloc. Solves maintenance problem.
Widening Soviet microelectronics gap, following COCOM clamp down on
'complete plant' sales in early 1980s. Soviets will buy and use
chips, but won't become dependent on our chips, esp. for major weapons
systems. Note that can't reverse-engineer all chips or, it can
reverse engineer, can't necessarily produce (though may be able to
produce a functional copy).
Soviets are more aggressive in applying tech to weapons systems.
Likely to deploy 64K RAM weapons before we do, though we developed
earlier. Soviets lock weapons systems to technology after
development; U.S. after sure can produce.
[K. Tasky:] In comparing projected Soviet technology needs and
acquisition targets, computers are seen to play both direct and
indirect (e.g., for materials processing) roles. Relevant computers
are often dual-use.
Key judgments: U.S. leads USSR in all fields of general purpose
digital computer technology; greatest deficiencies pertain to
supercomputers and magnetic disk technologies; deficiencies apply in
civilian and military applications; U.S. lead is increasing in the
1980s; future progress depends on Soviet advances in microelectronics,
illegal acquisitions from the West.
Supercomputers are increasing in numbers--smaller/'Crayettes', less
expensive, increasing applications, more manufacturers. Also
increasing number of vulnerable locations--more in industry and in
developing countries (India, Indonesia, Taiwan, Singapore, etc..
Simpler architectures--massively parallel, easier to copy.
Key problem in inadequate CAD/CAM techniques, especially for but not
limited to microelectronics applications. Also, software problems, in
part due to poor software development tools.
Soviets may be locked into a lifetime of stealing technology, given
the high cost of alternatives.
Software relatively easy to acquire.
ISSUES
Factors that make techs hard to control: commodity status,
miniaturization, other?
If look at what should be controlled, forces examination of Soviet weapons
systems (may be beyond committee capabilities). If look at what should
not or can't be controlled, pushes toward competitiveness issues.
Can you quantify the impact of export control on competitiveness?
Commodity status: There is a problem with computer technology changing
too fast to become commodity-like. Perhaps it is better to run faster
than to drop stones behind you.
Problem if growing number of more powerful parts are becoming
commodities.
Rep. Don Bonker proposal to eliminate bottom 40% of control list: How
do you measure the bottom? Why not the top, since Soviets lack
corresponding weapons systems?
Technology origins--controllability is a function of origins: Many
technologies emanate from the military, as did CS&T originally, but CS&T
now largely emanates from commercial side. This trend is on the increase
as advanced military programs (e.g., from NSA, DARPA) are farmed out to
academia.
How much do you have to/can you acquire? Where need a whole
infrastructure for "technology transfer" to work?
Importance of high-level tools, ability to manufacture for own use.
N.b., in computer area, there may be little practical difference
between an end product and a tool [controversy on this point].
Uncontrollability applies to more than products--also, knowhow. There
is a very high cost to controlling knowhow.
There has been an explosion of theoretical research in the last few
years. In an open community, this knowledge is hard to control.
Issue of technology base, ability to do tooling.
Cf. Bucy report--control radical rather than evolutionary technology;
focus on means of production? DuBois: if tech is applicable to the
military, he favors controlling evolutionary tech.
Issue of in-place diversion of computer resources--e.g., access to
supercomputers, perhaps from Europe.
Less-developed countries pose more of a problem than Europe, from
perspective of CIA. Supercomputers are the steel mills of the 1980s.
If put one in India, the Soviets will have access.
What about access to supers at U.S. universities?
Mistake to think that Soviets will run their bomb codes on U.S.
supercomputers.
How evaluate benefits to Soviets of getting a certain tech? What if
US-Sov. talks progress and lead to tech transfer deals?
TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
Survey the likely tech developments over the next few years: Year 2000 as
horizon.
Military significance may be a useless criterion for sifting technology.
IR&D contractors can always claim/justify military relevance, for
technologies from AI to tube-bending machinery. Assume that any important
tech development in this area probably has military significance. N.b.,
technologies with commercial relevance and availability are bumped from
IR&D list, providing a bias against dual-use tech. Assume all CS&T has
dual use? Can we identify non-dual use attributes--e.g., EMP/radiation
resistance?
Beware giving short shrift to software. N.b., software influences
hardware.
Factors that inhibit software tech transfer include maintenance needs,
complexity (for AI, for networking (protocols))
Ease of replication.
Spectrum of availability, worldwide.
Soviets have sketchy knowledge of what's available in rest of world;
they focus on U.S. technology. However, this may be changing, at
least in E. Europe v. USSR.
Performance parameters for CS&T are key...
Recent article indicates that Ryad mainframe MTBF has improved from
150 to 300 hours. Only 1-5 MIPS, though claim higher; function of
application.
Functionality and performance metrics were key concerns when Export
Administration Act of 1979 was drafted.
Threshold performance issue: If Soviets get X level, get concerned...
MARKET ISSUES
Business' inability to export new technology (e.g., new operating systems)
sharply reduces the available market size. Manufacturers are resisting
defense applications because of problem/cost of halving their market or
having to maintain multiple versions of complex products like operating
systems.
Used equipment market: Under 2% of equipment in used markplace gets an
export license, despite COCOM rules.
HARDWARE FOR ENGINEERING AND SUPERCOMPUTING APPLICATIONS ROUND-ROBIN
Ousterhout: Within five years and by 2000 there will be little
distinction between supercomputers and high-end workstations. Smaller is
better. Will be difficult to build machines with corresponding
performance gains over the workstations of the period, measured in MIPS
and cost.
Wilson: Demand for computing is driving increases in cpability. Moving
toward problems requiring 100 GFLOPS--expect 128 GFLOPS by 1995.
Scientific community is just beginning to develop applications (e.g.,
computational wind tunnels).
How broadly should supercomputers be defined? Use of high computing
intensity for mathematical modeling of physical problems? May be too
limiting.
Expect demand to always exceed current capabilities. Available tools will
change the way things are designed.
Must address developments in Far East, F.R. Germany (Ralston), U.K.
(Hearn).
Auerbach: Consider breakthroughs. Optics--if optical computers by 2000,
ICs may be irrelevant. Also, superconductivity and biomolecular
electronics.. What kinds of things will be possible and who might be
doing them? What are the Japanese doing? Japanese are making substantial
investments in biomolecular electronics (Gannon).
N.b., Soviets are advanced in optics (Gannon).
Other key areas: software, mfg technology, AI, parallel processing,
GaAs, VHSIC, architecture.
Consider three factors with respect to control: (1) Accessibility--
commodity/high volume nature; (2) transportability; (3) degree of U.S.
monopoly.
Hennessey: Expect sustained performance of machines based on single- or
two-chip configurations like today's supercomputers by 2000--sustained
like peak of today. Very high speed machines will probably be parallel.
Should protect key technologies (e.g., GaAs, high-density CMOS-base,
liquid cooled, superconductivity, etc.). Machines have to get smaller to
get faster. CPUs that will fit on 6 square inches (albeit without main
memory).
Key concern with IC technology: If protect IC tech can protect ability to
replicate everything else. Question of whether protect chips v. ability
to make chips.
There will always be demand for peak-performance machines. Control is not
an economic issue given their low market volume, but given strategic
importance should control to extent machines are uniquely American.
McHenry: Soviets have problems making chips for supercomputers. They
have little scientific experience working with supers, are less up on how
to write problems for supers. Producing via academia-industry
partnership.
Most of today's machines are parallel.
Weissman: U.S. might maintain an edge in specialized interface chips,
which provide interconnection circuitry. Learning to adapt application
for processing architecture is a key skill.
Ralston: Consider non-von Neumann architectures, multiprocessors becoming
commodities, fully interconnected systems (may entail fancy crossbar
switches or free-space optics). These are key issue for large-scale
computers and other architectures.
Terabit-range memories will involve optical disk rather than magnetic
storage; block-line, bubble, holographic, other technologies.
Knowhow issue: people really don't understand parallelism. Must
understand algorithms and concurrency.
Adams: Ability to build machines that are scalable. Modular construction
of high-terformance, interconnected machines. Move from GFLOP to teraFLOP
by 2000: programming issue, computational models and algorithms.
CHAPTER CONCERNS, BY CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY
1) Technology trends: What see in technology? E.g., what architectures,
given current microelectronics-based components.
2) Countries: U.S. commercial development and what is happening elseshere
in world, including Western and Eastern Bloc countries, plus developing or
non-aligned. Commercial developments and diffusion patterns.
3) Breakthrough technologies
4) Protectability--Controllability plus
5) Security
Issue of safeguards: How assure CAT scan processor is not used for other
purposes? Consider decision on supercomputer for India, or turnkey air
traffic control systems. Consider effectiveness of inspection
provisions. Object code v. source code control.
Consider systems with greater value than their elements. Brings out the
value of algorithms. Problem if must get a license review for the whole
system rather than the parts.
Help State Dept. make a determination on one-of-a-kind turnkey systems.
CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES
Basic Technologies--materials, components
Computer Hardware (beyond chip level)
Software--including AI
Communications
Applications and Integration
Manufacturing--focus on use of computers in mfg of computers
HARDWARE Gannon-head
Dongarra-supers head,
Supercomputers w/Wilson
Hennessey
Smaller systems (micros to mainframes) Judy and Goodman on Soviet
Peripherals
SOFTWARE Ousterhout-head
Hearn
System-level software Weissman
McCarthy/AI
Software development environment
Development tools
Productivity
Programming languages
Quality assurance (reliability, maintenance, etc.)
AI
Consider large class of publicly-available software. E.g., library at
CERN, to which Soviets have access. Or, LINPAC (sp?) at Argonne--a
substantial asset, given all the debugging that has gone into
it--available via Arpanet; Indiana's chemistry codes; Jamison's airflow
codes. Unisys has had design software available on a timeshare basis, to
which presumably anyone has had access via a variety of public data
networks.
How important is getting sofware upgrades? What is indigenous capability
to do upgrades?
BASIC TECHNOLOGIES Ralston-head
Davis
Materials Hennessey
Adams
Semiconductors
Micromechanics
Optics
Superconductivity
Biomolecular
Component design and manufacturing, packaging
What if the MOSIS concept is commercialized, becomes mass-market? British
company is about to provide a commercial MOSIS. Cf. broader
rapid-prototyping issue. Problem of increasing penetrability as U.S.
infrastructure matures.
COMMUNICATIONS (given committee expertise, focus on digital, computer-
oriented communications)
Weissman-head
McHenry
Ralston on standards
Infrastructure (n.b., committee lacks expertise in media)
Distributed systems
Interconnectability
Standards/protocols
(consider Soviet participation in ISO and degree of DOD suppport for
ISO, as function of security)
Specialized hardware (e.g., front-end processors)
Security
Encryption (what is Soviet capability?)
Locke: what about Soviet network access? Do you want the Soviets to tie
into the world communications network? Note that, in Washington, ISO is
confined to a specialized community.
Standards: DCA is courting NBS in effort to build TCP and IP into ISO;
NSA is resisting. May be a cutting-edge example.
Are other standardization issues as important? There is, for example,
global interest in standardizing programming languages, but may not be
an issue for control.
Given inherent dialogue, standards may be fundamentally
unprotectable. Yet, what gets manufactured and sold is what
implements the standard.
APPLICATIONS AND INTEGRATION Stansberry-head
Hearn
McHenry
Gossard
Gannon
Wilson/transportable
applications
Market-specific products with embedded software (e.g., medical, air
traffic control, manufacturing, tariffing)
(Trans)portable v. environment-dependent
Systems integration
Don't write off medical applications: Maybe the 3D image processing of
CAT scanner can be used for satellite data processing, etc. Raises
questions about safeguards, to prevent cannibalization for key element
technologies.
Consider versioning.
What DOD calls complete systems integration may be very people-dependent
and therefore hard to steal.
Some movement toward packageable systems--e.g., configurations control.
Emergence of rule-based systems allows packaging of configuration and
management of distributed systems (as opposed to networks). Challenge to
DEC, et al. There appears to be limited Japanese activity here, though
Siemens has gotten involved.
MANUFACTURING Adams-head
Auerbach
Gossard
Judy
Tools to manufacture computers, from ICs to boxes
Consider semiconductors, optics, micromanipulators, materials handlers,
cleanrooms, software.
IMPLICATIONS Auerbach
Thornton?
SECURITY Weissman
SUMMARY ISSUES
Position of U.S. v. other nations
Summary statements re relative positions of West v. East.
Military v. economic criticality.
Competitive ramification of export controls: Problem with backup
data--problem in Lew Allen report.
NEXT MEETING: Week of 3/21/87
ACTION:
* Key technologies chapter drafts due to CSTB office 3/4/87 for assembly
and distribution to committee.
* Chapter groups must set schedules accordingly; e-mail and conference
calls are encouraged.
* All committee members should forward suggestions and reference ideas
as appropriate.
* Remember to provide as much international perspective as possible.
-------
∂08-Dec-87 1626 PHY
mail:
`Theoretical analysis of circumscription' by Frank M. Brown
(abstract starts off with An analysis is made of McCarthy's circumscription...'
letter from Stanford Alumni Association - requesting a review of a favorite
book for `The Literary Corner' of the Stanford Magazine, similar to personal
review in `Summer Reading' put out by H&S.
Roy Jones resume
grade needed for Weening, Joe N (satisfactory progress), N- (unsatisfactory
progress); P (satisfactory completion of final quarter).
I'll get someone to forge your signature.
∂09-Dec-87 0117 @Score.Stanford.EDU:POSER@CSLI.Stanford.EDU experiment
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Dec 87 01:17:52 PST
Received: from CSLI.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Wed 9 Dec 87 01:12:27-PST
Date: Wed 9 Dec 87 01:13:06-PST
From: Bill Poser <POSER@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: experiment
To: su-etc@CSLI.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12357044562.11.POSER@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
I bet there's gonna be a problem getting this one by the human
subjects committee though.
-------
∂09-Dec-87 0529 MEERSMAN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu thanks. Pls ignore further queued requests on this... Robert Meersman
Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Dec 87 05:29:45 PST
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Wed, 9 Dec 87 05:26:38 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 9 Dec 87 05:28:01 PST
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 87 14:24 N
From: <MEERSMAN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: thanks. Pls ignore further queued requests on this... Robert Meersman
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
X-Original-To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
∂09-Dec-87 0900 JMC
expenses
∂09-Dec-87 1443 Qlisp-mailer beware of stack overflow!!!
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Dec 87 14:43:14 PST
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA07277; Wed, 9 Dec 87 14:40:42 pst
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Wed, 9 Dec 87 14:38:39 PST
Received: from bhopal.lucid.com by edsel id AA12277g; Wed, 9 Dec 87 14:41:33 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA04433g; Wed, 9 Dec 87 14:42:00 PST
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 87 14:42:00 PST
From: Ron Goldman <edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8712092242.AA04433@bhopal.lucid.com>
To: qlisp@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Subject: beware of stack overflow!!!
If you run qlisp and get an error message like
Skipping bad frame.
or
Debugger must find new anchor for stack...
then there is a good chance that one of your processes overflowed it's stack
and thereby trashed the stack of another process (or was trashed by it). If
you are getting totally random error messages then you might also suspect
stack overflow as the culprit. Remember that, unless you request otherwise,
each process is allocated a stack of 2k longwords, so if you have recursive
functions that will stack up several hundred calls you're definitely going
to be in trouble. If you're running interpreted it takes even less recursive
calls to run out of process stack space. To increase the space available for
each process's stack call:
(change-process-stack-size new-size)
To have four times the available stack use new-size = 8192 (note no validity
checking of new-size is done). Be aware that ~4M is available for process
stacks. Thus for the default 2k stack size, ~2000 processes can be created.
If you increase the stack size, less processes can be in use at any time.
Eventually Qlisp will automatically expand the stack for a process when it is
necessary, but this won't be implemented for a few months. For right now
I'll see if I can smarten up the debugger a bit so that it will complain if a
stack overflow exists when an error occurs. I'll also see if some simple
test for trashed stacks / stack overflow can be done whenever a process is
swapped in or out.
Ron
p.s. I've just renamed the files in /lucid/bin so:
new-qlisp => qlisp
qlisp => old-qlisp
old-qlisp => oldest-qlisp
unless I hear that someone is still using oldest-qlisp (the initial
Qlisp implementation), it will be deleted in a few days.
∂09-Dec-87 1714 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
UNFOUNDED SETS AND WELL-FOUNDED SEMANTICS
FOR GENERAL LOGIC PROGRAMS
Allen Van Gelder (AVG@SATURN.UCSC.EDU)
University of California at Santa Cruz
Kenneth Ross (KAR@ROCKY.STANFORD.EDU)
Stanford University
Thursday, December 10, 4:15pm
MJH 252
A general logic program is a set of rules that have both positive
and negative subgoals. It is common to view a deductive database as a
general logic program consisting of rules (IDB) sitting above elementary
relations (EDB, facts). It is desirable to associate one Herbrand model
with a program and think of that model as the "meaning of the program,"
or its "declarative semantics." Ideally, queries directed to the program
would be answered in accordance with this model. We introduce unfounded
sets and well-founded partial models, and define the well-founded
semantics of a program to be its well-founded partial model. If the well-
founded partial model is in fact a model, we call it the well-founded
model and say the program is "well-behaved". We show that the class of
well-behaved programs properly includes previously studied classes of
"stratified" and "locally stratified" programs. Gelfond and Lifschitz
have proposed a definition of "canonical model" for general logic
programs. We show that a program has a canonical model if it has a well-
founded model, in which case they are the same. We discuss why the
converse is not true.
∂10-Dec-87 1342 HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 10 Dec 87 13:39:46 PST
Date: Thu 10 Dec 87 13:31:41-PST
From: Thomas Henzinger <HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Logic-of-Programs Seminar
To: LOP: ;
Message-ID: <12357441161.16.HENZINGER@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
**************************************
* LOGIC OF PROGRAMS [LOP] Seminar *
**************************************
Fridays 11:30-12:30, MJH 301
December 11: Prof. Ugo Montanari (Univ. of Pisa and SRI Int.),
"Operational Semantics of Concurrency"
[final meeting of this quarter]
-------
∂11-Dec-87 0615 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu Thanks
Received: from [128.196.1.3] by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Dec 87 06:14:59 PST
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 87 07:04 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: Thanks
To: DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu, DONGARRA@anl-mcs.arpa,
GANNON@DEC-HUDSON.BITNET, JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@RAND.ORG.arpa,
JLH@sierra.stanford.edu, JMC@sail.stanford.edu, MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET,
OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS
to you all for your participation on our NAS study. If you have any
questions please do not hesitate to gt in touch with Marjory or myself.
∂11-Dec-87 1158 DAVIS@Score.Stanford.EDU Sailing
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Dec 87 11:58:02 PST
Date: Fri 11 Dec 87 11:31:19-PST
From: Thea Davis <DAVIS@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Sailing
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12357681392.30.DAVIS@Score.Stanford.EDU>
jmc, is sail down at this moment?
julia
-------
∂11-Dec-87 1425 Qlisp-mailer new Qlisp version available
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 11 Dec 87 14:25:18 PST
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA00899; Fri, 11 Dec 87 14:22:44 pst
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Fri, 11 Dec 87 13:33:22 PST
Received: from bhopal.lucid.com by edsel id AA21644g; Fri, 11 Dec 87 13:28:38 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA13979g; Fri, 11 Dec 87 13:29:17 PST
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 87 13:29:17 PST
From: Ron Goldman <edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8712112129.AA13979@bhopal.lucid.com>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: new Qlisp version available
A new version of /lucid/bin/new-qlisp is available for testing. The way
QLET is implemented has been substantially changed, so you should recompile
any old Qlisp code before running it. Changes to Qlisp include:
1) the debugger should be more robust now,
2) new sleep locks and events now available, and
3) qlet and qlambda redone to make use of new locks/events.
The debugger is now interlocked so that only one process should be able to use
it at a time. If a second process encounters an error that would put it in
the debugger, then it will go to sleep until the first process leaves the
debugger. If you issue a command to the debugger that causes a recursive
error you may have a problem. As long as the current process is the one that
causes the error, you'll be ok. It will enter another level of the debugger,
and you can return to your original error with :e. However, if the command
spawns off a child process that causes a recursive error, it won't be able to
get the debugger lock since the parent has never released it. You might also
encounter this if you issue a ↑C interrupt. This problem (and others) will
get fixed at some point, but be aware of them for now.
The debugger also does a simple check to try and detect stack overflow. If
the stack looks like it has overflowed, then a warning message is printed
and a throw to top level is attempted. At some point we'll try to make
the debugger smarter so that even if the stack has overflowed, it can be used
to see what the state of things is when the error occurred. Let me know if
you think the debugger is incorrectly reporting stack overflow, or if it
is not successful in throwing back to Lisp top level.
One other debugger related point: if you interrupt your program with a ↑C
keyboard interrupt, you might not be able to have the debugger abort back to
the Lisp top level (with :a). This definitely happens if you interrupt the
idle-job, and it can also happen if you have any unwind-protects or catches in
your code. This will be fixed soon, since catch and throw is next on my list
of things to do. For now, if you just continue (:c) from the interrupt and
try again with another ↑C, you might win, provided that you have an active
process around to catch the interrupt.
Locks now come in two flavors: spin and sleep. The current lock related
functions available are:
(make-lock :type 'spin) ; make a spin lock
(make-lock) ; " " " "
(make-lock :type 'sleep) ; make a sleep lock
(lock-p foo) ; T if foo is a lock
(lock-owner foo) ; process that owns lock
(lock-wait-count foo) ; count of times spin lock has spun
(lock-count foo) ; user setable lock field
(lock-value foo) ; another user setable field
(name-lock foo baz) ; give lock foo the name baz
(get-lock foo) ; acquire lock foo, wait if can't
(get-lock foo :name baz) ; with name baz
(get-lock foo :ok-if-owner t) ; ok if process already owns lock
(try-get-lock foo) ; try to acquire lock foo, don't wait
(try-get-lock foo :name baz) ; (as above)
(try-get-lock foo :ok-if-owner t)
(check-lock foo) ; T if lock is available, NIL otherwise
(check-lock foo :status t) ; multiple-value return:
; (lock-available
; #processes-waiting-on-lock)
(release-lock foo) ; frees up lock foo
(with-lock (foo) code) ; execute code after acquiring lock foo
(with-lock (foo :name baz) code)
(with-lock (foo :ok-if-owner t) code)
Refer to the Qlisp paper for details of named locks (in the software pipelining
section). Only sleep locks can be named. When acquiring a lock with
(get-lock foo ...)
the type of the lock determines whether the process busy waits (spin lock) or
if it blocks and is added to the end of a queue for the lock (sleep lock). For
spin locks there is a lock field, lock-wait-count, that is incremented by one
each time the lock is spun. This gives a simple monitoring tool that will
hopefully be useful. If a process already owns a lock, then trying to acquire
it again with either get-lock or try-get-lock will cause an error, unless if
ok-if-owner is T. When a sleep lock is released, the first process in the
queue for it (if any) is given the lock. If check-lock is called with status
T then it returns both whether the lock is available, and how many processes
are waiting for the lock. The macro
(with-lock (foo) code)
is equivalent to
(unwind-protect
(progn
(get-lock foo)
code)
(release-lock foo))
Note that the unwind-protect is important if any throws might occur, either
inside of code, or, soon, in another process.
A new construct to simplify process synchronization is the event. Event
related routines include:
(make-event) ; make a new event
(wait-event baz) ; wait for event baz to be signalled
(wait-event baz :count n) ; wait for baz to be signalled n times
(wait-event baz :wait m) ; wait for m processes to be waiting
(signal-event baz) ; signal event baz
(signal-event baz :count n) ; signal event baz n times
(reset-event baz) ; reset the event count to zero
(check-event baz) ; times event has been signalled
(check-event baz :status t) ; multiple-value return:
; (event-count
; #processes-waiting-on-event)
When waiting for an event the default is to wait for the event to be signalled
once. Note that if the event is signalled before the call to wait-event, then
no actual waiting takes place. Otherwise the process is put to sleep until
another process signals the event. When the event is signalled all of the
processes waiting on it are awakened. Note that after an event has been
signalled, it must be reset before any process will need to wait on it again.
It is also possible to request that a process sleep until the event has been
signalled a specified number of times. (This is what QLET currently does; each
spawned child when done signals the event that the parent QLET process is
waiting on.) Finally, a process can request to be awakened when a specified
number of processes (including itself) are waiting for the event to occur. I
don't know how useful this implicit signalling will be, but it's there to play
with. It is possible to specify both of these, in which case the process will
be awakened as soon as either condition is met.
Bugs/comments to me.
∂11-Dec-87 1456 RPG My State
I have yet to complete my written plan for the institute (or whatever),
however, it shall be done. Possibly before you return would have been too
soon to move ahead. I was thinking that the slot for a non-conventional
languages person (as described in Nils' message) could be filled by me as
a professor of research, freeing that billet for someone else in some
other area.
-rpg-
∂12-Dec-87 1425 PLAMBECK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: Mencken
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 Dec 87 14:25:09 PST
Date: Sat 12 Dec 87 14:19:29-PST
From: Thane E. Plambeck <PLAMBECK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mencken
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: plambeck@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Sat 12 Dec 87 11:01:00-PST
Message-ID: <12357974151.26.PLAMBECK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
I just like Mencken's flaming. It's interesting to note that Mencken
made it clear that he preferred living in the US to any other country.
He gave as reasons the ease with which one can earn respect and earn
a living, and the entertainment provided by politics. He loved to
bash Bryan and the Anti-Saloon League, and if he lived today I think
he would turn equal energy against Robertson and the Pro-Choice movement.
I think he once defined puritanism as ``the lingering suspicion that
someone, somewhere, might be enjoying themselves.'' The only people
he really liked were literary types, I think, and he could wax
Nietzshean when comparing people and ideas. In the essay I quoted
he even refers to Ellis Island immgrants as ``bungled and botched,''
or ``poor fish.''
-------
∂13-Dec-87 0004 vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU re: Searle essay
Received: from ERNIE.Berkeley.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Dec 87 00:03:54 PST
Received: by ernie.Berkeley.EDU (5.58/1.23)
id AA11131; Sun, 13 Dec 87 00:07:21 PST
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 87 00:07:21 PST
From: vijay@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Vijay Ramamoorthy)
Message-Id: <8712130807.AA11131@ernie.Berkeley.EDU>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: re: Searle essay
Hi,
I've checked around with Searle and his secretary and we can't seem to find
out exactly what you were initially referring to. However, I did run
the AI discussion that you participated in with Rumelhart, Winograd,
Searle, Dreyfus, Charniak, etc. If this is what you were interested
in, I'll be glad to help you out in any way.
-Vijay
∂13-Dec-87 1357 GREEP@CSLI.Stanford.EDU Re: where much modern religion seems to lead
Received: from CSLI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Dec 87 13:57:23 PST
Date: Sun 13 Dec 87 13:50:41-PST
From: Steven Tepper <greep@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: where much modern religion seems to lead
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Sun 13 Dec 87 11:22:00-PST
Message-ID: <12358231050.16.GREEP@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Maybe he was being sarcastic.
-------
∂13-Dec-87 1437 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu this is my preferred .edu address. This Bitnet address Marjory
Received: from [128.196.1.3] by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 13 Dec 87 14:37:32 PST
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 87 15:18 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: this is my preferred .edu address. This Bitnet address Marjory
provided should also work.
To: DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu, DONGARRA@anl-mcs.arpa,
GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@rand-unix.arpa,
JLH@sierra.stanford.edu, JMC@sail.stanford.edu, MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET,
OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com, CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS
From: UAMIS::JMS "Looking smart is no substitute for being smart." 13-DEC-1987 15:02
To: UAMIS::GOODMAN
Subj: RE: Joel: can you tell what went wrong with the rvax address?
Yes, they have the wrong address for you, given that their
software is braindamaged. Tell them that your address is
goodman@mrsvax.mis.arizona.edu
jms
∂14-Dec-87 0804 Qlisp-mailer Fibonacci
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Dec 87 08:04:46 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA07214; Mon, 14 Dec 87 08:02:05 pst
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 08:02:05 pst
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8712141602.AA07214@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Fibonacci
In the old days, we used to calculate fibonacci serially, and it ran
fairly fast for small n, but rather poorly for larger n:
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
> (time (fib 28))
Elapsed real time = 10670 milliseconds
User cpu time = 10660 milliseconds
System cpu time = 4 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 10664 milliseconds
317811
> (time (fib 10))
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3 milliseconds
55
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
But nowadays, with the advent of Qlisp, we can calculate
Fib much faster for significant n:
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
> (qtime (fib 10))
Elapsed real time = 10 milliseconds
User cpu time = 9 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 9 milliseconds
55
> (qtime (fib 28))
Elapsed real time = 3440 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3427 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3427 milliseconds
317811
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
While (QTIME (FIB 10)) is 3 times slower than the old fashioned
uni-processor lisp, (QTIME (FIB 28)) is slightly more than 3
times FASTER than the old-fashioned way! We obtained an effective
speed-up of 3 out of 4 processors! I can't wait until we get 8.
-dan
∂14-Dec-87 0810 Qlisp-mailer Fibonacci
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Dec 87 08:10:47 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA07225; Mon, 14 Dec 87 08:08:11 pst
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 08:08:11 pst
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8712141608.AA07225@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@sail
Subject: Fibonacci
In the old days, we used to calculate fibonacci serially, and it ran
fairly fast for small n, but rather poorly for larger n:
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
> (time (fib 28))
Elapsed real time = 10670 milliseconds
User cpu time = 10660 milliseconds
System cpu time = 4 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 10664 milliseconds
317811
> (time (fib 10))
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3 milliseconds
55
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
But nowadays, with the advent of Qlisp, we can calculate
Fib much faster for significant n:
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
> (qtime (fib 10))
Elapsed real time = 10 milliseconds
User cpu time = 9 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 9 milliseconds
55
> (qtime (fib 28))
Elapsed real time = 3440 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3427 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3427 milliseconds
317811
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
While (QTIME (FIB 10)) is 3 times slower than the old fashioned
uni-processor lisp, (QTIME (FIB 28)) is slightly more than 3
times FASTER than the old-fashioned way! We obtained an effective
speed-up of 3 out of 4 processors! I can't wait until we get 8.
-dan
∂14-Dec-87 0847 PHY
This should probably be the last mailing, as you will be returning at the
end of the month, and I will not be here from the 24th to Jan 4.
mail:
Invitation to write a book/lecture notes on Topics in Mathematical Theory
of Computation
from World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc.
Letter from Bobrow thanking you for review of paper by Arbab - it was rejected
Letter from Armand de Callatay - his brain model - comparison paper of
his model and Minsky's
∂14-Dec-87 0905 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Full Professor Faculty Meeting
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Dec 87 09:05:52 PST
Date: Mon 14 Dec 87 08:52:45-PST
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Full Professor Faculty Meeting
To: full-tenured@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12358438959.13.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Full Professor Faculty Meeting
January 5, 1988
4:30 p.m.
MJH 146
Agenda
======
1. Consideration of promotion of Assoc. Professor Joseph Oliger to Professor
-Joel Ferziger
2. Consideration of promotion of Assoc Professor (Research) Gio Wiederhold to
Professor (Research)
-Jeff Ullman
-Ted Shortliffe
-------
∂14-Dec-87 1056 edsel!jlz@labrea.stanford.edu First issue goes to publisher!!!
Received: from LABREA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Dec 87 10:55:56 PST
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Mon, 14 Dec 87 10:45:05 PST
Received: from sunvalleymall.lucid.com by edsel id AA06826g; Mon, 14 Dec 87 10:33:05 PST
Received: by sunvalleymall id AA10280g; Mon, 14 Dec 87 10:33:56 PST
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 10:33:56 PST
From: Jan Zubkoff <edsel!jlz@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8712141833.AA10280@sunvalleymall.lucid.com>
To: labrea!lasc%sail.stanford.edu@labrea.stanford.edu
Cc: edsel!jlz@labrea.stanford.edu
Subject: First issue goes to publisher!!!
Thank you all for making the first issue of LASC possible. I
have mailed the first issue to Kluwer for typesetting. It should
be available January or February. You all will receive a
complimentary copy directly from Kluwer.
We have most of the second issue in as well. We need papers for
the third issue though. Please let me know if you know someone I
can contact for submissions.
Again, thank you for making this issue possible.
---jan---
∂14-Dec-87 1219 WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Ruminations on air travel
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Dec 87 12:14:56 PST
Date: Mon 14 Dec 87 12:09:23-PST
From: Walter R. Mann <WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Ruminations on air travel
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon 14 Dec 87 11:48:00-PST
Message-ID: <12358474754.23.WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
It's quite possible I have my model numbers mixed up.
Yes, the captain is indeed on the plane. I distinctly recall, though
I may have been a bit flippant in my reporting, that it was the captain's
decision to take off; I know he was the one I was cursing all through
the ordeal. Does anyone know if there are marginal conditions for
which it is pilot's choice? Also, I think there is a stronger factor
at work than attention to the law of averages: professional pride. The
captain has his honor to defend ("Hell, I flew worse than this in 'Nam"),
while I have only that sack of gelatinous tissue I call myself to defend.
Recall the incident of several weeks back where an airliner crashed
because the veteran crew forgot to lower flaps for take-off. The
flight recorder revealed that they did not go through the regulation
check-off procedure. I think it is likely that something like professional
pride caused the crew to convince themselves that they were so exper-
ienced, they didn't need such nonsense as a pre-flight checklist.
This may also have been the motivation for a pilot who witnessed the
take-off to report incorrectly that the flaps were indeed down --
trying, consciously or unconsciously, to save professional face for
the unfortunate crew.
Pride literally goeth before a fall. Let us pray that his pride does
not go before MY fall. Amen.
-------
∂14-Dec-87 1219 WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU My last message ...
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Dec 87 12:18:58 PST
Date: Mon 14 Dec 87 12:13:28-PST
From: Walter R. Mann <WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: My last message ...
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12358475496.23.WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
was intended for both yourself and SU-ETC, but due to some key fumbling
I think it only made it to your address. Disregard the "anyone out
there".
-------
∂14-Dec-87 1326 Qlisp-mailer Fibonacci
To: qlisp@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Well, possibly the speedups occur when Fibonacci goes into the
bignum range and is doing more work? In any event, nothing beats
logarithmic. Here are two other Fibonacci functions, each logarithmic.
(defun fb (i)
(labels ((fib1 (n n-1 n-2 m m-1 m-2)
(let ((k (* n-1 m-1)))
(values (+ (* n m) k)
(+ (* n m-1) (* n-1 m-2))
(+ k (* n-2 m-2)))))
(fb1 (i)
(cond ((zerop i) (values 1 0 0))
((= i 1) (values 1 1 0))
((evenp i) (multiple-value-bind (n n-1 n-2)
(fb1 (truncate i 2))
(fib1 n n-1 n-2 n n-1 n-2)))
(t (multiple-value-bind (n n-1 n-2)
(fb1 (1- i))
(fib1 1 1 0 n n-1 n-2))))))
(values (fb1 i))))
(defun foo (i)
(labels ((m-mult (n-0 n-1 n-2 m-0 m-1 m-2)
(let ((k (* n-1 m-1)))
(values (+ (* n-0 m-0) k)
(+ (* n-0 m-1) (* n-1 m-2))
(+ k (* n-2 m-2)))))
(fib (i)
(cond ((zerop i) (values 1 0 1)) ; This may be right
((evenp i)
(multiple-value-bind (n-0 n-1 n-2)
(fib (truncate i 2))
(m-mult n-0 n-1 n-2 n-0 n-1 n-2)))
((multiple-value-bind
(q r)
(truncate i 4)
(declare (ignore q))
(= r 1)) ; (1-mod4-p i)
(multiple-value-bind (n-0 n-1 n-2)
(fib (1- i))
(m-mult 1 1 0 n-0 n-1 n-2)))
(t ; (3-mod4-p i)
(multiple-value-bind (n-0 n-1 n-2)
(fib (1+ i))
(m-mult 0 1 -1 n-0 n-1 n-2))))))
(values (fib i))))
You can use these for arguments up to 20000 in times under a couple of
seconds, but don't print the result! (time (progn (fb 20000) t)).
-rpg-
∂14-Dec-87 1536 Qlisp-mailer re: Fibonacci
To: qlisp@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RPG rcvd 14-Dec-87 13:26-PT.]
To check whether bignums are causing the good results, use floating point
or work mod some prime.
∂14-Dec-87 1642 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Budget Justification, Continuation of Umbrella Contract
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Dec 87 16:42:00 PST
Date: Mon 14 Dec 87 16:35:58-PST
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Budget Justification, Continuation of Umbrella Contract
To: Binford@Coyote.Stanford.EDU, Cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU,
Gupta@Amadeus.Stanford.EDU, Latombe@Coyote.Stanford.EDU,
DCL@Sail.Stanford.EDU, ZM@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
cc: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU, Jutta@Score.Stanford.EDU,
CBarsalou@Score.Stanford.EDU, Bergman@Score.Stanford.EDU,
Wheaton@athena.Stanford.EDU, BScott@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12358523285.29.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
As most of you know, last June I submitted a copy of the original work state-
ment, together with a budget for $9,756,193 to extend the current contract
through November 30, 1990. This is a tasking contract, and tasks which fit
under the scope of the work can be added, with individual proposals and budgets
submitted by Principal Investigators at any time during the contract period.
Late developments:
1. Lt. Julio Guerra, SPAWAR, will be handling this extension (instead of John
Pucci).
2. Lt. Guerra has now asked for various budget justifications. I can prepare
justification for some of the items, but I do need your input on the
following:
Domestic Travel $134,121
Foreign Travel 33,530
Capital Equipment 502,955
Subcontract (Wiederhold) 234,712
On the travel, specific trip listings are required for both domestic and
foreign, and the sum for all eight P.I.s should equal the totals above.
So give me what you know of now and I'll see what the net result turns out
to be.
Regarding capital equipment, a specific list (with quotes) is required,
and I can't be of much help here except to tally what you send me, and
see what the bottom line is. As you all know, when you submit specific
task proposals, you must also include an equipment list, with quotes,
etc. It may or may not be on the list we submit now.
3. General comments on the budget. I prepared it, working with instructions
to keep it under ten million. I then calculated the salaries which I
thought necessary for the seven of you, added the subcontract for Gio
and CSD-CF which seemed "reasonable," and then used the remaining dollars
for travel, supplies and capital equipment. I will send each of you a
copy of the budget, so you will have a better picture of what I prepared.
And I will also send a copy of the work statement to each of you; it is
exactly the same statement which was submitted with the original umbrella
proposal.
4. I told Lt. Guerra that we would have the budget justification to him by
mid-January, so I hope I can have all your input by January 11 to allow
a couple of days for final preparation.
Let me know if you have questions, and thanks in advance.
Betty
-------
∂14-Dec-87 1655 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Correction
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Dec 87 16:55:30 PST
Date: Mon 14 Dec 87 16:49:34-PST
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Correction
To: Binford@Coyote.Stanford.EDU, Cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU,
AG@Amadeus.Stanford.EDU, Latombe@Coyote.Stanford.EDU,
DCL@Sail.Stanford.EDU, ZM@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
cc: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU, Jutta@Score.Stanford.EDU,
CBarsalou@Score.Stanford.EDU, Bergman@Score.Stanford.EDU,
Wheaton@athena.Stanford.EDU, BScott@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12358525758.29.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
On the umbrella continuation message I sent a few minutes ago, under Item 3
I meant "eight of you," not seven.
Betty
-------
∂14-Dec-87 1704 WENTWORTH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU $2.5 million costs a life?
Received: from SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Dec 87 17:04:07 PST
Date: Mon 14 Dec 87 17:03:32-PST
From: Robert Wentworth <WENTWORTH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: $2.5 million costs a life?
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@Sierra.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12358528302.27.WENTWORTH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
An amazing statistic! (I'm serious.) Can you provide a reference?
How strong is the correlation upon which this number is based?
(As to the implications for the effectiveness of spending to achieve
safety, how much reduction in personal income really occurs if you
spend X dollars for airport security? Surely some of that amount is
recycled to become personal income for someone else? How much, I wonder?
Where can money go where it doesn't eventually become personal income?)
-------
∂14-Dec-87 2022 REGES@Score.Stanford.EDU CS101
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Dec 87 20:22:36 PST
Date: Mon 14 Dec 87 20:17:05-PST
From: Stuart Reges <REGES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: CS101
To: jmc@Score.Stanford.EDU
Office: CS-TAC 22, 723-9798
Message-ID: <12358563536.12.REGES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
You only have 9 students signed up for the course so far. Do you think you
will need a TA with that small a class?
-------
Stuart Reges <REGES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
∂14-Dec-87 2322 Qlisp-mailer new, faster Qlisp now up
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 14 Dec 87 23:22:18 PST
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA08686; Mon, 14 Dec 87 23:19:42 pst
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Mon, 14 Dec 87 23:11:31 PST
Received: from bhopal.lucid.com by edsel id AA02706g; Mon, 14 Dec 87 23:08:43 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA04776g; Mon, 14 Dec 87 23:09:36 PST
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 23:09:36 PST
From: Ron Goldman <edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8712150709.AA04776@bhopal.lucid.com>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: new, faster Qlisp now up
Another version of new-qlisp now resides on /lucid/bin. The two lists of
active and blocked processes have been flushed; there is now a vector of
active processes. The result of this and a few other little things is a
large decrease in overhead for process creation/elimination, and a subsequent
large speed up when executing Qlisp code. For example, now my version of
parallel Fibonacci is faster by a factor of 5 for (qfib 10) to 47 for
(qfib 16). What's better is that now:
(time (fib n)) <= (time (fib (- n 1)) + (time (fib (- n 2))
as it should be. I guess this shows how easy it is to bog down parallel
processing when using locks.
As usual you need to recompile your code for the new version of Qlisp.
Let me know if you run into any new bugs.
The function (check-need-to-gc) is now available for user code that spends
a large amount of time in a computational loop without consing. It should
be called periodically so that if a GC needs to be done it can be. Remember
that for the moment all processors must cooperate before a GC can take place.
There is also a new global *maximum-number-of-processes* which can be read
by user code when running in parallel. It is set up by the call to QEVAL
or QTIME, and reflects the maximum number of processes that can exist at
any given time given the amount of stack space available and the stack size
for each process.
∂15-Dec-87 0959 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU WICS 88
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Dec 87 09:57:16 PST
Date: Tue 15 Dec 87 09:46:19-PST
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: WICS 88
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: beach@Sushi.Stanford.EDU, nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12358710853.17.TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John, after a class has settled in and is making a profit, we have
offered the Stanford faculty the option of going on profit sharing.
This means that you take no stipend up front. All expenses are paid
and then the profit is split 50/50 between the instructor(s) and
CSD.
For "Giving Programs Common Sense" the stipend was $3,500.
Profit for the course was $7,873.24.
Under profit sharing the instructors would have shared $5,686.62.
The drawback is that there is no guarantee under profit sharing
(it also involves risk sharing).
This is entirely up to you. Let me know if you are interested for
1988.
Carolyn
-------
∂15-Dec-87 1234 VAL re: WICS 88
[In reply to message sent Tue 15 Dec 87 09:46:19-PST.]
I don't mind.
I'm leaving for Israel on the 17th. I'll give a colloquium talk on the
semantics of logic programming at Tel-Aviv University, a few lectures at
the workshop before the IAAI (a survey of non-monotonic systems, reasoning
about actions, causal minimization), and the opening talk at IAAI on
reasoning about action.
Any news from DARPA?
∂15-Dec-87 1504 REGES@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: cs101
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 15 Dec 87 15:04:47 PST
Date: Tue 15 Dec 87 14:59:13-PST
From: Stuart Reges <REGES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: cs101
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 15 Dec 87 12:28:00-PST
Office: CS-TAC 22, 723-9798
Message-ID: <12358767815.33.REGES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
The course size has varied tremendously. It has been as small as 10 and as
large as 200. It used to be a required part of a distribution requirement,
which is why it got 200 people once. But that requirement is no longer in
effect.
-------
∂15-Dec-87 1547 VAL re: WICS 88
[In reply to message rcvd 15-Dec-87 15:41-PT.]
I'll be back on Jan. 2. I didn't find the encyclopedia with Schwartz's
article in the library, so I'll read your copy when we're both back.
∂15-Dec-87 1608 LES Secretary
I'd like to discuss the secretarial candidates with you briefly sometime
soon. Are you at home or office?
∂16-Dec-87 0600 JMC
Stachowitz 448-9718
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Dec 87 16:29:01 PST
Date: Wed 16 Dec 87 16:21:46-PST
From: Ed Brink <brink@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Unexpected urgency
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: val@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12359044986.10.BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Sharon Hemenway tells me the incomplete in 399 needs to be cleared in time for
her to get things together for a 1 PM meeting on Monday 1/4. If it isn't, the
only thing that happens is I get my degree next quarter, which is of epsilon
importance to me. I may have to spend some of (my own!) money on registering
TGR or something.
So, to the point:
I expected to have the writeup to you "1/1" when you arrive. I can get it to
you sooner, but the less time, the less content. The situation in brief:
I have spent a great deal of effort creating internal documentation for MRS so
that I can write code that uses its lower level constructs to do the Inverse
Method job. I have a top level algorithm for the Inverse Method in English,
and it is gradually turning into Lisp. The writeup will consequently have some
such title as, "Toward an Implementation of the Inverse Method in Lisp".
I want to pursue the project to completion, whether or not it is CS399 and
whether or not it bears on my PhD application, because it is interesting and I
think it needs doing. Also, MRS badly needs some internal documentation, and
if I can ever reach MRG I will try to sell him on the idea.
Is there any way we can get closure on the grade before 1/1 so Sharon can do
her thing reasonably comfortably, or is it a sure thing that we can get the
grade to her Monday morning, or should I just tell her to forget this quarter
and we'll pursue how to do it for Winter Quarter?
Hoping you are still reading this mail, and wishing you a happy holiday season.
..Ed
-------
∂16-Dec-87 1632 VAL Brink
Regarding his last message: I believe that he's invested a lot of time in the
project, but I haven't seen much return so far.
Vladimir
∂17-Dec-87 0153 mcvax!inria.inria.fr!queinnec@uunet.UU.NET TeX Format for IWoLES
Received: from UUNET.UU.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Dec 87 01:49:43 PST
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14) with UUCP
id AA19654; Thu, 17 Dec 87 04:49:32 EST
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl; Thu, 17 Dec 87 10:40:08 +0100 (MET)
Received: by inria.inria.fr; Wed, 16 Dec 87 22:23:10 +0100 (MET)
Date: 16 Dec 1987 22:06-EST
From: (Christian.Queinnec,,000,2854971) mcvax!inria.inria.fr!queinnec@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: TeX Format for IWoLES
To: mathis@a.ISI.EDU, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
ito%aoba.tohoku.junet@uunet.UU.NET, masinter.pa@xerox.com,
bobrow.pa@xerox.com, litp!pc@uunet.UU.NET,
willc%tekchips%Tektronix.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET,
ukc!hlh!bath63!ma_jap@uunet.UU.NET, kmp@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com,
jmh@next.com, ilog!devin@uunet.UU.NET, rpg@sail.stanford.edu,
inria!inria.inria.fr!kahn@uunet.UU.NET,
csnet-relay!dussud%jenner%ti-csl.csnet@uunet.UU.NET,
crcge1!sanson@uunet.UU.NET, litp!pg@uunet.UU.NET, Gregor.paa@xerox.com
Cc: inria!inria.inria.fr!queinnec@uunet.UU.NET
Message-Id: <566687196/queinnec@inria>
Here follows the format needed for your paper in order to fit well in
the IWoLES proceedings. It is simply A4 !! The format is given in
LaTeX form. Your paper is due on January 10 and should be of
approximatively five pages.
\evensidemargin=0cm
\oddsidemargin=0cm
\topmargin=0cm
\textheight=22.5cm
\textwidth=16.5cm
\columnwidth=\textwidth
Best regards
Christian Queinnec
∂17-Dec-87 0600 JMC
workshops
∂17-Dec-87 0910 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Promotions
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Dec 87 09:10:08 PST
Date: Thu 17 Dec 87 09:04:16-PST
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Promotions
To: full-tenured@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12359227486.15.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
The search committee recommends promotion of Assoc. Prof. Joseph Oliger
to Full Professor, a matter which will be considered at the sr. faculty
meeting on January 5, 1988. Please come by my office prior to the faculty
meeting to look over the file in preparation for the meeting.
-Anne
-------
∂17-Dec-87 0917 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Promotions
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Dec 87 09:17:49 PST
Date: Thu 17 Dec 87 09:12:02-PST
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Promotions
To: full-tenured@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12359228899.15.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
The search committee recommends promotion of Assoc. Prof. (Research)
Gio Wiederhold to Full Prof. (Research), a matter which will be
considered at the sr. faculty meeting on January 5, 1988. Please come
by my office to look over the folder in preparation for the meeting.
-Anne
-------
∂17-Dec-87 1116 DNUTE%UGA.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Workshop Proposal
Received: from LINDY.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Dec 87 11:16:12 PST
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Thu, 17 Dec 87 11:13:24 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 17 Dec 87 11:14:23 PST
Received: by UGA (Mailer X1.25) id 3129; Thu, 17 Dec 87 14:09:13 EST
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 87 14:04:55 EST
From: Donald Nute <DNUTE%UGA.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: Workshop Proposal
To: Professor John McCarthy <jmc@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Professor McCarthy:
Below you will find a proposal asking the AAAI to co-sponsor a
workshop next April. I have had some difficulty getting this to
you at the correct address. Would you please acknowledge receipt
as soon as you get this?
Sincerely,
Donald Nute
Professor of Philosphy
Director, MS in AI Program
Advanced Computational Methods Center
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
(404) 542-5110
PROPOSAL FOR AAAI SPONSORED WORKSHOP
Non-Monotonic Systems
Oxford University Press has agreed to publish a Handbook of
Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, edited by
Dov Gabbay and Chris Hogger of Imperial College and Allen Robinson
of Syracuse University. As with an earlier Handbook of
Philosophical Logic, the organizers of this project will arrange
workshops at which Handbook contributors working in related areas
can discuss and criticize individual chapters as they are
developed. One area identified for a workshop is non-monotonic
systems which includes five chapters. We plan to hold a workshop
for these chapters, plus two other chapters on deductive databases
and proof procedures for problem solving, at the University of
Georgia in late April, 1987. We invite the AAAI to co-sponsor this
workshop together with the University of Georgia and Oxford
University Press.
The organizing committee for the workshop includes Donald
Nute, Advanced Computational Methods Center, University of
Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, and Dov Gabbay and Chris Hogger,
Department of Computing, Imperial College, London SW7 2BZ,
England. Donald Nute will take care of all local arrangements. His
BITNET address is dnute@uga.
Participation in the workshop will be by invitation. Each
chapter of the Handbook will involve an author and one or more
readers. The topics and proposed participants for the workshop on
Non-Monotonic Systems will be:
Negation by Failure J Shepherdson, Bristol, author
K R Apt, Texas
General Non-monotonic D Makinson, UNESCO, author
Reasoning R Reiter, Toronto
Default Reasoning D Etherington, AT&T Laboratories
K Eshgi, Imperial College
D Makinson, UNESCO, France
Circumscription V Liftshitz, Stanford, author
D Perlis, Maryland
Y Shoham, Yale
Defeasible Logic D Nute, Georgia, author
J Pollock, Arizona
Deductive Databases J Minker, Maryland, author
J Makowsky, ?
Proof Procedures for D Loveland, Duke, author
R Kowalski, Imperial College
We have received letters from all of the authors and readers
except Reiter and Makowsky agreeing to participate in the Handbook
project. These fifteen contributors, together with the editors
will be invited to the workshop.
We are planning three days for the workshop. Authors will be
asked to prepare outlines and rough drafts of their chapters and
mail them to their readers before coming to the workshop. Each
chapter will include a survey of important work in the area as
well as a section in which the author can report on his current
research. The workshop will begin with a general discussion of the
goals of the Handbook project. Each topic will be given two hours
or more for presentation and discussion. The workshop will end
with another general discussion in which any specific connections
between the different chapters will be decided and planned.
The biggest expense for the workshop will be travel expenses
for the participants. Oxford University Press has committed 5,000
pounds to the project, and these funds can be used for the travel
of the editors. At an average expense of $750 (barely enough to
cover air fare for European participants), the cost of bringing
fourteen participants to the University of Georgia will be
$10,500. We propose that the AAAI and the Advanced Computational
Methods Center of the University of Georgia split this expense
roughly equally. If the AAAI will contribute $5,000 to travel
expenses, the ACMC has made a commitment to cover the remaining
travel expenses and to provide meeting facilities, secretarial and
copying services, etc.
If the AAAI co-sponsors this workshop, the editors agree that
the AAAI will be acknowledged in the Handbook for its support and
Donald Nute agrees to prepare a review of the workshop to appear
in AI Magazine.≠
v Donald Nute John McCarthy 12/14/87 AAAI Workshop Proposal
∂17-Dec-87 1346 GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Dec 87 13:46:10 PST
Date: Thu 17 Dec 87 13:39:14-PST
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
To: wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU,
genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
val@Sail.Stanford.EDU, latombe@Score.Stanford.EDU, tob@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU, feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, ginsberg@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
cc: simpson@VAX.DARPA.MIL
Message-ID: <12359277542.45.GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Hi Folks:
As some of you may know, Jack Schwartz will be visiting the
department for a day in late February, giving us a chance to convince
him that AI (and the Stanford approach to it) is not such a bad thing
after all. Nils has asked me to help with arranging the visit.
I expect that he'll spend about half the day at KSL, and half the day
in Jacks. I will do my best (with Nils' help) to schedule his day as
efficiently as possible -- but please understand in advance that I
may not be able to accomodate everyone who wants to talk to him.
From what I know of the way Schwartz works, though, he likes a lot of
short presentations. So hopefully we'll be able to work everyone in.
The reason I am sending you this message is to ask if you'd like to
be included in the schedule and, if so, what you'd like to talk
about, and how long you think it'll take. I'd also like to know if
there is someone that I should have contacted that I've left out.
Finally, I spent a useful hour at Rockwell a month or so ago
discussing Schwartz' article in the Encyclopedia of AI, and what
sorts of arguments he would be likely to find compelling. Do you
think there is any purpose to our all getting together briefly to
discuss an overall plan of attack for his visit?
Thanks. Nils and I will both be away for about ten days, so I'll be
in touch with you all again near the end of the year.
Merry Christmas!
Matt
-------
∂17-Dec-87 1517 PAPA@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: for Christos Papadimitriou
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Dec 87 15:17:08 PST
Date: Thu 17 Dec 87 15:11:31-PST
From: C. Papadimitriou <PAPA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: for Christos Papadimitriou
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 28 Oct 87 21:00:00-PST
Message-ID: <12359294343.49.PAPA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I am at Stanford now, and I realized that you are not. It seems the
summit went well. What should be next, and how can I contribute?
---Christos.
-------
∂17-Dec-87 1700 GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Dec 87 17:00:40 PST
Date: Thu 17 Dec 87 16:54:41-PST
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Thu 17 Dec 87 15:25:00-PST
Message-ID: <12359313123.37.GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Does this mean you want another one? I have a few extra ...
Matt
-------
∂17-Dec-87 1728 LES Secretary position
To: JMC, RWF
Pat Simmons has accepted the informal job offer, with the stipulation that
the office is a "no smoking" zone. Starting date must await offer approval
from the Dean's office.
∂17-Dec-87 1754 PAPA@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: collaboration with Soviets
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Dec 87 17:54:37 PST
Date: Thu 17 Dec 87 17:49:01-PST
From: C. Papadimitriou <PAPA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: collaboration with Soviets
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Thu 17 Dec 87 15:51:00-PST
Message-ID: <12359323015.49.PAPA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I can be reached at my home number: 415-424-9369. ---Christos.
-------
∂18-Dec-87 1015 GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Dec 87 10:15:13 PST
Date: Fri 18 Dec 87 10:09:14-PST
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Fri 18 Dec 87 10:12:00-PST
Message-ID: <12359501456.24.GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
OK. If you're still in Texas, and staying there for the holidays, I'll
get one mailed to you (can you send me an address?). If you're back in
CA, you can either grab one from my office (224 -- in the bookcase next
to the window facing the hall) or I'll give you one when I get back from
Seattle (I'm leaving basically now, and will be back around the 28th).
Merry Christmas!
Matt
-------
∂18-Dec-87 1016 LES
To: RWF, JMC, PHY
Pat Simmons, Secretary
FYI.
∂17-Dec-87 1746 SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Secretary position
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Dec 87 17:46:01 PST
Date: Thu 17 Dec 87 17:40:24-PST
From: Yvette Sloan <SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Secretary position
To: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Thu 17 Dec 87 14:51:00-PST
Message-ID: <12359321446.26.SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I have cleared the offer through the Dean's Office. Pat will start working
on Monday!! I invited her to the Xmas party tomorrow afternoon just to
mingle. Hope you can be there.
Yvette
P.S. Do you and/or Bob Floyd plan to be around next week? If not, you should
probably leave some things for Pat to familiarize herself with.
-------
∂18-Dec-87 1025 GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 18 Dec 87 10:25:33 PST
Date: Fri 18 Dec 87 10:19:37-PST
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Fri 18 Dec 87 10:24:00-PST
Message-ID: <12359503348.24.GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Fair enough.
Matt
-------
∂21-Dec-87 2017 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: McDermott critique
Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Dec 87 20:16:01 PST
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 21 DEC 87 11:41:02 PST
Date: 21 Dec 87 11:38 PST
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: McDermott critique
In-reply-to: Hector Levesque <hector%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>'s message of
Mon, 21 Dec 87 11:04:52 -0500
To: hector%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
cc: james@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU, bobrow.PA@Xerox.COM, stefik.PA@Xerox.COM,
kabowen@LOGICLAB.CIS.SYR.EDU, rjb%allegra.att.com@RELAY.CS.NET,
ec%cs.brown.edu@RELAY.CS.NET, dekleer.pa@Xerox.COM, jon.doyle@C.CS.CMU.EDU,
forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, phayes@KL.SRI.COM, hayes@SPAR-20.SPAR.SLB.COM,
hewitt@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU, hinton@C.CS.CMU.EDU, hobbs@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
israel@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, val@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
bmoore@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
pentland@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, watdaisy!dlpoole%watmath.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET,
reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET, stan@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
stan%humus.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU, alberta!lksc%ubc-vision.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET,
briansmith.PA@Xerox.COM, stickel@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
tyson@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, waldinger@KL.SRI.COM, tw@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU,
wwoods@BBN.COM, woods@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU, mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA
Message-ID: <871221-114102-5505@Xerox>
Hey, Buddy, watch your mouth! Aint nobody calls me a connectionist and gets
away with it.
Pat
( What the f**k does he mean with all this crypteo stuff, anyway? )
∂21-Dec-87 2017 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Undeliverable mail
Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Dec 87 20:16:56 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 21 DEC 87 14:38:38 PST
Date: 21 Dec 87 14:37 PST
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Undeliverable mail
To: hector%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
cc: james@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU, kabowen@LOGICLAB.CIS.SYR.EDU,
rjb%allegra.att.com@RELAY.CS.NET, ec%cs.brown.edu@RELAY.CS.NET,
jon.doyle@C.CS.CMU.EDU, forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, hewitt@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU,
hinton@C.CS.CMU.EDU, hobbs@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, israel@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, val@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, bmoore@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, pentland@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
watdaisy!dlpoole%watmath.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET, reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET,
stan%humus.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU, alberta!lksc%ubc-vision.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET,
stickel@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, tyson@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, waldinger@KL.SRI.COM,
tw@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, woods@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU, mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA
Message-ID: <871221-143838-5825@Xerox>
Please note my arpanet address is HAYES.PA@XEROX.COM.
Thanks.
Pat Hayes
∂21-Dec-87 2056 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Apology
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Dec 87 20:56:18 PST
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1987 20:52 PST
Message-ID: <RDZ.12360404904.BABYL@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU>
From: RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Cc: rdz@Score.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Apology
I did something stupid recently, which I owe you an apology for
(sometimes we Grad students aren't so bright). I was studying for the
AI Qual, and borrowed a few books from your office without asking your
permission. I've returned them all to their original places, as near
as I can recall. However, I shouldn't have helped myself without
asking you first.
On the bright side, however, I did pass the Qual.
Ramin
∂21-Dec-87 2111 @RELAY.CS.NET,@ai.toronto.edu,@utterly.ai.toronto.edu:hector@ai McDermott critique
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Dec 87 21:10:47 PST
Received: from ai.toronto.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id aa12938; 21 Dec 87 11:07 EST
Received: from utterly.ai.toronto.edu by ai.toronto.edu via ETHER with SMTP id AA28968; Mon, 21 Dec 87 11:00:31 EST
Received: from (null) (-:localhost:-) by utterly.ai.toronto.edu via ETHER with SMTP id AA03096; Mon, 21 Dec 87 11:05:50 EST
Message-Id: <8712211605.AA03096@utterly.ai.toronto.edu>
To: james@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU, bobrow@XEROX.COM, stefik@XEROX.COM,
kabowen@LOGICLAB.CIS.SYR.EDU, rjb%allegra.att.com@RELAY.CS.NET,
ec%cs.brown.edu@RELAY.CS.NET, dekleer.pa@XEROX.COM,
jon.doyle@C.CS.CMU.EDU, forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU, phayes@KL.SRI.COM,
hayes@SPAR-20.SPAR.SLB.COM, hewitt@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU, hinton@C.CS.CMU.EDU,
hobbs@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, israel@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, val@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, bmoore@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, pentland@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
watdaisy!dlpoole%watmath.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET,
reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET, stan@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
stan%humus.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu,
alberta!lksc%ubc-vision.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET, briansmith@XEROX.COM,
stickel@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, tyson@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM,
waldinger@KL.SRI.COM, tw@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, wwoods@BBN.COM,
woods@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU, mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA
Subject: McDermott critique
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 87 11:04:52 -0500
From: Hector Levesque <hector%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
So where the hell is it, you ask. The current ETA is mid-January, and I'm
told that this deadline is actually reasonably firm. I'm having the
publishers of Computational Intelligence send me complimentary copies
directly, which I will then forward to you. So if all goes well (as something
eventually must, by modus tollens over the contrapositive to Murphy's Law or
something), you should get a freebie by the end of January. Trouble is: by
now, we're all neo-crypto-connectionists anyway.
Happy holidays and New Year to you all!
Hector
∂21-Dec-87 2254 Qlisp-mailer JMC's Touch, running up to 3+ times faster than serial, compiled version.
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 21 Dec 87 22:54:23 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA01981; Mon, 21 Dec 87 22:51:31 pst
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 87 22:51:31 pst
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8712220651.AA01981@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: JMC's Touch, running up to 3+ times faster than serial, compiled version.
My apologies for the long file.
The following program is a version of JMC's TOUCH program for s-expressions. We
timed the parallel (QLET (QEMPTY) ...) and serial (LET ...).
To test things yourself, use /lucid/bin/qlisp and (load "/qlisp/nsched").
The following code is in /qlisp/touch.lisp. If you write your own
functions using QLET, you must compile-file after loading /qlisp/nsched.
Don't use QLAMBDAs with nsched. GC might not work either. Until nsched
is officially supported, it's use is only recommended for computing
Fibonacci the Hard way, and for Touching all elements of a large s-expression.
-dan pehoushek
;;;*** Begin listing
;;;touch.lsp[e87,jmc] Program tested on Butterfly
;(defun touch (x)
; (if (atom x)
; x
; (if (greaterp (rank x) k)
; (foo (future (touch (cadr x)))
; (future (touch (caddr x))))
; (touch1 x))))
;;; The Qlisp version, with (qempty).
(defun touch (x)
(if (atom x)
x
(qlet (qempty)
((a (touch (cadr x)))
(b (touch (caddr x))))
(foo a b))))
;;; The old-fashioned serial version:
(defun tch (x)
(if (atom x)
x
(let ((a (tch (cadr x)))
(b (tch (caddr x))))
(foo a b))))
(defvar *significant-number* 0)
(defun foo (x y) (dotimes (i *significant-number*)
(sqrt i)))
(defvar *ztest* (make-array 32))
(defun test-touch (n &optional (j 0))
(setf *significant-number* j)
(unless (aref *ztest* n)
(setf (aref *ztest* n) (mktest n)))
(format t "~%~%Touch ~A in parallel:" n)
(qtime (touch (aref *ztest* n)))
(format t "~%~%Touch ~A in serial:" n)
(time (tch (aref *ztest* n))))
(defun mktest (n)
(or (aref *ztest* n)
(if (= n 0)
'a
(setf (aref *ztest* n)
(list n (mktest (1- n)) (mktest (1- n)))))))
;;; *****End listing
********************************************************
The first test batch does no signifcant work inside FOO:
********************************************************
> (dotimes (i 20) (test-touch i))
Touch 0 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 0 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 1 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 1 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 2 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 2 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 3 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2 milliseconds
Touch 3 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 4 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2 milliseconds
Touch 4 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 5 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3 milliseconds
Touch 5 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 6 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3 milliseconds
Touch 6 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 7 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 5 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 5 milliseconds
Touch 7 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3 milliseconds
Touch 8 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 50 milliseconds
User cpu time = 30 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 30 milliseconds
Touch 8 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 6 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 6 milliseconds
Touch 9 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 19 milliseconds
User cpu time = 10 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 10 milliseconds
Touch 9 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 19 milliseconds
User cpu time = 12 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 12 milliseconds
Touch 10 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 19 milliseconds
User cpu time = 16 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 16 milliseconds
Touch 10 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 20 milliseconds
User cpu time = 24 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 24 milliseconds
Touch 11 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 29 milliseconds
User cpu time = 24 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 24 milliseconds
Touch 11 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 49 milliseconds
User cpu time = 48 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 48 milliseconds
Touch 12 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 40 milliseconds
User cpu time = 41 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 41 milliseconds
Touch 12 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 90 milliseconds
User cpu time = 96 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 96 milliseconds
Touch 13 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 69 milliseconds
User cpu time = 80 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 80 milliseconds
Touch 13 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 190 milliseconds
User cpu time = 192 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 192 milliseconds
Touch 14 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 139 milliseconds
User cpu time = 144 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 144 milliseconds
Touch 14 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 380 milliseconds
User cpu time = 385 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 385 milliseconds
Touch 15 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 269 milliseconds
User cpu time = 264 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 264 milliseconds
Touch 15 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 779 milliseconds
User cpu time = 770 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 770 milliseconds
Touch 16 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 569 milliseconds
User cpu time = 571 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 571 milliseconds
Touch 16 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 1539 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1541 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1541 milliseconds
Touch 17 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 1299 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1100 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1100 milliseconds
Touch 17 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 3099 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3079 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3079 milliseconds
Touch 18 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 2260 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2261 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2261 milliseconds
Touch 18 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 6169 milliseconds
User cpu time = 6165 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 6165 milliseconds
Touch 19 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 4930 milliseconds
User cpu time = 4418 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 4418 milliseconds
Touch 19 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 12839 milliseconds
User cpu time = 12315 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 12315 milliseconds
NIL
********************************************************
The second batch, *significant-number*=10
********************************************************
> (dotimes (i 20) (test-touch i 10))
Touch 0 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 0 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 1 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 1 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 2 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 509 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2 milliseconds
Touch 2 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 3 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2 milliseconds
Touch 3 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 4 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 10 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2 milliseconds
Touch 4 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 5 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3 milliseconds
Touch 5 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 6 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 4 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 4 milliseconds
Touch 6 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2 milliseconds
Touch 7 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 6 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 6 milliseconds
Touch 7 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 5 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 5 milliseconds
Touch 8 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 10 milliseconds
User cpu time = 9 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 9 milliseconds
Touch 8 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 10 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 10 milliseconds
Touch 9 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 60 milliseconds
User cpu time = 34 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 34 milliseconds
Touch 9 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 19 milliseconds
User cpu time = 20 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 20 milliseconds
Touch 10 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 20 milliseconds
User cpu time = 21 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 21 milliseconds
Touch 10 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 40 milliseconds
User cpu time = 39 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 39 milliseconds
Touch 11 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 29 milliseconds
User cpu time = 31 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 31 milliseconds
Touch 11 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 259 milliseconds
User cpu time = 79 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 79 milliseconds
Touch 12 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 59 milliseconds
User cpu time = 53 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 53 milliseconds
Touch 12 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 309 milliseconds
User cpu time = 159 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 159 milliseconds
Touch 13 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 110 milliseconds
User cpu time = 108 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 108 milliseconds
Touch 13 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 819 milliseconds
User cpu time = 318 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 318 milliseconds
Touch 14 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 209 milliseconds
User cpu time = 202 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 202 milliseconds
Touch 14 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 1139 milliseconds
User cpu time = 635 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 635 milliseconds
Touch 15 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 409 milliseconds
User cpu time = 400 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 400 milliseconds
Touch 15 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 1419 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1272 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1272 milliseconds
Touch 16 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 819 milliseconds
User cpu time = 809 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 809 milliseconds
Touch 16 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 2549 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2542 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2542 milliseconds
Touch 17 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 1639 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1618 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1618 milliseconds
Touch 17 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 5089 milliseconds
User cpu time = 5088 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 5088 milliseconds
Touch 18 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 3089 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3070 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3070 milliseconds
Touch 18 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 10240 milliseconds
User cpu time = 10168 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 10168 milliseconds
Touch 19 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 6329 milliseconds
User cpu time = 6314 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 6314 milliseconds
Touch 19 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 20879 milliseconds
User cpu time = 20352 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 20352 milliseconds
NIL
********************************************************
The third batch, *significant-number*=20
********************************************************
> (dotimes (i 20) (test-touch i 20))
Touch 0 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 0 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 1 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 1 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 2 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 2 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 3 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2 milliseconds
Touch 3 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 4 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2 milliseconds
Touch 4 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 5 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3 milliseconds
Touch 5 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 6 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 4 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 4 milliseconds
Touch 6 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3 milliseconds
Touch 7 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 5 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 5 milliseconds
Touch 7 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 7 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 7 milliseconds
Touch 8 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 59 milliseconds
User cpu time = 33 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 33 milliseconds
Touch 8 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 10 milliseconds
User cpu time = 14 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 14 milliseconds
Touch 9 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 19 milliseconds
User cpu time = 15 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 15 milliseconds
Touch 9 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 29 milliseconds
User cpu time = 27 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 27 milliseconds
Touch 10 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 29 milliseconds
User cpu time = 22 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 22 milliseconds
Touch 10 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 59 milliseconds
User cpu time = 55 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 55 milliseconds
Touch 11 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 39 milliseconds
User cpu time = 40 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 40 milliseconds
Touch 11 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 109 milliseconds
User cpu time = 111 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 111 milliseconds
Touch 12 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 69 milliseconds
User cpu time = 75 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 75 milliseconds
Touch 12 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 720 milliseconds
User cpu time = 221 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 221 milliseconds
Touch 13 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 139 milliseconds
User cpu time = 132 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 132 milliseconds
Touch 13 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 499 milliseconds
User cpu time = 443 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 443 milliseconds
Touch 14 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 279 milliseconds
User cpu time = 269 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 269 milliseconds
Touch 14 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 1389 milliseconds
User cpu time = 886 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 886 milliseconds
Touch 15 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 519 milliseconds
User cpu time = 510 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 510 milliseconds
Touch 15 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 1779 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1773 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1773 milliseconds
Touch 16 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 1149 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1046 milliseconds
System cpu time = 3 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1049 milliseconds
Touch 16 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 4149 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3545 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3545 milliseconds
Touch 17 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 2799 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2028 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2028 milliseconds
Touch 17 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 8699 milliseconds
User cpu time = 7094 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 7094 milliseconds
Touch 18 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 4879 milliseconds
User cpu time = 4058 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 4058 milliseconds
Touch 18 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 14740 milliseconds
User cpu time = 14180 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 14180 milliseconds
Touch 19 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 8069 milliseconds
User cpu time = 8056 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 8056 milliseconds
Touch 19 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 28369 milliseconds
User cpu time = 28373 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 28373 milliseconds
NIL
***************************************************
The following use even larger functions FOO,
as determined by the second argument to test-touch.
***************************************************
> (dotimes (i 10) (test-touch i 2000))
Touch 0 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 0 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 1 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 4 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 4 milliseconds
Touch 1 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3 milliseconds
Touch 2 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 8 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 8 milliseconds
Touch 2 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 19 milliseconds
User cpu time = 9 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 9 milliseconds
Touch 3 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 11 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 11 milliseconds
Touch 3 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 29 milliseconds
User cpu time = 21 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 21 milliseconds
Touch 4 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 19 milliseconds
User cpu time = 18 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 18 milliseconds
Touch 4 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 40 milliseconds
User cpu time = 46 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 46 milliseconds
Touch 5 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 30 milliseconds
User cpu time = 30 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 30 milliseconds
Touch 5 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 99 milliseconds
User cpu time = 95 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 95 milliseconds
Touch 6 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 50 milliseconds
User cpu time = 56 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 56 milliseconds
Touch 6 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 199 milliseconds
User cpu time = 194 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 194 milliseconds
Touch 7 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 100 milliseconds
User cpu time = 105 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 105 milliseconds
Touch 7 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 479 milliseconds
User cpu time = 391 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 391 milliseconds
Touch 8 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 209 milliseconds
User cpu time = 205 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 205 milliseconds
Touch 8 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 869 milliseconds
User cpu time = 786 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 786 milliseconds
Touch 9 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 900 milliseconds
User cpu time = 404 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 404 milliseconds
Touch 9 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 2089 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1576 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1576 milliseconds
NIL
> (dotimes (i 10) (test-touch i 40000))
Touch 0 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 0 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1 milliseconds
Touch 0 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 9 milliseconds
User cpu time = 0 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Touch 1 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 69 milliseconds
User cpu time = 62 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 62 milliseconds
Touch 1 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 60 milliseconds
User cpu time = 61 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 61 milliseconds
Touch 2 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 120 milliseconds
User cpu time = 124 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 124 milliseconds
Touch 2 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 189 milliseconds
User cpu time = 183 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 183 milliseconds
Touch 3 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 239 milliseconds
User cpu time = 186 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 186 milliseconds
Touch 3 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 429 milliseconds
User cpu time = 428 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 428 milliseconds
Touch 4 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 309 milliseconds
User cpu time = 308 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 308 milliseconds
Touch 4 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 969 milliseconds
User cpu time = 918 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 918 milliseconds
Touch 5 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 1059 milliseconds
User cpu time = 554 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 554 milliseconds
Touch 5 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 1899 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1898 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1898 milliseconds
Touch 6 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 1049 milliseconds
User cpu time = 1044 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 1044 milliseconds
Touch 6 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 4359 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3857 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3857 milliseconds
Touch 7 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 2029 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2026 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2026 milliseconds
Touch 7 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 8290 milliseconds
User cpu time = 7776 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 7776 milliseconds
Touch 8 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 4159 milliseconds
User cpu time = 3987 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 3987 milliseconds
Touch 8 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 15649 milliseconds
User cpu time = 15612 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 15612 milliseconds
Touch 9 in parallel:
Elapsed real time = 7919 milliseconds
User cpu time = 7903 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 7903 milliseconds
Touch 9 in serial:
Elapsed real time = 31329 milliseconds
User cpu time = 31286 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 31286 milliseconds
NIL
>
∂22-Dec-87 1635 LIN Thanks
Thank you for kindly letting me use the Sail system and the Math & CS library.
Yoav Shoham arranges me as his research assistant and beginning in October I
think they bill my computer charges into the department account. Thanks again.
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
-Fangzhen Lin
∂23-Dec-87 1325 GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Information for Keith Clark
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Dec 87 13:25:16 PST
Date: Wed 23 Dec 87 13:20:57-PST
From: Edith Gilbertson <GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Information for Keith Clark
To: McCarthy@Score.Stanford.EDU
cc: Gilbertson@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12360847079.29.GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Professor McCarthy:
As you know, Keith Clark will be a Visiting Professor with your group
from 4-1-88 to 6-30-88. I need some information for his appointment
papers, which you (hopefully) have. Please send me the answers when
convenient; there's no urgency as I know your busy moving (and
celebrating) at the present time.
1. Specify the courses which the candidate will be asked to teach:
2. Circumstances which warrant this appointment are (check one only):
a. Candidate will substitute for faculty on leave (Give name and
status).
b. This is an interim appointment while search is ongoing. (Give
position).
c. Other (Specify).
3. Is the candidate expected to serve the Department beyond teaching
those courses listed in 1. above (e.g. graduate student supervision)?
4. Evidence of the candidate's teaching ability is:
5. How did the candidate and the candidate's qualifications come to your
notice?
************
Thank you for your help -- whenEVER you find the time.
Have a Joyous Holiday Season!
See you soon at Stanford,
-Edith
-------
∂23-Dec-87 1514 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Qtak
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Dec 87 15:14:27 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA04643; Wed, 23 Dec 87 15:11:41 pst
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 87 15:11:41 pst
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8712232311.AA04643@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: rpg@sail
Cc: jmc@sail
Subject: Qtak
FYI:
The (qlet (qempty) ... ) version of Tak follows.
The slight variation in qtimes qtak is probably due to scheduler
irregularities. -dan
> (defun qtak (x y z)
(if (not (< y x))
z
(qlet (qempty)
((a (qtak (1- x) y z))
(b (qtak (1- y) z x))
(c (qtak (1- z) x y)))
(qtak a b c))))
QTAK
> (compile *)
QTAK
> (qtime (qtak 18 12 6))
Elapsed real time = 410 milliseconds
User cpu time = 263 milliseconds
System cpu time = 32 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 295 milliseconds
7
> (qtime (qtak 18 12 6))
Elapsed real time = 260 milliseconds
User cpu time = 231 milliseconds
System cpu time = 7 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 238 milliseconds
7
> (dotimes (i 10) (qtime (qtak 18 12 6)))
Elapsed real time = 300 milliseconds
User cpu time = 270 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 270 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 230 milliseconds
User cpu time = 232 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 232 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 299 milliseconds
User cpu time = 224 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 224 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 279 milliseconds
User cpu time = 252 milliseconds
System cpu time = 3 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 255 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 299 milliseconds
User cpu time = 228 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 228 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 239 milliseconds
User cpu time = 234 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 234 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 280 milliseconds
User cpu time = 236 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 236 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 220 milliseconds
User cpu time = 223 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 223 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 749 milliseconds
User cpu time = 245 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 245 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 269 milliseconds
User cpu time = 251 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 251 milliseconds
NIL
> (dotimes (i 10) (time (qtak 18 12 6)))
Elapsed real time = 610 milliseconds
User cpu time = 609 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 609 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 749 milliseconds
User cpu time = 608 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 608 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 609 milliseconds
User cpu time = 607 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 607 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 610 milliseconds
User cpu time = 608 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 608 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 609 milliseconds
User cpu time = 607 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 607 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 610 milliseconds
User cpu time = 608 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 608 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 610 milliseconds
User cpu time = 608 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 608 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 710 milliseconds
User cpu time = 608 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 608 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 609 milliseconds
User cpu time = 608 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 608 milliseconds
Elapsed real time = 609 milliseconds
User cpu time = 608 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 608 milliseconds
NIL
>
∂23-Dec-87 1556 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU Journal of Philosophical Logic Paper
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Dec 87 15:56:40 PST
Received: ID <THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Wed 23 Dec 87 18:26:48-EST
Date: Mon 21 Dec 87 15:18:29-EST
From: Rich.Thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Journal of Philosophical Logic Paper
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Message-ID: <12360311419.31.THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
Could you give me a progress (or lack of progress) report?
I am still hoping to get this out before years pass.
--Rich
-------
∂23-Dec-87 1558 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: books
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Dec 87 15:58:05 PST
Date: Wed 23 Dec 87 15:53:46-PST
From: Ramin Zabih <RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: books
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 23 Dec 87 15:53:00-PST
Message-ID: <12360874896.15.RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Actually, you provided some of my most interesting reading. Some of the
stuff done in the 60's (like Bobrow's STUDENT, for example) are surprisingly
interesting 20 years later. This is either a positive comment on the quality
of the old work, or a negative comment on how much the field has advanced since
then...
Ramin
-------
∂23-Dec-87 1559 GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Keith Clark
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 23 Dec 87 15:58:27 PST
Date: Wed 23 Dec 87 15:54:09-PST
From: Edith Gilbertson <GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Keith Clark
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 23 Dec 87 15:55:00-PST
Message-ID: <12360874968.29.GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks for your quick response.
-E
-------
∂23-Dec-87 1608 ME back on the ARPAnet
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
∂23-Dec-87 1409 LES Arpanet problem
JMC says that he can't get through to SAIL via Arpanet, but he can get
to Sumex. Any idea what the problem is?
ME - I got our IMP interface working again, so we're back on the ARPAnet.
If ever you can't get into SAIL from the ARPAnet, try connecting to our
Ethernet address, 36.86.0.194. Clever software will try that address
automatically. To find out that address, if you forget it, give the
command NICNAME SAIL<cr> or WHOIS SAIL<cr> from your favorite WAITS or
TOPS-20 host. (The 10.0.0.11 address will also be reported -- all 10...
addresses are ARPAnet addresses, so it's the other one you'll want.)
∂24-Dec-87 0541 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU re: Journal of Philosophical Logic Paper
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Dec 87 05:41:13 PST
Received: ID <THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Thu 24 Dec 87 08:41:06-EST
Date: Thu 24 Dec 87 08:41:05-EST
From: Rich.Thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: re: Journal of Philosophical Logic Paper
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 23 Dec 87 16:36:00-EST
Message-ID: <12361025507.10.THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
Sounds good! Keep in touch.
--Rich
-------
∂24-Dec-87 2046 GLB
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Thank you for the card. Have nice holidays, and a good trip back.
GLB
∂27-Dec-87 1913 BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Letter Form
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Dec 87 19:13:47 PST
Date: Sun 27 Dec 87 19:13:10-PST
From: Ed Brink <brink@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Letter Form
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12361959773.8.BRINK@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
I left in your mailbox on, I believe, Wednesday the 23rd, a request for your
letter of recommendation and the Graduate Admissions Office form for same. I'm
just checking to make sure it got to you and didn't get forwarded to Texas
after you left.
..Ed
-------
∂28-Dec-87 1312 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of October computer charges.
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Dec 87 13:12:16 PST
Date: Mon 28 Dec 87 13:06:57-PST
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of October computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12362155249.20.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for October.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA705 100 129.38 119.69 ***.** .00 5.00 2608.02
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA705 100 .02 .01 6.89 .00 5.00 11.92
MCCARTHY SUSHI SUSHI 100 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Total: 129.40 119.70 ***.** .00 10.00 2619.94
University budget accounts billed above include the following.
Account Principal Investigator Title
2-DMA705 McCarthy N00039-84-C-0211
The preceding statement is a condensed version of the detailed summary sheet
sent monthly to your department.
Please verify each month that the proper university budget accounts are paying
for your computer usage. Please also check the list of account numbers below
the numeric totals. If the organizations/people associated with that account
number should NOT be paying for your computer time, send mail to BEDIT@SCORE.
Please direct questions/comments to BEDIT@SCORE.
-------
∂28-Dec-87 1643 TAP essays
i can't find essays in your desk. Is there another place I can look?
∂28-Dec-87 2228 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Dec 87 22:28:42 PST
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 87 22:27:24 PST
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
To: GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, val@Sail.Stanford.EDU, latombe@Score.Stanford.EDU,
tob@Sail.Stanford.EDU, shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU,
rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
cc: simpson@VAX.DARPA.MIL, engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12359277542.45.GINSBERG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12362257275.13.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Indications (received second-hand) from Jack Schwartz's CMU visit last week
are that Jack's view of AI was not much dented or changed. For openers,
he is alleged to have repeated his statement that AI has not had a result in
25 years. Apparently the day's presentations did not change that view.
However, apparently vision work and speech work came out "OK".
I don't know if these rumors are correct. I havn't talked with Newell yet.
We have a tough road ahead of us with this February visit.
ed
-------
∂29-Dec-87 0826 simpson@vax.darpa.mil Re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
Received: from VAX.DARPA.MIL by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Dec 87 08:26:35 PST
Posted-Date: Tue 29 Dec 87 11:25:40-EST
Received: by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA12196; Tue, 29 Dec 87 11:25:42 EST
Date: Tue 29 Dec 87 11:25:40-EST
From: Bob Simpson <SIMPSON@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Re: Jack Schwartz to visit Stanford in February
To: FEIGENBAUM@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Cc: GINSBERG@sushi.stanford.edu, wiederhold@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
nilsson@score.stanford.edu, genesereth@score.stanford.edu,
jmc@sail.stanford.edu, val@sail.stanford.edu,
latombe@score.stanford.edu, tob@sail.stanford.edu,
shoham@score.stanford.edu, rindfleisch@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
BUCHANAN@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, shortliffe@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
simpson@vax.darpa.mil, ENGELMORE@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <567793540.0.SIMPSON@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
In-Reply-To: <12362257275.13.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <VAX-MM(216)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Ed: While I agree in general with your report of the meeting at CMU (I'm not
sure it changed Jack's views). It is important for all of us to understand
and step up to the challenge implicit in Jack's views. Part of that challenge
is in the measurement of improvement or progress with respect to well defined
problems. One of the reasons speech and vision came out "OK" is because of
the relatively direct measures of improvement that can be traced to specific
data structure and algorithm design decisions. The analogs for the more
"cognitive" research that occupys AI's central core was not as crisply
defined nor as easily measured (although I believe the CMU folks presented
as good an argument as I have ever seen - especially Allan, Herb Simon, and
Mark Fox). While I'm convinced we are all in for some tough times ahead, I
for one am not about to "go down without a fight." I've told Jack that as a
member of his staff I'm obliged to carry out his directions, but that as a
computer scientist and member of the USAF I'm obliged to voice my opposition
to office actions that tear down a portion of the national technology base
that is having a major impact on DoD when there is no clear evidence that an
alternative exists. But as we all know these arguments boil down to matters
of professional judgement etc. So in some sense it is important not to let
the critics of AI make their allegations without a "vigorous and spirited"
response. If nothing else this may be viewed in military terms as a delaying
action for the purpose of damage limitation. -- Bob
-------
∂29-Dec-87 0850 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu A new member of our committee...
Received: from [128.196.1.3] by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Dec 87 08:50:32 PST
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 87 09:33 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: A new member of our committee...
To: DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu, DONGARRA@anl-mcs.arpa,
GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@rand-unix.arpa,
JLH@sierra.stanford.edu, JMC@sail.stanford.edu, MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET,
OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com, CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS
From: UACCIT::IN%"BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu" "Marjory Blumenthal" 28-DEC-1987 19:34
To: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subj: Re: We hope
Return-path: BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by rvax.ccit.arizona.edu via TCP; Mon Dec 28 19:36 MST
Date: Mon 28 Dec 87 21:31:26-EST
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu>
Subject: Re: We hope
To: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Cc: BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu
In-Reply-To: Message from "GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu" of Tue 22 Dec
87 21:56:33-EST
Message-ID: <12362214321.22.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
The Little Blumenthal, Deborah Louise, arrived 12/23. Mother and daughter
are fine. Hope you're enjoying the holidays.
-------
∂29-Dec-87 1342 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of October computer charges.
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Dec 87 13:42:43 PST
Date: Tue 29 Dec 87 13:34:49-PST
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of October computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12362422467.29.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Please DISREGARD the previous October charge summary. It was not complete
(did not include refund information).
Following is a summary of your computer charges for October. This report
is a condensed version of the detailed summary sheet sent monthly to your
department.
Note REFUNDS for NAVAJO and LABREA users. A billing error was made in
September, and appropriate credits were applied to the October bills.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA705 100 129.38 119.69 ***.** .00 5.00 2608.02
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA705 100 .02 .01 6.89 .00 5.00 11.92
MCCARTHY SUSHI SUSHI 100 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Total: 129.40 119.70 ***.** .00 10.00 2619.94
University budget accounts billed above include the following.
Account Principal Investigator Title
2-DMA705 McCarthy N00039-84-C-0211
Please direct questions/comments to BEDIT@SCORE.
-------
∂29-Dec-87 1418 AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU phone meeting
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Dec 87 14:18:53 PST
Date: Tue 29 Dec 87 16:19:30-CST
From: AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: phone meeting
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12362430601.20.AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
inference at 5pm
-------
∂29-Dec-87 1436 AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU clippings
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Dec 87 14:36:46 PST
Date: Tue 29 Dec 87 16:37:22-CST
From: AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: clippings
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12362433853.20.AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
goldfarb article
fortune article on expert systems
-------
∂29-Dec-87 1441 AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU expense
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Dec 87 14:40:56 PST
Date: Tue 29 Dec 87 16:41:33-CST
From: AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: expense
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12362434616.20.AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
$125 for planning conference
-------
∂29-Dec-87 1625 AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU puzzle
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Dec 87 16:24:54 PST
Date: Tue 29 Dec 87 18:25:29-CST
From: AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: puzzle
To: ai.throop@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
cc: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12362453535.20.AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
That's a great job. I have played with it and copied the files to
Stanford. I did a corrected version of dont-break-chain and tried
it. It does no harm but not a lot of good. I have several ideas,
and we should talk by phone as soon as possible. My numbers are
(home: 415 857-0672) and (office: 415 723-4430).
The corrected version is included in peano:>jmc>puzzle.lisp, but
it now occurs to me that I have told Martin Purvis that he can
expunge all my Peano files. I'll try to put it on southern-select
or leave it on Schepps.
-------
∂29-Dec-87 1710 ME Lathrop spooling
To: JMC, CLT
In case you ever use the QSPOOL command to look at the Lathop spooling
queue, I just want you to know that you have to say Q/LA now instead of
Q/L, because of a new spooler being created for the new LPS40 (on the 8700).
(The new printer is not yet available.)
∂29-Dec-87 1729 LES IBM RT
I plan to move in with Shankar and Arkady in the next day or so, which
will cause that room to be rather packed. It appears that the RT is no
longer needed. Should we give it back to the Stanford bureaucracy, store
it, or hang on?
∂29-Dec-87 2050 CL.BOYER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Thank You!
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 29 Dec 87 20:49:59 PST
Date: Tue 29 Dec 87 22:50:29-CST
From: Bob Boyer <CL.BOYER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Thank You!
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, clt@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: atp.bledsoe@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12362452254.20.AI.MCCARTHY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Message-ID: <12362501778.14.CL.BOYER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Thanks for those wonderful dinners. And thanks for spending
a semester in Austin.
-------
∂30-Dec-87 0104 @SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,@NTT-20.NTT.JP:masahiko@nuesun.NTT visit
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Dec 87 01:04:47 PST
Received: from NTT-20.NTT.JP by SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU with Cafard; Wed, 30 Dec 87 01:03:25 PST
Received: from nuesun.ntt.jp (NUESUN.NTT.JUNET.#Internet) by NTT-20.NTT.JP with TCP; Wed 30 Dec 87 14:57:47
Received: by nuesun.ntt.jp (1.1/NTT6.2cs) with TCP; Wed, 30 Dec 87 14:51:41 JST
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 87 14:51:41 JST
From: masahiko@nuesun.NTT (Masahiko Sato)
Message-Id: <8712300551.AA03403@nuesun.ntt.jp>
To: jmc%sail.stanford.edu%sumex-aim@ntt-20.NTT,
clt%sail.stanford.edu%sumex-aim@ntt-20.NTT
Subject: visit
I am going to attend a workshop on computer science to be held in San
Francisco from January 6 to 8. I am planning to visit Stanford after
the workshop and stay there until January 15.
I don't know if you are still in Texas, but I hope I will be able to
see you in Stanford in case you will be there next month.
** masahiko **
∂30-Dec-87 1347 AI.THROOP@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Re: file
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Dec 87 13:47:35 PST
Date: Wed 30 Dec 87 15:48:12-CST
From: David Throop <AI.THROOP@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: file
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 29 Dec 87 16:50:00-CST
Message-ID: <12362687046.11.AI.THROOP@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Got your note - glad you like it. Tried to call you but didn't catch you
in. I just got back in town yesterday.
I'm writing a utility so that I can have the machine run a large number of
random boards and gather statistics. This could give us a check on the
effects of changing the heuristics.
I agree with you improvement to the contiguous descriptor.. I'll probably
have some other changes soon.
David
-------
∂30-Dec-87 1452 RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Full Tenured Faculty Meeting
Received: from SCORE.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 30 Dec 87 14:52:11 PST
Date: Wed 30 Dec 87 14:37:11-PST
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Full Tenured Faculty Meeting
To: full-tenured@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12362695965.34.RICHARDSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
There will be a full-tenured faculty meeting on Tuesday, January 5, 1988
immediately following the tenured faculty meeting to consider the possible
promotions of Joe Oliger and Gio Wiederhold from Associate to Full Professor.
Today and tomorrow until 12:00 noon, the files on Oliger and Wiederhold will
be in my office for your perusal. After that, the files will be in Betty
Scott's office. Please come by to look over the files in preparation for the
meeting.
-Anne
-------
∂31-Dec-87 1104 yuly@csv.rpi.edu
Received: from CSV.RPI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 31 Dec 87 11:04:01 PST
Received: by csv.rpi.edu (5.54/1.14)
id AA13829; Thu, 31 Dec 87 14:04:05 EST
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 87 14:04:05 EST
From: yuly@csv.rpi.edu (Liang-Yin Yu)
Message-Id: <8712311904.AA13829@csv.rpi.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Dear Prof. McCarthy:
As you might recall, last year I have visited you at the CS department.
It has been one year since I last visited Stanford. I put the summary
of my research within this year in the following message. All the
documents I listed at the end of the summary are typed in TeX. If you
are interested the detail, I could send them through the net. Please
send me your opinions.
Thank you for everything, and may it be a pleasant season.
∂31-Dec-87 1105 yuly@csv.rpi.edu summary
Received: from CSV.RPI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 31 Dec 87 11:04:42 PST
Received: by csv.rpi.edu (5.54/1.14)
id AA13835; Thu, 31 Dec 87 14:04:44 EST
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 87 14:04:44 EST
From: yuly@csv.rpi.edu (Liang-Yin Yu)
Message-Id: <8712311904.AA13835@csv.rpi.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: summary
This is a summary of my research in the past two years[1][2][3][4][5][6].
Starting from the point of view of traditional artificial intelligence,
I set out trying to resolve some of the fundamental problems in AI. There are
a couple of issues that seem to me to be the radical ones, namely,
1. being unable to take the computational complexity into
account systematically,
2. being ad hoc in attacking problems,
3. failing to resolve the epistemological problems, and
4. being impotent to combine formal thought.
In [1], with the separation of two process, namely, the symbolic
process and the structural process, I reached the hypothesis that structural
process alone may achieve adaptive and intelligent behavior without the help
of symbolic decision. This is somewhat justified from the studies of others
in the field of neuroanatomy, and I have included the results in [4].
The exploration into the problem of resource limitation resulted in
some other insights in both the realization of AI and the learning problem.
Some of the results, namely, the dynamic knowledge organization,
explanation-based transition and deep meta-structure are included in [2].
In order to characterize the structural process and eliminate the
ad hoc characters in AI research, I try to formalize the concept of
information and its representation in geometrical terms, which resulted
in [5]. This tries to remedy the drawbacks in symbolic process where only
a set of data is processed. The geometrical structure (either spatial or
temporal) underlying the raw data (the set) is explicitly formulated and
the concept of permissible mappings between mathematical structures is
proposed as qualified transformations in AI information processing.
The most important result in this formulation is included in [6]
where non-monotonic logic is reformulated in this new point of view.
Though the result is still not complete, I expect to consider monotonic
logic system as an isomorphic mapping from Boolean lattice to itself and
the non-monotonic logic as monomorphic mapping. In these domains the
topological structure plays its role[6].
The reason to reformulate the non-monotonic logic (especially the
circumscription) is to incorporate the theory proposed in [7] and [8].
In [7] and [8], computation theory and methods in computational complexity
are explicitly used to allow the concept of resource limitation play an
important role in the realization of information processing. I would also
analyze several extant approaches (e.g., neural net, symbolic processing,
logic) in this formulation. The conclusion I try to reach is the following:
(1)Only the mapping (the process in information processing) which
preserve the geometrical structure of information could be
considered in AI.
(2)Classical logic could be considered as a system that preserves
the complete global representation (so, certainly the topological
structure), and non-monotonic logic is the process which preserves
the minimal representation in geometrical structure.
(3)If we consider the first order language as the most powerful one
in expressive capability, the enhancement of logic by non-monotonic
approaches could be considered as a natural result of resource
limitation where the structure of information is preserved.
(4)Only the mapping which preserves the structure of information, and
at the same time, fulfills the requirement of resource limitation
could be considered realizable in artificial intelligence.
I have demonstrated that some of the existing approaches are structure-
preserving and some computable (realizable) under the requirement of
resource limitation but none fulfills both.
The unpublished memo listed below reflect my attempt to consolidate
various concepts that occurred to me. It may not be mature enough in
several aspects. However I hope these can be remedied in the near future.
I would like to complete these parts and make them the fundamental
bases for the research in AI. However these are only the constituents
for analysis. Synthesis methodology remains to be developed in an
equally systematic way.
[1] Yu, L. Y., Reflections on Computer and Cognition. unpublished memo,
1986.
[2] Yu, L. Y., The Structure Underlying the Intelligent Behaviors.
unpublished memo, 1987.
[3] Yu, L. Y., The Role of Logic in Knowledge Representation.
unpublished memo, 1987.
[4] Yu, L. Y., Memory and Intelligence: A Neuroanatomic View.
unpublished memo, 1987.
[5] Yu, L. Y., Topological Structure of Information. unpublished memo,
1987.
[6] Yu, L. Y., Interpretation of Logic as Geometry. unpublished memo,
1987.
[7] Yu, L. Y., The Computing Structure in General Domain. Forth coming.
[8] Yu, L. Y., A Computation Theory for Artificial Intelligence.
Forth coming.
∂31-Dec-87 1340 ME RA's files
I'm about to purge RA's files and account in a few days. I thought I'd
give you one more chance to save any file(s) there that you want. If
you've already looked and don't need any of her files, let me know and
I'll go ahead and flush the rest.