perm filename S88.IN[LET,JMC] blob
sn#859333 filedate 1988-07-09 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00561 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00070 00002 ∂01-Apr-88 0043 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
C00072 00003 ∂01-Apr-88 0528 yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no re: IFIP Working Conf. in China, July 88.
C00074 00004 ∂01-Apr-88 1053 MPS good friday
C00075 00005 ∂01-Apr-88 1514 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Runtime Spawning Predicate for Qlisp
C00087 00006 ∂01-Apr-88 1535 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed mailing list updated
C00089 00007 ∂01-Apr-88 2000 JMC
C00090 00008 ∂01-Apr-88 2240 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Problems with flight simulator tomorrow
C00092 00009 ∂02-Apr-88 1628 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Re: lunch
C00094 00010 ∂02-Apr-88 2100 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Robotics at JPL
C00095 00011 ∂03-Apr-88 2017 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00098 00012 ∂04-Apr-88 0900 JMC
C00099 00013 ∂04-Apr-88 0930 JMC
C00100 00014 ∂04-Apr-88 1100 JMC
C00101 00015 ∂04-Apr-88 1232 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu re: lunch
C00103 00016 ∂04-Apr-88 1527 tah@linz.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
C00106 00017 ∂04-Apr-88 1618 MPS phone
C00107 00018 ∂04-Apr-88 1849 JK
C00108 00019 ∂04-Apr-88 2230 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU confidential--please do not forward
C00111 00020 ∂05-Apr-88 0830 JMC
C00112 00021 ∂05-Apr-88 0919 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu planlunch to meet on Thursday
C00115 00022 ∂05-Apr-88 0934 DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
C00116 00023 ∂05-Apr-88 1044 MCCARTY@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: lunch
C00117 00024 ∂05-Apr-88 1047 MPS passport
C00118 00025 ∂05-Apr-88 1200 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU 1988/89 Course Scheduling
C00120 00026 ∂05-Apr-88 2241 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com mail connection nmr-workshop
C00122 00027 ∂06-Apr-88 1018 CLT Japan
C00126 00028 ∂06-Apr-88 1610 RWF Occam
C00127 00029 ∂06-Apr-88 1731 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu CSD Comp Assignments
C00133 00030 ∂07-Apr-88 0906 JSW Use of Sun for Devon McCullogh
C00134 00031 ∂07-Apr-88 0941 JSW Devon McCullogh
C00135 00032 ∂07-Apr-88 1116 tah@polya.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
C00137 00033 ∂07-Apr-88 1148 MPS physics 102
C00138 00034 ∂07-Apr-88 1158 DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU hacking GNU
C00140 00035 ∂07-Apr-88 1200 JMC
C00141 00036 ∂07-Apr-88 1209 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed meets today!
C00142 00037 ∂07-Apr-88 1619 MPS eye exam
C00143 00038 ∂07-Apr-88 1654 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Lunch Saturday no-go
C00145 00039 ∂07-Apr-88 1737 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Lunch Saturday no-go
C00146 00040 ∂07-Apr-88 1737 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00149 00041 ∂07-Apr-88 1801 nayak@polya.stanford.edu Making up the comp
C00151 00042 ∂07-Apr-88 1844 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu Re: Political Humor
C00152 00043 ∂07-Apr-88 1911 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu re: Political Humor
C00153 00044 ∂08-Apr-88 1037 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu Yet another Column
C00161 00045 ∂08-Apr-88 1135 GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Ketonen's Xerox Acct
C00163 00046 ∂08-Apr-88 1407 elkan@bifrost.cs.cornell.edu just a note to thank you
C00165 00047 ∂08-Apr-88 1443 MPS
C00166 00048 ∂08-Apr-88 1455 VAL seminars
C00167 00049 ∂08-Apr-88 1753 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00169 00050 ∂09-Apr-88 1958 LES re: Citizens arrest
C00170 00051 ∂09-Apr-88 2024 JK
C00172 00052 ∂09-Apr-88 2030 JK
C00173 00053 ∂10-Apr-88 0939 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU triangles
C00176 00054 ∂10-Apr-88 0941 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU correction
C00177 00055 ∂10-Apr-88 2153 HALPERN@IBM.COM Getting together?
C00178 00056 ∂10-Apr-88 2341 goldberg@csli.stanford.edu Re: Ernie Konnyu and AIDS
C00180 00057 ∂11-Apr-88 0013 goldberg@csli.stanford.edu Re: Ernie Konnyu and AIDS
C00182 00058 ∂11-Apr-88 0700 JMC
C00183 00059 ∂11-Apr-88 1000 JMC
C00184 00060 ∂11-Apr-88 1000 JMC
C00185 00061 ∂11-Apr-88 1124 HALPERN@IBM.COM Re: Getting together?
C00186 00062 ∂11-Apr-88 1327 Mailer Re: Rednecks
C00190 00063 ∂11-Apr-88 1342 CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Ernie Konnyu, AIDS, and redneck
C00192 00064 ∂11-Apr-88 1359 CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Rednecks
C00194 00065 ∂11-Apr-88 1524 HALPERN@IBM.COM Re: Getting together?
C00195 00066 ∂11-Apr-88 1555 goldberg@csli.stanford.edu Re: Redneck
C00196 00067 ∂11-Apr-88 1628 Qlisp-mailer meeting
C00197 00068 ∂11-Apr-88 1652 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Lakoff
C00198 00069 ∂11-Apr-88 2121 barwise@russell.stanford.edu
C00200 00070 ∂12-Apr-88 0112 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Lakoff
C00201 00071 ∂12-Apr-88 0900 JMC
C00202 00072 ∂12-Apr-88 0934 devlin@csli.stanford.edu Re: semi-apology
C00206 00073 ∂12-Apr-88 1050 CLT qlisp
C00208 00074 ∂12-Apr-88 1112 @um.cc.umich.edu:Paul_Abrahams@Wayne-MTS LISP 2 memos for Herbert Stoyan
C00210 00075 ∂12-Apr-88 1115 Mailer failed mail returned
C00212 00076 ∂12-Apr-88 1212 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: workshop
C00214 00077 ∂12-Apr-88 1415 devlin@csli.stanford.edu Answers
C00219 00078 ∂13-Apr-88 1000 JMC
C00220 00079 ∂13-Apr-88 1018 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu su.etc
C00222 00080 ∂13-Apr-88 1123 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM messages to reinfra
C00224 00081 ∂13-Apr-88 1124 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Re: Friday no good
C00226 00082 ∂13-Apr-88 1352 VAL Invitees for the workshop
C00227 00083 ∂13-Apr-88 1427 MPS moscow
C00228 00084 ∂13-Apr-88 1541 devlin@csli.stanford.edu Lunch and things
C00231 00085 ∂13-Apr-88 1655 ME re: How about 1989 and 1990 calendar files?
C00232 00086 ∂13-Apr-88 1714 CLT
C00233 00087 ∂13-Apr-88 1813 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu re: su.etc
C00234 00088 ∂13-Apr-88 1829 devlin@csli.stanford.edu re: Lunch and things
C00236 00089 ∂13-Apr-88 2042 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU writing
C00239 00090 ∂14-Apr-88 1019 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens%antares@anl-mcs.arpa CADE - 9 announcement
C00265 00091 ∂14-Apr-88 1109 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu re: Friday no good
C00267 00092 ∂14-Apr-88 1308 tah@linz.stanford.edu Tomorrow's LOP seminar CANCELLED!
C00269 00093 ∂14-Apr-88 1442 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Program Committee Reception
C00271 00094 ∂14-Apr-88 1603 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: connection
C00273 00095 ∂14-Apr-88 1645 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU Teaching next year
C00275 00096 ∂14-Apr-88 1658 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu [RPERRAULT@Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM: [Sue Smith <SSMITH@KL.SRI.COM>: BAA - Long Range Machine Intell P]]
C00284 00097 ∂14-Apr-88 1811 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00287 00098 ∂15-Apr-88 0815 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Teaching next year
C00288 00099 ∂15-Apr-88 0900 MPS overheads
C00289 00100 ∂15-Apr-88 1519 CLT houses
C00290 00101 ∂15-Apr-88 1544 MPS video on SDI
C00291 00102 ∂15-Apr-88 1711 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu lunch and etc
C00293 00103 ∂15-Apr-88 2135 CLT taxes
C00294 00104 ∂16-Apr-88 1045 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00298 00105 ∂16-Apr-88 1112 pullen@vax.darpa.mil We are looking for a Post-Doc
C00301 00106 ∂16-Apr-88 1302 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Oops
C00303 00107 ∂16-Apr-88 1414 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Oops
C00304 00108 ∂16-Apr-88 2124 ME NS garbage
C00305 00109 ∂17-Apr-88 0120 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu Yet another column
C00314 00110 ∂17-Apr-88 1819 JSW SAIL
C00315 00111 ∂17-Apr-88 1901 ARK SAIL costs
C00317 00112 ∂18-Apr-88 0004 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:kapur@albanycs.albany.edu RTA 89
C00326 00113 ∂18-Apr-88 0900 CLT
C00327 00114 ∂18-Apr-88 2209 weening@jeeves.stanford.edu Sun account
C00329 00115 ∂18-Apr-88 2341 ARK More about SAIL
C00331 00116 ∂19-Apr-88 0110 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com Munich, May
C00334 00117 ∂19-Apr-88 0204 Mailer re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
C00336 00118 ∂19-Apr-88 0646 ball@polya.stanford.edu More about SAIL
C00338 00119 ∂19-Apr-88 1018 RFN
C00339 00120 ∂19-Apr-88 1024 BYRD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
C00341 00121 ∂19-Apr-88 1145 nfields@vax.darpa.mil quarterly report
C00343 00122 ∂19-Apr-88 1306 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Oh god!
C00345 00123 ∂19-Apr-88 1326 Mailer re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
C00347 00124 ∂19-Apr-88 1438 Mailer Freedom of Speech
C00349 00125 ∂19-Apr-88 1524 @SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU:Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
C00354 00126 ∂19-Apr-88 1728 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM [hayes.pa: Grassau program]
C00357 00127 ∂19-Apr-88 2210 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed to meet this Thursday
C00359 00128 ∂20-Apr-88 1002 MPS phone message
C00360 00129 ∂20-Apr-88 1252 tah@linz.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
C00362 00130 ∂20-Apr-88 1324 DEK I need to reach Gosper
C00363 00131 ∂20-Apr-88 1328 DEK PS
C00364 00132 ∂20-Apr-88 1508 Mailer re: School Prayer etc.
C00367 00133 ∂20-Apr-88 1624 MPS appointment
C00368 00134 ∂20-Apr-88 1804 JSW Sun-4
C00369 00135 ∂20-Apr-88 2000 JMC
C00370 00136 ∂20-Apr-88 2000 JMC
C00371 00137 ∂20-Apr-88 2211 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Hey there
C00373 00138 ∂21-Apr-88 0954 ball@polya.stanford.edu More about SAIL
C00381 00139 ∂21-Apr-88 1103 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed meets today!
C00382 00140 ∂21-Apr-88 1132 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU moral responsibility
C00386 00141 ∂21-Apr-88 1231 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU anti-war movement & Sandinistas
C00389 00142 ∂21-Apr-88 1323 ARK Marty is being fully charged to SAIL!
C00397 00143 ∂21-Apr-88 1452 JSW CPU comparisons
C00399 00144 ∂21-Apr-88 1606 bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
C00401 00145 ∂21-Apr-88 1704 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00405 00146 ∂21-Apr-88 1738 Qlisp-mailer new-qlisp -> qlisp
C00407 00147 ∂21-Apr-88 2018 billo@cmx.npac.syr.EDU Qlisp
C00410 00148 ∂22-Apr-88 0757 siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de visit.to.germany
C00413 00149 ∂22-Apr-88 0955 S.SALUT@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: Junk phone calls...
C00415 00150 ∂22-Apr-88 1342 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM [reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank): addressing]
C00417 00151 ∂22-Apr-88 1652 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00419 00152 ∂22-Apr-88 2211 paulf@shasta.stanford.edu Re: Sex/Israeli Law
C00422 00153 ∂23-Apr-88 1641 @Score.Stanford.EDU:boyer%CLI.COM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Availability of Boyer and Moore's Prover
C00426 00154 ∂23-Apr-88 1746 HALPERN@IBM.COM Getting together?
C00427 00155 ∂24-Apr-88 0219 Qlisp-mailer Seminar at Berkeley
C00430 00156 ∂24-Apr-88 0256 JSW Progress and summer support
C00434 00157 ∂25-Apr-88 1000 JMC
C00435 00158 ∂25-Apr-88 1107 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:boyer@CLI.COM Availability of Boyer and Moore's Prover
C00439 00159 ∂25-Apr-88 1158 JSW Editor/Lisp interfaces
C00444 00160 ∂25-Apr-88 1807 VAL Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar: Correction and Reminder
C00446 00161 ∂25-Apr-88 1825 HALPERN@IBM.COM addresses?
C00447 00162 ∂26-Apr-88 1203 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed: NO meeting this week
C00448 00163 ∂26-Apr-88 1210 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU The moon
C00450 00164 ∂26-Apr-88 1240 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: The moon
C00451 00165 ∂26-Apr-88 1345 JSW Dod Equipment Program
C00452 00166 ∂26-Apr-88 1424 PHY
C00453 00167 ∂26-Apr-88 1620 bek@cs.duke.edu article
C00454 00168 ∂26-Apr-88 1622 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: fax machine
C00458 00169 ∂26-Apr-88 1635 ARK Re: fax machine
C00459 00170 ∂26-Apr-88 1720 DCL fax
C00460 00171 ∂26-Apr-88 1903 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: fax machine
C00462 00172 ∂26-Apr-88 1931 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU Re: fax machine
C00463 00173 ∂26-Apr-88 2028 paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu fax et al
C00465 00174 ∂27-Apr-88 0410 yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no Visa Application, China Conference '88.
C00472 00175 ∂27-Apr-88 0946 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU [H. Roy Jones <JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>: Re: 326,32x]
C00475 00176 ∂27-Apr-88 1024 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Teaching next year
C00477 00177 ∂27-Apr-88 1111 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Teaching next year
C00478 00178 ∂27-Apr-88 1245 Mailer re: Civil Liberties 17: Vampirism -- Driving the Stake
C00480 00179 ∂27-Apr-88 1339 bek@cs.duke.edu paper
C00481 00180 ∂27-Apr-88 1410 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Our 1-page flame
C00485 00181 ∂27-Apr-88 1507 NSH
C00486 00182 ∂27-Apr-88 1634 JSW Orals
C00487 00183 ∂27-Apr-88 1830 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: fax et al
C00488 00184 ∂28-Apr-88 0127 unido!ecrcvax!herold@uunet.UU.NET Visit to Munich and ECRC
C00492 00185 ∂28-Apr-88 1040 OKUNO@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU [Ken Kahn <Kahn.pa@Xerox.COM>: Jacob Levy would like to meet with the QLisp group]
C00496 00186 ∂28-Apr-88 1134 justeson@polya.stanford.edu letters/jobs
C00498 00187 ∂28-Apr-88 1517 tah@linz.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
C00500 00188 ∂28-Apr-88 1525 MPS Birthday
C00501 00189 ∂29-Apr-88 0441 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU JPL Paper
C00503 00190 ∂29-Apr-88 1001 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU re: JPL Paper
C00505 00191 ∂29-Apr-88 1341 JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU CS101
C00507 00192 ∂29-Apr-88 1439 Qlisp-mailer meeting
C00508 00193 ∂29-Apr-88 1501 chandler@polya.stanford.edu CSD Retreat
C00510 00194 ∂29-Apr-88 1507 chandler@polya.stanford.edu CSD Retreat
C00512 00195 ∂29-Apr-88 2317 JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU re: CS101
C00513 00196 ∂30-Apr-88 0700 JMC
C00514 00197 ∂30-Apr-88 2053 LAWS@KL.SRI.COM Response to "Missed Message"
C00517 00198 ∂01-May-88 1002 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
C00518 00199 ∂01-May-88 1035 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
C00519 00200 ∂01-May-88 1047 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
C00520 00201 ∂01-May-88 1053 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
C00521 00202 ∂02-May-88 0945 chandler@polya.stanford.edu re: CSD Retreat
C00523 00203 ∂02-May-88 1000 JMC
C00524 00204 ∂02-May-88 1007 devlin@csli.stanford.edu Lunch
C00526 00205 ∂02-May-88 1100 JMC
C00527 00206 ∂02-May-88 1238 VAL Nonmonotonic seminar - no meeting
C00528 00207 ∂02-May-88 1452 chandler@polya.stanford.edu re: CSD Retreat
C00529 00208 ∂02-May-88 1733 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu herold%mcvax!unido!ecrcvax.uucp@uunet.uu.net
C00531 00209 ∂02-May-88 1909 MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.UU.NET Returned mail: Host unknown
C00533 00210 ∂02-May-88 1918 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu uunet
C00534 00211 ∂02-May-88 2122 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu mail et al
C00536 00212 ∂03-May-88 0757 unido!ecrcvax!herold@uunet.UU.NET Re: visits
C00538 00213 ∂03-May-88 0900 JMC
C00539 00214 ∂03-May-88 0951 PAULF@KL.SRI.COM WAITS
C00540 00215 ∂03-May-88 1249 @Score.Stanford.EDU:IRVINE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU AI Qualifying Exam
C00544 00216 ∂03-May-88 1655 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed to meet on Thursday
C00545 00217 ∂03-May-88 1839 PAULF@KL.SRI.COM re: WAITS
C00546 00218 ∂03-May-88 2002 PAULF@KL.SRI.COM re: WAITS
C00548 00219 ∂03-May-88 2132 CLT rope
C00549 00220 ∂03-May-88 2229 PAULF@KL.SRI.COM re: WAITS
C00551 00221 ∂03-May-88 2301 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
C00553 00222 ∂04-May-88 0800 JMC
C00554 00223 ∂04-May-88 0800 JMC
C00555 00224 ∂04-May-88 1400 @Score.Stanford.EDU:IRVINE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU AI Qual - URGENT
C00557 00225 ∂04-May-88 1537 chandler@polya.stanford.edu Special Faculty Meeting 5/3/88 - Vote
C00559 00226 ∂04-May-88 1714 @RELAY.CS.NET:bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca Delphes
C00561 00227 ∂05-May-88 0948 Qlisp-mailer Contention for Memory
C00565 00228 ∂05-May-88 1012 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed meets today!
C00566 00229 ∂05-May-88 1018 tah@linz.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
C00570 00230 ∂05-May-88 1154 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Sarah
C00571 00231 ∂06-May-88 0541 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM let he who passed the first stone sin with a platypus
C00577 00232 ∂06-May-88 0817 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:zhangh@turing.cs.rpi.edu x↑n = x ring problem
C00584 00233 ∂06-May-88 0940 mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA Free will
C00591 00234 ∂06-May-88 1337 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:zhang@albanycs.albany.edu the x↑n =x ring problem
C00598 00235 ∂06-May-88 1447 SLA%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Qlisp
C00600 00236 ∂06-May-88 2246 NSH CADE
C00601 00237 ∂07-May-88 0138 @WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM the sins of infinite sums
C00604 00238 ∂07-May-88 1500 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:AI.BLEDSOE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Re: the x↑n =x ring problem
C00606 00239 ∂07-May-88 1531 CLT CADE
C00607 00240 ∂07-May-88 1910 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of March computer charges.
C00610 00241 ∂09-May-88 1346 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00612 00242 ∂10-May-88 0940 Qlisp-mailer A Measurement of Bureaucratic Overhead
C00618 00243 ∂10-May-88 1350 @Score.Stanford.EDU:tom@polya.stanford.edu [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
C00621 00244 ∂10-May-88 1431 @Score.Stanford.EDU:binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
C00623 00245 ∂10-May-88 1523 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
C00625 00246 ∂10-May-88 1558 perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu sabbatical
C00629 00247 ∂10-May-88 1707 @Score.Stanford.EDU:andy@polya.stanford.edu [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
C00631 00248 ∂11-May-88 0759 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu solicitation for issues and conclusions etc.
C00633 00249 ∂11-May-88 1013 GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU <LWE@Sail>
C00635 00250 ∂11-May-88 1800 jcm@ra.stanford.edu Theory Comp
C00637 00251 ∂11-May-88 1824 jcm@ra.stanford.edu Val Breazu-Tannen
C00640 00252 ∂11-May-88 2032 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu no Formfeed this week
C00641 00253 ∂11-May-88 2056 justeson@polya.stanford.edu job situation resolved
C00643 00254 ∂11-May-88 2059 tah@linz.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
C00646 00255 ∂11-May-88 2352 @Score.Stanford.EDU:cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Re: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
C00648 00256 ∂12-May-88 0028 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Re: Theory Comp
C00650 00257 ∂12-May-88 0855 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu sabbatical
C00653 00258 ∂12-May-88 1110 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil quarterly reports
C00655 00259 ∂12-May-88 1114 GROSSMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
C00657 00260 ∂12-May-88 1434 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Quarterly Reports
C00661 00261 ∂12-May-88 1639 edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.edu [boesch@vax.darpa.mil: Re: Lucid Qlisp quarterly report ]
C00664 00262 ∂13-May-88 0215 andy@carcoar.Stanford.EDU "That's not funny, and we're throwing you out of law school"
C00666 00263 ∂13-May-88 1051 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00668 00264 ∂13-May-88 1231 harnad@Princeton.EDU
C00683 00265 ∂15-May-88 1449 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:mcall@gvax.cs.cornell.edu requests
C00685 00266 ∂16-May-88 0500 J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Vietnam
C00688 00267 ∂16-May-88 1206 haley@polya.stanford.edu Teaching, life and all that
C00690 00268 ∂16-May-88 1356 CLT Qlisp
C00693 00269 ∂16-May-88 1638 tah@polya.stanford.edu LOP
C00694 00270 ∂17-May-88 0342 @RELAY.CS.NET:masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp pocket computer with LISP
C00697 00271 ∂17-May-88 1719 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00699 00272 ∂18-May-88 1232 CLT vardi
C00700 00273 ∂18-May-88 1249 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu FormFeed in 301 tomorrow
C00702 00274 ∂18-May-88 1354 CLT susie
C00703 00275 ∂18-May-88 2302 CLT itinerary
C00704 00276 ∂18-May-88 2320 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu The next stage
C00707 00277 ∂19-May-88 0425 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM algebra 2.9
C00713 00278 ∂19-May-88 0817 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Prospective Student
C00715 00279 ∂19-May-88 0906 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed meets today!
C00716 00280 ∂19-May-88 1037 CLT qlisp proposal
C00718 00281 ∂19-May-88 1041 CLT qlisp proposal
C00720 00282 ∂19-May-88 1718 PP248641%TECMTYVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu BITNET mail follows
C00722 00283 ∂19-May-88 1720 @Score.Stanford.EDU:PP248641%TECMTYVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu BITNET mail follows
C00724 00284 ∂20-May-88 0814 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Input
C00726 00285 ∂20-May-88 0817 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU cart before the horse
C00728 00286 ∂20-May-88 1140 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00730 00287 ∂21-May-88 0000 JMC Expired plan
C00731 00288 ∂21-May-88 1133 JMC
C00732 00289 ∂22-May-88 1522 phipps@polya.stanford.edu Database section graded
C00734 00290 ∂22-May-88 2131 RPG Call
C00735 00291 ∂23-May-88 0008 JSW Meeting
C00736 00292 ∂23-May-88 1110 @RITTER.AI.SRI.COM:Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM Thesis Proposal
C00738 00293 ∂23-May-88 1207 JSW Re: Meeting
C00739 00294 ∂23-May-88 1248 perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu papers
C00742 00295 ∂23-May-88 1326 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00745 00296 ∂23-May-88 1350 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Rumor
C00746 00297 ∂23-May-88 1427 MPS phone
C00747 00298 ∂23-May-88 2125 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Grading, meeting, solutions, etc.
C00749 00299 ∂24-May-88 0646 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU re: Input
C00750 00300 ∂24-May-88 0700 GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu RE: phone number
C00752 00301 ∂24-May-88 0747 coraki!pratt@sun.com Reading list
C00755 00302 ∂24-May-88 0859 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Comp food for thought
C00756 00303 ∂24-May-88 1019 @Score.Stanford.EDU:tom@polya.stanford.edu N-CUBE
C00758 00304 ∂24-May-88 1021 RPG First Draft
C00759 00305 ∂24-May-88 1059 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.stanford.edu N-CUBE
C00761 00306 ∂24-May-88 1114 Mailer Re: conservative humor, installment 2
C00763 00307 ∂24-May-88 1133 RPG New Version
C00764 00308 ∂24-May-88 1200 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: N-CUBE
C00766 00309 ∂24-May-88 1231 RPG Proposal
C00767 00310 ∂24-May-88 1403 BJORK@Score.Stanford.EDU Steadman
C00769 00311 ∂24-May-88 1417 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.stanford.edu N-CUBE
C00771 00312 ∂24-May-88 1435 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu Meeting with Nils
C00773 00313 ∂24-May-88 1511 chandler@polya.stanford.edu
C00774 00314 ∂24-May-88 1646 RPG Qlisp/BAA
C00775 00315 ∂24-May-88 1854 @Score.Stanford.EDU:binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU N-CUBE
C00777 00316 ∂24-May-88 2018 PAF Re: Conservative Humor
C00778 00317 ∂24-May-88 2020 PAF SAIL
C00780 00318 ∂24-May-88 2106 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Improvement of world
C00781 00319 ∂24-May-88 2200 harnad@Princeton.EDU Language Learnability: BBS Call for Commentators
C00786 00320 ∂25-May-88 0015 Mailer re: conservative humor, installment 2
C00791 00321 ∂25-May-88 0413 yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no Your travel arrangement to China.
C00793 00322 ∂25-May-88 0709 MEERSMAN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Arrangements for your visit to China.
C00795 00323 ∂25-May-88 1044 @RITTER.AI.SRI.COM:Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM Thesis committee
C00797 00324 ∂25-May-88 1055 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Qlisp
C00800 00325 ∂25-May-88 1104 bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA Re: AIList Digest V7 #6 [JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU: free will discussion ]
C00802 00326 ∂25-May-88 1145 wolf@polya.stanford.edu Re: The next stage
C00804 00327 ∂25-May-88 1600 GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu RE: phone number
C00806 00328 ∂25-May-88 2155 JSW Biography for Carolyn
C00807 00329 ∂25-May-88 2227 JSW Bios
C00808 00330 ∂26-May-88 0746 bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA Prof. McCarthy's Article on Free Will
C00810 00331 ∂26-May-88 0813 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:lcp%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK reports on Isabelle
C00814 00332 ∂26-May-88 0900 physicsl@sierra.STANFORD.EDU BOOK ON HOLD
C00815 00333 ∂26-May-88 0924 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU no meeting today!
C00816 00334 ∂26-May-88 0930 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:lcp%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK reports on Isabelle (correction)
C00818 00335 ∂26-May-88 1717 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: absence
C00820 00336 ∂27-May-88 0847 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00823 00337 ∂27-May-88 1005 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu some comments re technology chapters
C00830 00338 ∂27-May-88 1413 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu
C00831 00339 ∂27-May-88 1413 Qlisp-mailer This is not about Fibonacci!
C00843 00340 ∂27-May-88 1509 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu We should start thinking about a title
C00845 00341 ∂30-May-88 2039 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU [Jonathan A Rees <JAR@ML.AI.MIT.EDU>: pocket lisp machine]
C00848 00342 ∂31-May-88 1015 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com workshop
C00850 00343 ∂31-May-88 1339 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU quarterly report
C00857 00344 ∂31-May-88 1446 @RITTER.AI.SRI.COM:Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM G81
C00858 00345 ∂31-May-88 1637 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU: Re: Shall we eliminate the NCUBE?]
C00860 00346 ∂31-May-88 1638 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [MAYR@Score.Stanford.EDU: NCube]
C00862 00347 ∂31-May-88 1639 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU NCUBE Interest
C00864 00348 ∂31-May-88 1701 IRVINE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU NAE reference letter
C00866 00349 ∂31-May-88 1717 @Score.Stanford.EDU:wheaton@athena.stanford.edu NCUBE Interest
C00868 00350 ∂31-May-88 1741 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM I wont be able to make it..
C00872 00351 ∂31-May-88 1821 PAT@CCRMA-F4
C00892 00352 ∂01-Jun-88 0001 JMC
C00893 00353 ∂01-Jun-88 0001 JMC
C00894 00354 ∂01-Jun-88 0938 PAT@CCRMA-F4
C00914 00355 ∂01-Jun-88 0941 PAT@CCRMA-F4
C00916 00356 ∂01-Jun-88 1124 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00918 00357 ∂01-Jun-88 1321 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU formfeed meets tomorrow ...
C00919 00358 ∂01-Jun-88 1456 RPG Joe Weening
C00921 00359 ∂01-Jun-88 1605 RPG Meeting
C00922 00360 ∂01-Jun-88 1702 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Lunch
C00924 00361 ∂01-Jun-88 1710 OKUNO@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU availability of QLISP implementation
C00928 00362 ∂01-Jun-88 1735 @RELAY.CS.NET:bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca re: Delphes
C00931 00363 ∂01-Jun-88 1804 Qlisp-mailer meeting
C00932 00364 ∂01-Jun-88 1913 ME Prancing Pony Bill
C00934 00365 ∂01-Jun-88 2257 RPG
C00935 00366 ∂02-Jun-88 0749 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU re: JPL Paper
C00940 00367 ∂02-Jun-88 0853 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
C00943 00368 ∂02-Jun-88 0927 @Score.Stanford.EDU:wheaton@athena.stanford.edu [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
C00945 00369 ∂02-Jun-88 0934 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU formfeed today!
C00946 00370 ∂02-Jun-88 0944 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
C00948 00371 ∂02-Jun-88 1000 @Score.Stanford.EDU:tom@polya.Stanford.EDU [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
C00951 00372 ∂02-Jun-88 1005 GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU N Cube
C00953 00373 ∂02-Jun-88 1014 @Score.Stanford.EDU:wheaton@athena.stanford.edu [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
C00955 00374 ∂02-Jun-88 1034 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
C00958 00375 ∂02-Jun-88 1211 @Score.Stanford.EDU:binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU NCUBE
C00960 00376 ∂02-Jun-88 1341 lyn1@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: the attraction of crime
C00962 00377 ∂02-Jun-88 1712 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU meeting
C00964 00378 ∂02-Jun-88 1738 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: SPO Advisory Committee
C00967 00379 ∂02-Jun-88 1751 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: NCUBE
C00970 00380 ∂02-Jun-88 1833 @RITTER.AI.SRI.COM:Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM re: Thesis Proposal
C00973 00381 ∂02-Jun-88 1836 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu I am once again trying to solicit input
C00975 00382 ∂02-Jun-88 1847 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00977 00383 ∂02-Jun-88 2325 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU The dam busters
C00979 00384 ∂02-Jun-88 2352 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: The dam busters
C00982 00385 ∂03-Jun-88 0108 LES re: Civil Liberties 52: Police Misconduct
C00984 00386 ∂03-Jun-88 0906 @Score.Stanford.EDU:wheaton@athena.stanford.edu NCUBE
C00986 00387 ∂03-Jun-88 0951 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [tah@linz.Stanford.EDU: NCUBE]
C00989 00388 ∂03-Jun-88 0959 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]
C00992 00389 ∂03-Jun-88 1148 LES Ulloa
C00993 00390 ∂03-Jun-88 1421 LES computer charges
C00994 00391 ∂03-Jun-88 1501 JMC
C00995 00392 ∂03-Jun-88 1709 JSW Disk usage
C00996 00393 ∂03-Jun-88 1742 LES Umbrella contract
C00998 00394 ∂03-Jun-88 2140 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Alliant maintenance
C01001 00395 ∂04-Jun-88 0938 CLT Alliant maintenance
C01002 00396 ∂05-Jun-88 1108 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu fyi. my response also coming. We would also like some suggestions as
C01005 00397 ∂05-Jun-88 1958 @RELAY.CS.NET:masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp pocket computer with LISP
C01008 00398 ∂06-Jun-88 0800 JMC
C01009 00399 ∂06-Jun-88 0830 JMC
C01010 00400 ∂06-Jun-88 0956 mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA Free will
C01012 00401 ∂06-Jun-88 1102 mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA Free will
C01020 00402 ∂06-Jun-88 1428 VAL Nonmonotonic and commonsense reasoning seminar
C01021 00403 ∂06-Jun-88 2000 JMC
C01022 00404 ∂06-Jun-88 2115 siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de Failed mail (msg.aa21130)
C01026 00405 ∂06-Jun-88 2135 LES re: dialnet
C01027 00406 ∂07-Jun-88 0900 JMC
C01028 00407 ∂07-Jun-88 1031 mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA re: Free will
C01031 00408 ∂07-Jun-88 1321 weening@labrea.stanford.edu Files on Labrea
C01033 00409 ∂07-Jun-88 1322 weening@labrea.stanford.edu Labrea
C01034 00410 ∂07-Jun-88 1535 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU your sterilization example
C01036 00411 ∂07-Jun-88 1557 VAL Gelfond's address
C01037 00412 ∂07-Jun-88 1608 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C01038 00413 ∂08-Jun-88 0144 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Proposal on Janet Murdoch
C01043 00414 ∂08-Jun-88 0148 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Pentland's letter on Murdoch
C01047 00415 ∂08-Jun-88 0601 @elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM fourier fractal fallout
C01051 00416 ∂08-Jun-88 1312 VAL benchmarks
C01054 00417 ∂08-Jun-88 1617 VAL vacation
C01055 00418 ∂09-Jun-88 0011 jlh@vsop.stanford.edu Re: I am once again trying to solicit input
C01057 00419 ∂09-Jun-88 0127 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com help for Vladimir's hotel
C01059 00420 ∂09-Jun-88 0637 bnevin@cch.bbn.com Consensus and Reality
C01070 00421 ∂09-Jun-88 0708 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM fourier fractal fallout
C01078 00422 ∂09-Jun-88 1224 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU Skytech Image/Page Scanner Demo in MJH 030
C01080 00423 ∂09-Jun-88 1243 @Score.Stanford.EDU:pallas@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
C01088 00424 ∂09-Jun-88 1416 spratt%lti.UUCP@bu-it.BU.EDU Re: AIList Digest V7 #24
C01091 00425 ∂09-Jun-88 1612 CLT returns
C01092 00426 ∂09-Jun-88 1620 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Consensus and Reality
C01099 00427 ∂09-Jun-88 1647 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU tak
C01101 00428 ∂09-Jun-88 1921 JSW re: phone message
C01102 00429 ∂10-Jun-88 0012 @Score.Stanford.EDU:cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
C01105 00430 ∂10-Jun-88 0518 bnevin@cch.bbn.com Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
C01114 00431 ∂10-Jun-88 0700 JMC
C01115 00432 ∂10-Jun-88 0934 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU tak
C01118 00433 ∂10-Jun-88 1059 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
C01123 00434 ∂10-Jun-88 1154 CLT
C01124 00435 ∂10-Jun-88 1200 Qlisp-mailer The Composition Problem
C01128 00436 ∂10-Jun-88 1221 RPG Paris
C01129 00437 ∂10-Jun-88 1248 boesch@vax.darpa.mil BAA FOR COMMUNICATIONS
C01149 00438 ∂10-Jun-88 1307 Mailer re: Civil Liberties 60: Two views of Death
C01151 00439 ∂10-Jun-88 1400 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
C01153 00440 ∂10-Jun-88 1524 Qlisp-mailer The start of a Debate?
C01160 00441 ∂10-Jun-88 1617 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
C01162 00442 ∂10-Jun-88 1738 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM re: Consensus and Reality
C01166 00443 ∂10-Jun-88 1740 Qlisp-mailer meeting
C01168 00444 ∂10-Jun-88 1753 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: tak
C01170 00445 ∂10-Jun-88 1815 Qlisp-mailer The start of a Debate? Well, maybe.
C01174 00446 ∂10-Jun-88 1827 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
C01181 00447 ∂10-Jun-88 2250 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
C01187 00448 ∂11-Jun-88 0206 nbires!ames!oliveb!epimass!hodges@unidot.uucp Proposed Seminar
C01192 00449 ∂11-Jun-88 1253 andy@carcoar.Stanford.EDU Problems with UUCP
C01194 00450 ∂11-Jun-88 1645 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Problems with UUCP
C01196 00451 ∂13-Jun-88 0645 bnevin@cch.bbn.com Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
C01207 00452 ∂13-Jun-88 0915 Qlisp-mailer Re: The start of a Debate?
C01210 00453 ∂13-Jun-88 1037 hearn%hilbert@rand-unix.ARPA Various
C01214 00454 ∂13-Jun-88 1307 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:kaufmann@CLI.COM workshop notes
C01230 00455 ∂13-Jun-88 1554 Qlisp-mailer new new-qlisp
C01233 00456 ∂13-Jun-88 1910 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu draft of issues chapter. Comments etc. solicited.
C01258 00457 ∂14-Jun-88 0905 Qlisp-mailer Required vs. Implicit Parallelism
C01263 00458 ∂14-Jun-88 1145 Qlisp-mailer meeting
C01264 00459 ∂14-Jun-88 1218 Qlisp-mailer Re: The Composition Problem
C01266 00460 ∂14-Jun-88 1541 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Yet another Same-Fringe
C01269 00461 ∂14-Jun-88 2156 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
C01276 00462 ∂15-Jun-88 0109 yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no Your travel arrangement to China?
C01279 00463 ∂15-Jun-88 1242 AI.PETRIE@MCC.COM Metaepistemology
C01281 00464 ∂15-Jun-88 1311 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu some good stuff from Clark. Let's hear more from the rest of you!
C01288 00465 ∂16-Jun-88 0622 bnevin@cch.bbn.com Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
C01328 00466 ∂16-Jun-88 1142 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU publication
C01330 00467 ∂16-Jun-88 1424 Qlisp-mailer Bill Dally visit
C01332 00468 ∂17-Jun-88 1045 @RELAY.CS.NET:dlpoole@watdragon.waterloo.edu another example to think about
C01337 00469 ∂19-Jun-88 0830 JMC
C01338 00470 ∂19-Jun-88 1000 JMC
C01339 00471 ∂19-Jun-88 2109 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU more examples?
C01341 00472 ∂20-Jun-88 0728 JK meeting
C01342 00473 ∂20-Jun-88 0816 aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK free-will
C01362 00474 ∂21-Jun-88 0259 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com nmr/grassau proceedings
C01367 00475 ∂21-Jun-88 0305 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com nmr-proceedings
C01369 00476 ∂21-Jun-88 0800 JMC
C01370 00477 ∂21-Jun-88 1005 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Alex Gorbis
C01372 00478 ∂21-Jun-88 1107 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Janet Murdoch
C01374 00479 ∂21-Jun-88 1434 Qlisp-mailer meeting
C01375 00480 ∂21-Jun-88 1958 @RELAY.CS.NET:bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca visit
C01377 00481 ∂21-Jun-88 2320 paulf@shasta.stanford.edu mailpaths
C01379 00482 ∂22-Jun-88 0131 ME MX records
C01380 00483 ∂22-Jun-88 0959 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed over the summer?
C01382 00484 ∂22-Jun-88 1000 JMC
C01383 00485 ∂22-Jun-88 1143 @polya.Stanford.EDU:air@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Formfeed over the summer?
C01385 00486 ∂22-Jun-88 1405 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Black Friday
C01388 00487 ∂22-Jun-88 1613 J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Re: Reagan achievement?
C01390 00488 ∂22-Jun-88 2000 JMC
C01391 00489 ∂23-Jun-88 0702 @ira.uka.de:siekmann@uklirb.uucp Re: Thanks
C01393 00490 ∂23-Jun-88 0900 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU formfeed moved to Rockwell for the summer ...
C01395 00491 ∂23-Jun-88 1104 JK Nilsson
C01396 00492 ∂23-Jun-88 1220 AR.REC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C01398 00493 ∂23-Jun-88 1653 Qlisp-mailer meeting
C01400 00494 ∂23-Jun-88 1730 RPG Qlisp Meetings
C01403 00495 ∂23-Jun-88 2331 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of April computer charges.
C01406 00496 ∂24-Jun-88 0011 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of May computer charges.
C01409 00497 ∂24-Jun-88 0747 mimsy!cvl!harwood@rutgers.edu Re: Ding an sich
C01412 00498 ∂24-Jun-88 1048 Mailer failed mail returned
C01413 00499 ∂24-Jun-88 1150 @SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU:Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU congratulations
C01414 00500 ∂24-Jun-88 1152 @Score.Stanford.EDU:csdaccount@jaguar.Stanford.EDU away for a while
C01416 00501 ∂24-Jun-88 1336 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu
C01417 00502 ∂24-Jun-88 1541 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU John McCarthy wins Inamori Prize
C01421 00503 ∂24-Jun-88 1557 JSW Siemens mail
C01422 00504 ∂24-Jun-88 1622 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Kyoto Prize
C01423 00505 ∂24-Jun-88 1630 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Kyoto Prize
C01425 00506 ∂24-Jun-88 1635 @SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU:Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: bad news re: Dukakis
C01429 00507 ∂24-Jun-88 1640 YLIKOSKI%FINFUN.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU metaepistemology
C01433 00508 ∂24-Jun-88 1641 @SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU:Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: bad news re: Dukakis
C01435 00509 ∂24-Jun-88 1642 Mailer failed mail returned
C01437 00510 ∂24-Jun-88 1642 Mailer failed mail returned
C01439 00511 ∂25-Jun-88 0338 @RELAY.CS.NET:ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
C01442 00512 ∂25-Jun-88 0908 Mailer failed mail returned
C01443 00513 ∂25-Jun-88 0920 JSW
C01444 00514 ∂25-Jun-88 1030 larrabee@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Two Americans, West German Receive Kyoto Prize
C01446 00515 ∂25-Jun-88 1305 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Kyocera Prize
C01447 00516 ∂25-Jun-88 1602 GLB
C01448 00517 ∂25-Jun-88 1712 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu congratulations
C01449 00518 ∂26-Jun-88 0802 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU mathematica (new software)
C01454 00519 ∂26-Jun-88 1956 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU
C01455 00520 ∂26-Jun-88 2242 rick@hanauma.STANFORD.EDU Congratulations on your Kyoto Prize
C01456 00521 ∂27-Jun-88 0706 BHAYES-ROTH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU another congratulation
C01457 00522 ∂27-Jun-88 0845 BOYLE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Congratulations.
C01458 00523 ∂27-Jun-88 1252 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [billo@cmx.npac.syr.EDU: Re: Qlisp ]
C01465 00524 ∂27-Jun-88 1306 FAGIN@IBM.COM Kyoto prize
C01466 00525 ∂27-Jun-88 1457 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Congratulations John McCarthy
C01469 00526 ∂27-Jun-88 1533 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU ["Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu> : Congratulations
C01474 00527 ∂27-Jun-88 2150 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to meet on WEDNESDAY this week!
C01476 00528 ∂27-Jun-88 2325 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM quickie(?)
C01485 00529 ∂28-Jun-88 1228 CLT ballet
C01486 00530 ∂28-Jun-88 1325 HAILPERIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU prospective Ph.D. student
C01487 00531 ∂28-Jun-88 1331 HAILPERIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: prospective Ph.D. student
C01488 00532 ∂28-Jun-88 1333 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu friday
C01489 00533 ∂28-Jun-88 1341 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu friday
C01491 00534 ∂28-Jun-88 1409 CORBATO@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Congratulations!
C01493 00535 ∂28-Jun-88 1736 mmlai!haugh@uunet.UU.NET Re: another example to think about
C01529 00536 ∂28-Jun-88 1800 unido!gmdzi!gmdxps!brewka@uunet.UU.NET broken arms example
C01534 00537 ∂28-Jun-88 1855 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: broken arms example
C01536 00538 ∂28-Jun-88 2351 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU congratulations
C01537 00539 ∂29-Jun-88 0000 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU "Contexts"
C01539 00540 ∂29-Jun-88 0006 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU I sent you a paper
C01542 00541 ∂29-Jun-88 0759 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU formfeed today -- don't forget!
C01543 00542 ∂29-Jun-88 1046 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [Dick Gabriel: Qlisp Meeting Tomorrow ]
C01546 00543 ∂29-Jun-88 1102 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Congratulations John McCarthy
C01548 00544 ∂29-Jun-88 1135 MPS Susan
C01549 00545 ∂29-Jun-88 1157 Qlisp-mailer JMC Celebration
C01550 00546 ∂29-Jun-88 1300 CLT
C01551 00547 ∂29-Jun-88 1334 MGardner.pa@Xerox.COM AI Board letter
C01562 00548 ∂29-Jun-88 1437 CLT Simpson on travel
C01563 00549 ∂30-Jun-88 0621 boesch@vax.darpa.mil BAA
C01564 00550 ∂30-Jun-88 0700 JMC
C01565 00551 ∂30-Jun-88 0852 CORBATO@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU re: Congratulations!
C01567 00552 ∂30-Jun-88 0900 JMC
C01568 00553 ∂30-Jun-88 0934 MPS Phone call
C01569 00554 ∂30-Jun-88 0944 novavax!proxftl!tomh@bikini.cis.ufl.edu Re: Ding an sich
C01575 00555 ∂30-Jun-88 1047 ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu DSA
C01577 00556 ∂30-Jun-88 1139 @Score.Stanford.EDU:jsl@ROCKEFELLER.ARPA Congratulations
C01579 00557 ∂30-Jun-88 1511 RPG Historians
C01580 00558 ∂30-Jun-88 1603 RPG CPL
C01581 00559 ∂30-Jun-88 1640 RPG CPL
C01582 00560 ∂30-Jun-88 1644 RPG CPL
C01583 00561 ∂30-Jun-88 1701 RPG Consulting...
C01601 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂01-Apr-88 0043 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 1 April 1988
Previous Balance 16.24
Monthly Interest at 1.0% 0.16
Current Charges 4.00 (bicycle lockers)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 20.40
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.
You haven't paid your Pony bill since 11/87.
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-Apr-88 0528 yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no re: IFIP Working Conf. in China, July 88.
Received: from tor.nta.no by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Apr 88 05:28:02 PST
Posted-Date: 1 Apr 88 15:15 +0100
Received: by tor.nta.no (5.54/3.21)
id AA23538; Fri, 1 Apr 88 15:18:15 +0200
Date: 1 Apr 88 15:15 +0100
From: Jianhua Yang <yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <8803290923.AA23834@tor.nta.no>
Message-Id: <167*yang@vax.runit.unit.uninett>
Subject: re: IFIP Working Conf. in China, July 88.
Dear Prof. John McCarthy,
Thanks for all the information.
I will make a reservation for a single room at East (Dong Fang) Hotel,
for you. This hotel has been chosen by the most of the participants.
The reason why I asked you for hotel choice, is for the case that
you will bring with you accompanying persons (especially more than
one accompanying persons). Since you are an invited speaker, the
conference will pay hotel charges, etc. for you.
Sincerely yours,
Jianhua Yang.
∂01-Apr-88 1053 MPS good friday
if there is nothing special you wish me to do today, i will be
leaving around 2-2:30 for good friday services.
Naomi is not in today because of good friday, but she will be
getting in touch with me on monday.
have a happy easter. especially the little one.
pat
∂01-Apr-88 1514 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Runtime Spawning Predicate for Qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Apr 88 15:14:04 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA02876; Fri, 1 Apr 88 15:12:48 pst
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 88 15:12:48 pst
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8804012312.AA02876@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL
Cc: pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Runtime Spawning Predicate for Qlisp
Would you criticize the following document? Should the Qlisp group
do a paper on this? I tried to break it up into sections.
Preliminary analysis of the Qempty-P (NSTACK-P) predicate is
presented; it presumes some familiarity with the topic. The purpose
of this document is to Theoretically Justify some good experimental
results, and of course, to explain how these reulsts were obtained.
Currently, the emphasis is on the behavior of the dynamic spawning
predicate, and not the implementation details, although very tentative
Sections and Section Titles have been inserted.
The proposed title:
Near Optimal Parallel Performance of Computation Trees in Qlisp
Section:
INTRODUCTION
Give an introduction to Qlisp, Computation Tree, Scheduler,
Spawning, Speed-Up.
Section:
THE MACHINE MODEL
For expository purposes, our computational model ignores contention
on all resources; also, the number k of processors is fairly small.
Shared memory.
Section:
THE SYNTAX [JDP: Not final, Not done]
(defun nfib (n)
(if (< n 2) n
#!(+ (nfib (1- n)) (nfib (- n 2)))))
expands into something similar to:
(defun fib (n)
(if (< n 2) n
(qlet (not (nstack-p))
((a (fib (1- n)))
(b (fib (- n 2))))
(+ a b))))
[JDP: I prefer the #! form, as it retains the appearance of serial code,
and can be readily inserted into highly functional programs.]
Section:
THE NSTACK SCHEDULER
k processors. k process stacks. When a processor spawns, it pushes
the task onto its "own" stack. When its own stack is empty and it wants
a task to do, it raids another processors stack. This Scheduler results
in k basic threads of control on a k processor machine. A breadth first
version may have many more threads of control than processors.
Section:
THE NSTACK-P PREDICATE
When evaluated by processor i, i checks to see if there is anything in
its stack. If there is, return T, if not, return nil.
Note: NSTACK-P does require a "critical region" lock. It only depends on
Atomic reads and writes to the top of the stack... [Explain further]
Section:
THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS SCHEDULING PREDICATE
This discussion attempts to explain the performance of NSTACK-P on
large, well-balanced problems. It presumes some knowledge of the
computation trees.
When the computation to be performed has a computation tree T, with
number of branching nodes B, number of computation leaves L, and depth
d, then, the parallel speed-up on k processors, with spawn cost s, and
spawning-predicate evaluation cost p, may be estimated:
Branch Node Cost = Bcost, Time required to serially evaluate branch node
Leaf Cost = Lcost, Time to evaluate a Leaf
spawn cost = s
predicate evaluation cost = p
Number of processors = k
Depth of tree T = d
Number of Branch Nodes in T = B
Number of Leaf nodes in T = L
Then, the Serial-Time ST for evaluating T is: ST = Bcost*B + Lcost*L.
Since the tree is perfectly balanced, we assume the the tree T
subdivides nicely, and each processor finishes its portion after doing
depth d spawns. Thus, the total scheduler overhead is attributable to
evaluating the predicate (cost p), in p*B, the cost of each processor
spawning d tasks, in s*k*d, and the initiallization idle time (spent
at the top of the tree), k*(lg k)*Bcost. In a more detailed version of
this paper, we would explain each of these terms precisely, but they
are stated only in summary form here.
So the Parallel Time PT for evaluating T is:
Bcost*B + Lcost*L + p*B + s*k*d + k*(log k)*Bcost
PT = ------------------------------------------------
k
= Bcost*B + Lcost*L p*B
----------------- + --- + s*d + (log k)*Bcost
k k
Assuming a Very large, balanced tree, the last two terms go to zero,
simplifying the equation:
= p*B + Bcost*B + Lcost*L
-----------------------
k
If we make a further simplifying assumption that the cost of
evaluating a leaf is zero, then the speed-up, which is serial time
divided by parallel time, approaches:
k*Bcost*B Bcost
= ------------- = k * --------
p*B + Bcost*B p + Bcost
This is the asymptotic speed-up for a computation tree which spends
time Bcost within a single computation node. As you would hope,
if the Branch Node evaluation time is large, then this scheduler
produces nearly linear speed-up.
As can be seen, for sufficiently deep trees, the speed-up depends only
on k (the number of processors), p (the time to evaluate (NSTACK-P)),
and Bcost, the single node computation time. In fib, for example,
Bcost is the sum of the cost of 2 comparisons, a decrement, a
decrement by 2, two function calls, and an addition, and the memory
references these operations require. Nstack-P is a macro which
expands into a memory reference into an array, depending on which
processor is making the reference. This reference is not critical, so
it does not use locks; it does assume atomic read-writes.
There is experimental evidence that these calculations are basically
true for fibonacci, whose computation tree is not quite balanced. For
2, 3 and 4 processors, the EFFICIENCY (actual parallel speed-up,
divided by number-of-processors) approaches .87, experimentally. An
efficiency of .87 implies that the computation done in a single call
to fib is roughly 7 times the cost of evaluating the currently
implemented NSTACK-P predicate; this seems about right.
The real limit, then, to speeding up well balanced trees has very
little to do with the cost of spawning tasks, for sufficiently large
trees. Furthermore, for sufficiently large computation trees, adding
another processor will always cause some speed-up; adding one more
processor is equivalent to adding 1-(Bcost/(p+Bcost)) to the speed-up
factor.
Section:
IMPROVEMENTS, ENHANCEMENTS,
PIPELINING THE RUNTIME SPAWNING PREDICATE is easy
There is more good news with this scheduling method. The Nstack-P
predicate is highly pipelineable. It can almost be a run-time
Type-Check on the function call..., so the spawn predicate is
tantamount to checking a control bit in an internal register!!
Practically, this means that the cost p of this predicate should go to
zero, in a pipelined architecture. At this point, the low-order terms
and spawning costs will be more interesting.
The precise behavior when trees are less than perfectly balanced is
somewhat complicated, but will be analyzed after this ideal case has
been thoroughly understood. We need to know how large "sufficiently
large" is. Things like contention for memory are also very important.
Section:
CONCLUSIONS
Nstack-P predicate is a pretty good parallelism "de-limiter".
∂01-Apr-88 1535 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed mailing list updated
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Apr 88 15:34:58 PST
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA08785; Fri, 1 Apr 88 15:34:17 PST
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 88 15:34:17 PST
From: ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Message-Id: <8804012334.AA08785@polya.stanford.edu>
To: feed
Subject: formfeed mailing list updated
This message is to inform you that the formfeed mailing list has been
changed to feed@polya. Message about inclusion on the list should be
sent to me, ginsberg@polya. In a few days, I will replace all sushi
addresses with their polya counterparts, so that xxx@sushi will become
xxx@polya. If this is wrong (perhaps because xxx becomes yyy on polya),
please let me know. Otherwise, you don't have to do anything ...
Matt
∂01-Apr-88 2000 JMC
Elliott
∂01-Apr-88 2240 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Problems with flight simulator tomorrow
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Apr 88 22:40:08 PST
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Fri, 1 Apr 88 22:35:49 PST
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 88 22:35:49 PST
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Problems with flight simulator tomorrow
Hi there,
I'm sorry to say the IRIS won't be available tomorrow. This is a
very hectic quarter around the psych dept since many students have
research projects due in June. Several of them are using the IRIS
for programming and running experiments, and tomorrow it's all booked
up. But maybe we can still have lunch, dim sum perhaps?
I have an appointment in the dept. at 1 p.m. so I could go to lunch
around 11:30 a.m. Let me know what you would like to do.
-helen
∂02-Apr-88 1628 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Re: lunch
Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Apr 88 16:28:23 PST
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Sat, 2 Apr 88 16:27:54 PST
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Sat, 2 Apr 88 16:23:02 PST
Date: 2 Apr 88 16:22 PST
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: lunch
Date: 2 April 1988, 16:21:11 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott (415)-926-2469 ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: lunch
In-Reply-To: JMC AT SAIL.STANFORD.EDU -- 04/01/88 21:23
Dear John,
Would enjoy having lunch. How about next Wed or Friday at 12 at the
faculty club.
Greetings,
Elliott
∂02-Apr-88 2100 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Robotics at JPL
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Apr 88 21:00:46 PST
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Sat, 2 Apr 88 20:56:24 PST
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 88 20:56:24 PST
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Robotics at JPL
Hi there,
Could you send me the name of the Hungarian guy at JPL working on remote
interfaces? A phone number would also be great, if you have it.
I just came across the name Antal Bejczy, associated with JPL. Might
that be him?
Thanks for any info.
-helen
∂03-Apr-88 2017 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
THE PERSISTENCE OF DERIVED INFORMATION
Karen Myers (MYERS@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU)
Stanford University
Friday, April 8, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Work on the problem of reasoning about change has focussed on the
persistence of nonderived information, while neglecting the effects of
inference within individual states. Such inferences in fact add a new
dimension of complexity to reasoning about change. Failure to allow
for these inferences can result in an unwarranted loss of derived
information.
The difficulties arise with a class of deductions having the
property that their conclusions should be allowed to persist even
though some components of their justifications may no longer be valid.
We will describe this notion of a conclusion being `change independent'
of parts of its justification. A solution to the persistence
problem will be presented in terms of a default frame axiom that is
sensitive to both justification information and change independence
relationships.
This work has been done jointly with David Smith.
∂04-Apr-88 0900 JMC
travel
∂04-Apr-88 0930 JMC
nafeh 943-1711
∂04-Apr-88 1100 JMC
Pony bill
∂04-Apr-88 1232 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu re: lunch
Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Apr 88 12:32:13 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Mon, 4 Apr 88 12:31:47 PDT
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 4 Apr 88 12:29:58 PDT
Date: 4 Apr 88 12:30 PST
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: re: lunch
Date: 4 April 1988, 12:30:37 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott (415)-926-2469 ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: re: lunch
In-Reply-To: JMC AT SAIL.STANFORD.EDU -- 04/02/88 18:23
See you at 12pm.
∂04-Apr-88 1527 tah@linz.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Apr 88 15:27:08 PDT
Received: from linz.Stanford.EDU by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA20182; Mon, 4 Apr 88 15:23:48 PDT
Received: by linz.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA05273; Mon, 4 Apr 88 15:23:18 PDT
Message-Id: <8804042223.AA05273@linz.stanford.edu>
To: lop@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: students@score.stanford.edu, logmtc@sail.stanford.edu,
csd.bboard@polya.stanford.edu, su.events@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Date: 04 Apr 88 15:23:14 PDT (Mon)
From: Tom Henzinger <tah@linz.stanford.edu>
The LOP (Logic of Programs) Seminar will continue this quarter. We will
meet as usual Fridays 11:30-12:30 in MJH 301.
The topics of the weekly talks are connected to logic in computer science
in a broad sense, such as programming language theory, concurrency theory,
and automated deduction.
This Friday, April 8, Dr. Mark Stickel from SRI will give an overview of
current trends in automated deduction. On April 15, Dr. Joseph Goguen from
SRI will talk on "OBJ as a Theorem Prover."
Now there is also a mailing list lop@polya which can be publicly used for
mailings of general interest to the LOP community. If you get this message
more than once, you are on the list :-). If you want to be removed, added,
or have your address changed, please send a request to tah@polya.
∂04-Apr-88 1618 MPS phone
bill clancy returned your call. he will be out until
tomorrow. number is 494-4383
pat
∂04-Apr-88 1849 JK
To: GLB, CLT, NSH, JMC
∂04-Apr-88 1442 GLB desk
You can take possession anytime of the desk in Shankar's office.
---------
OK, I will be there thursdays.
JK
∂04-Apr-88 2230 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU confidential--please do not forward
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Apr 88 22:30:32 PDT
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 88 22:29:36 PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: confidential--please do not forward
To: allen.newell@c.cs.cmu.edu, herb.simon@c.cs.cmu.edu,
raj.reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu, nilsson@tenaya.Stanford.EDU,
jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU, binford@sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12387936867.22.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Last Friday I was speaking with a well-known industrial manager in the computer technology area. I wont use his name here. He asked me about the DARPA
situation and I was frank to him about Schwartz.
It turns out that he is a friend of Schwartz's, not just a professional
aquaintance. He reinforced what we have seen empirically: to wit, he said that
Jack is VERY anti-AI-research, takes it almost as a badge of honor to be so.
He said that Jack's view is: AI's problems that are interesting are too hard;
the problems that AI solves are too simple to be interesting and are better
handled by other techniques (presumably mathematical).
Thought you would be interested in this.
Ed
-------
∂05-Apr-88 0830 JMC
Maydell 403 432-5189
∂05-Apr-88 0919 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu planlunch to meet on Thursday
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Apr 88 09:18:59 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA17726; Tue, 5 Apr 88 09:18:20 PDT
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 88 09:18:20 PDT
From: ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Message-Id: <8804051618.AA17726@polya.stanford.edu>
To: feed
Subject: planlunch to meet on Thursday
MJH252, as usual. I've spent the past couple of weeks either on vacation
or recovering from a back injury -- so I hope other people have stuff to
say!
See you then.
Matt
∂05-Apr-88 0934 DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Apr 88 09:34:13 PDT
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 88 12:37:43 EDT
From: Devon Sean McCullough <DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
To: JMC@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Message-ID: <353789.880405.DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Hi. I wonder if you would give me access to one of your machines
that runs gnumacs and has a mouse (eg a sun with xwindows) so I can
continue to write documentation for RMS's free software foundation
this week. I am visiting Palo Alto until 12 April for interviews..
∂05-Apr-88 1044 MCCARTY@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: lunch
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Apr 88 10:43:57 PDT
Date: Tue 5 Apr 88 10:38:29-PDT
From: L. Thorne McCarty <MCCARTY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: lunch
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon 4 Apr 88 15:33:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12388069556.35.MCCARTY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I just now read your message. I wrote down lunch for Tuesday April 12th (next
week). Is that still OK? --Thorne
-------
∂05-Apr-88 1047 MPS passport
bring your passport in so i can xerox the bio pages for the visa
thanks
pat
∂05-Apr-88 1200 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU 1988/89 Course Scheduling
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Apr 88 11:59:55 PDT
Date: Tue 5 Apr 88 11:54:28-PDT
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: 1988/89 Course Scheduling
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12388083387.14.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Are you planning to teach the following next year:
CS101 Winter TTh 1:15-2:30
CS306 Autumn TTh 2:45-4:00
We're trying to finalize the schedule, and were not sure whether to include
these courses/days/times.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Thanks.
Claire
-------
∂05-Apr-88 2241 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com mail connection nmr-workshop
Received: from siemens (siemens-slip.siemens.com) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Apr 88 22:41:03 PDT
Received: by siemens (5.54/1.15)
id AA11753; Wed, 6 Apr 88 02:39:13 EDT
From: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 88 12:58:02 -0200
Message-Id: <8804051058.AA16327@ztivax.uucp>
Received: by ztivax.uucp; Tue, 5 Apr 88 12:58:02 -0200
To: bart@ai.toronto.edu, dlpoole%waterloo.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET,
liuida!ejs@siemens.siemens.com, ft00%utep.bitnet@siemens.siemens.com,
jmc@sail.stanford.edu, maria@del, morris@intellicorp.arpa,
myers@sushi.stanford.edu, nardi%disrm%i2unix@mcvax.cwi.nl,
shoham@score.stanford.edu, val@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: mail connection nmr-workshop
Cc: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com
This message serves to establish a mail connection to you, as a participant of the nmr-workshop in Grassau.
Please send an ack to either of
reinfra%ztivax@siemens.com reinfra%ztivax@unido.uucp
There have been some mailing problems before, but these addresses should work.
Best regards,
Michael Reinfrank
∂06-Apr-88 1018 CLT Japan
To: SF@CSLI.Stanford.EDU, RWW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
It is time to prepare the final report for the
US/Japan collaboration grant. I will prepare
a general intro and discussion of the Japanese
visits to Stanford. I would like from each of
you a short report on your trip to Japan.
Please also include a list of any papers, etc.
published during this period (april 85 - mar 88).
If I could have your reports by April 22 it would
be a great help.
Thanks
Carolyn
∂06-Apr-88 1610 RWF Occam
If this lecture is really hi-tech, it will be videotaped.
Should I make a point to see it?
I'll be away on the 15th.
∂06-Apr-88 1731 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu CSD Comp Assignments
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Apr 88 17:31:28 PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA06311; Wed, 6 Apr 88 17:30:53 PDT
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 88 17:30:53 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8804070030.AA06311@Pescadero>
To: comp@Pescadero.stanford.edu
Subject: CSD Comp Assignments
Hi CompTeam:
This is my proposed assignment of people to areas of the comp.
I would like to revise my schedule to have first drafts of the questions
to Phyllis Winkler to Tex-ify by April 13th.
***** Please can you confirm that you will take on the assigned area
and any problems with completing a first pass at the questions by
the 13th. *****
Systems:
Architecture : Pratt, Steve Vavasis
Compilers : Goldberg, Michael Wolf
Hardware : Pratt, Thane Plambeck
Prog. Lang. : Mitchell, Dave Mellinger, Geoff Phipps
Op. Sys. : Mayr, Derrick Burns
Theory
AI theory : McCarthy Binford Pandu Nayak
Conc. Math.&Alg.: Mayr, Derrick Burns
Data Struct. : Goldberg, Derrick Burns
Lang./Complexity: Mitchell, Thane Plambeck
Log. Foundations: McCarthy Pandu Nayak
Applications
AI : Binford Feigenbaum, Ken Ross
DB : Feigenbaum, Geoff Phipps, Ken Ross
Graphics : Dave Mellinger, David Saliesin
NA : Steve Vavasis, Andrew Kosoresow, David Saliesin
Networks : Cheriton, Michael Wolf
Revised schedule:
a) Me sending this message: April 6th.
b) First draft of questions to Phyllis Winkler. April 13th.
c) Draft exams to each group: April 15th
d) Revisions to these exams due: April 20th
e) Revised exams to groups and committee as a whole: April 22nd
f) 2nd revision (inter-group adjustments) due: April 27th
g) Pretest: 1st week of May.
h) Marking of pretest and revisions by May 11th.
i) May 16/18/20 systems, theory and applications.
j) Pass/fail meeting: May 25th 12-2 pm.
k) goto Black Friday meeting with smile on face.
I ask that people in each subarea coordinate to generate their exam questions.
The person listed first should take the lead in this coordination.
Phyllis Winkler will be compiling the exam.
The simplest route would be to provide hardcopy or on-line copy to her
and let her Tex-ify it. Please take reasonable precaution in keeping the
questions confidential.
I still plan to minimize the number of meetings. In particular, I propose
we simply interact by mail and review each others exams, as suggested
by the schedule above. (I will schedule meetings if necessary.)
Any suggestions or assistance in getting pretesters would be appreciated.
These are the mail addresses I am using: let me know if there should be changes.
cheriton@pescadero
jcm@navajo
feigenbaum@sumex
jmc@su-ai
coraki!pratt@sun.com
binford@anaconda
goldberg@score
mayr@score
davem@polya
vavasis@polya
burns@polya
plambeck@polya
dhs@polya
wolf@pescadero
kos@polya
kar@polya
nayak@polya
phipps@polya
∂07-Apr-88 0906 JSW Use of Sun for Devon McCullogh
The Suns in MJH that run Unix are all on people's desks, making it
somewhat inconvenient unless someone is away for the week. Dan and
Igor have Sun-2's which are probably adequate, though quite a bit
slower than Sun-3's.
∂07-Apr-88 0941 JSW Devon McCullogh
∂07-Apr-88 0931 JMC re: Use of Sun for Devon McCullogh
[In reply to message rcvd 07-Apr-88 09:06-PT.]
Please call him if you think there is a chance some suitable hours
can be arranged. I think we should help the GNU project.
JJW - Do you have his phone number?
∂07-Apr-88 1116 tah@polya.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Apr 88 11:16:28 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA22156; Thu, 7 Apr 88 11:14:40 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 11:14:40 PDT
From: tah@polya.stanford.edu (Thomas Henzinger)
Message-Id: <8804071814.AA22156@polya.stanford.edu>
To: lop
Subject: Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Cc: stickel%ai.sri.com@forsythe.stanford.edu
*************************************
* LOGIC OF PROGRAMS [LOP] Seminar *
*************************************
Fridays 11:30-12:30, MJH 301
April 8: Dr. Mark Stickel (SRI),
"Overview of Current Trends in Automated Deduction"
April 15: Dr. Joseph Goguen (SRI),
"OBJ as a Theorem Prover"
∂07-Apr-88 1148 MPS physics 102
Elliot Blum called to remind you that you were going to
audit his Physics 102 class today at 1:00
Pat
∂07-Apr-88 1158 DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU hacking GNU
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Apr 88 11:58:24 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 15:02:16 EDT
From: Devon Sean McCullough <DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: hacking GNU
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: RMS@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
In-reply-to: Msg of 06 Apr 88 2328 PDT from John McCarthy <JMC at SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <355424.880407.DEVON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: 06 Apr 88 2328 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
To: DEVON at AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Re: reply to message
[In reply to message sent Tue, 5 Apr 88 12:37:43 EDT.]
I'm looking for a suitable machine.
I found that I can log into ai.ai.mit.edu from an h19 in tressider,
and though the 6000 mile interactive round trip is a pain I was able to
do some work. If RMS has an account on a local unix I could use that.
∂07-Apr-88 1200 JMC
Elliott class
∂07-Apr-88 1209 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed meets today!
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Apr 88 12:08:56 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA24387; Thu, 7 Apr 88 12:07:53 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 12:07:53 PDT
From: ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Message-Id: <8804071907.AA24387@polya.stanford.edu>
To: feed
Subject: formfeed meets today!
Granted, this reminder is a little late ...
Matt
∂07-Apr-88 1619 MPS eye exam
Dr Tearse' secretary (kim) would like you to call her
to make an appointment for an exam. (415) 321-4500
pat
∂07-Apr-88 1654 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Lunch Saturday no-go
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Apr 88 16:54:30 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 7 Apr 88 16:49:42 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 16:49:42 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Lunch Saturday no-go
Cc: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU
Oops, I'm sorry but this weekend has turned out to be far more
hectic than I anticipated. Afraid I'm going to have to cancel
this time. Next week during the week is also out, so the soonest
possible for me is *next* Saturday. Hope you can make it then.
Thanks.
-helen
∂07-Apr-88 1737 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Lunch Saturday no-go
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Apr 88 17:37:07 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 7 Apr 88 17:32:15 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 17:32:15 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Lunch Saturday no-go
Good. Let's get in touch to confirm towards the end of the week.
-helen
∂07-Apr-88 1737 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
THE PERSISTENCE OF DERIVED INFORMATION
Karen Myers (MYERS@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU)
Stanford University
Friday, April 8, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Work on the problem of reasoning about change has focussed on the
persistence of nonderived information, while neglecting the effects of
inference within individual states. Such inferences in fact add a new
dimension of complexity to reasoning about change. Failure to allow
for these inferences can result in an unwarranted loss of derived
information.
The difficulties arise with a class of deductions having the
property that their conclusions should be allowed to persist even
though some components of their justifications may no longer be valid.
We will describe this notion of a conclusion being `change independent'
of parts of its justification. A solution to the persistence
problem will be presented in terms of a default frame axiom that is
sensitive to both justification information and change independence
relationships.
This work has been done jointly with David Smith.
∂07-Apr-88 1801 nayak@polya.stanford.edu Making up the comp
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Apr 88 18:01:48 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA08554; Thu, 7 Apr 88 18:01:32 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 18:01:32 PDT
From: nayak@polya.stanford.edu (Pandurang Nayak)
Message-Id: <8804080101.AA08554@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Making up the comp
This is regarding making up the spring comp exam in the AI theory and
the Logical Foundations sections. I got myself a copy of some old
exams and a copy of the reading list to start thinking about
questions. Could we meet some time to discuss the kinds of questions
that we ought to set?
Thanks,
Pandu
∂07-Apr-88 1844 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu Re: Political Humor
Received: from acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu (acis-nw-rt5.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Apr 88 18:43:57 PDT
Received: by acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu with TCP; Thu, 7 Apr 88 18:43:44 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 18:43:44 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Re: Political Humor
I'm thinking of writing a column for the Daily. Think they'll print it?
:-)
-=paulf
∂07-Apr-88 1911 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu re: Political Humor
Received: from acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu (acis-nw-rt5.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Apr 88 19:10:59 PDT
Received: by acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu with TCP; Thu, 7 Apr 88 19:10:50 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 19:10:50 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Political Humor
Marquette (where I did my undergrad) had a great underground conservative
newspaper; they didn't have any problem finding the money to get it
printed; but they did have a problem finding writers...
-=paulf
∂08-Apr-88 1037 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu Yet another Column
Received: from acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu (acis-nw-rt5.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Apr 88 10:36:59 PDT
Received: by acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu with TCP; Fri, 8 Apr 88 10:36:48 PDT
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 88 10:36:48 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Yet another Column
_Shots Across the Bow_
A Column of Personal Opinion
Paul Flaherty
"Oh, I wish I were a free - electron laser,
That is what I'd truly love to be...
'Cause if I was a free - electron laser,
Every Russkie'd be afraid of me..."
--The SDI Laser Song
It really cracks me up to see editorials on SDI written by people who couldn't
even write down Maxwell's Equations, let alone manipulate them. It smacks of
of the Second Rule of Liberalism : "Don't think for yourself; just repeat what
some quasi - qualified fool says." Thus, most SDI editorials say about the
same thing; that SDI is destabilizing, that the software for SDI will have to
be machine - written and work without being tested, that the technology is at
least twenty years away, that the system will never be more than seventy-five
percent effective, that the Soviets will just build more missiles and
overwhelm any SDI system.
That last one REALLY cracks me up. Anybody who's ever constructed a
Richardson model, and knows the state of the Soviet economy, knows how
unlikely a new Soviet military buildup is.
Some of these objections are legitimate criticisms of one plan or another;
none of them, however, apply to the general concept of Strategic Defense,
with the exception of destabilization. Just about any change in strategic
status quo is labelled destabilizing, because change is inherently uncertain.
Uncertainty, however, is a friend in strategy; if the Soviets are uncertain
that a "pin - down" will be complete, they won't try it. The truth of the
mater is that nobody really knows if an action will be destabilizing or not;
we do know, however, that the Soviets are scared witless of SDI.
No, most of the objection to SDI comes from the same old quarter, the "peace
at any price" folks. These are the people who refuse to work on "war toys",
a refusal which is their God - given American right. If they refused to work
on SDI exclusively, they might have some credibility. But this is the same
crowd that labels DARPA money "dirty", and spends their afternoons jumping
up and down at the corner of El Camino and Embarcadero.
My personal favorite is the "let's keep space peaceful" argument. Yessir,
let's turn the Earth into a nuclear inferno, to keep space "peaceful".
Great Idea. I think of that every time I watch "Mir" (what a wonderful
euphemism) drift overhead.
SDI has been, so far, an excuse to fund exploratory engineering and
scientific research that would otherwise be starving for cash. Most SDI
research is unclassified, as is the case of most DARPA research. Frankly,
DARPA has been the savior of computing in the US, funding nearly two thirds
of the computing research in this country. Much of what is being labelled
"SDI Research" these days was traditionally funded by DARPA. No doubt,
DARPA would be the first agency to feel the axe under a Democratic
Administration; who then will fund computing research? Do you really think that
such an admistration would spend money on "cold, unfeeling machines" instead
of "poor, starving people"? Not likely.
There are two rules of military history (knowledge of which the left labels
"dirty" -- so much for free thought) that come into play with SDI. The first
is that no weapons system ever constructed has gone entirely unused.
Thankfully, we have gone through three or four generations of missiles without
incident, but the system still exists. The second rule is that the only
way to insure that a weapons system will not be used is to outdate it.
The only way out of the nuclear debacle -- short of giving up -- is to make
nuclear weapons obsolete (well - negotiated reductions are a good thing, but
should not be construed as a solution). This is the fundamental wisdom behind
the Reagan Administration's Strategic Defense Initiative.
The most obvious reason for supporting SDI, however, can be seen by simply
looking up at that beautiful, blue, California sky. What do you see?
Nothing.
And that's all that's preventing a warhead from falling on you.
∂08-Apr-88 1135 GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Ketonen's Xerox Acct
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Apr 88 11:35:32 PDT
Date: Fri 8 Apr 88 11:29:57-PDT
From: Edith Gilbertson <GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Ketonen's Xerox Acct
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: MPS@Sail.Stanford.EDU, Gilbertson@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12388865357.22.GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Jussi Ketonen needs a Xerox account, so I'm planning to charge it to
2-DMA 489 94137 -- the same account # as his salary. (I've also
requested a Long Distance Authorization Code for him under that #).
Is that alright with you?
Edie Gilbertson
-------
∂08-Apr-88 1407 elkan@bifrost.cs.cornell.edu just a note to thank you
Received: from cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Apr 88 14:07:00 PDT
Received: from bifrost.cs.cornell.edu by cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (5.54/4.30)
id AA12246; Fri, 8 Apr 88 17:06:47 EDT
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 88 17:06:42 EDT
From: elkan@bifrost.cs.cornell.edu (Charles Elkan)
Message-Id: <8804082106.AA14974@bifrost.cs.cornell.edu>
Received: by bifrost.cs.cornell.edu (3.2/4.30)
id AA14974; Fri, 8 Apr 88 17:06:42 EDT
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: just a note to thank you
for taking the time to talk to me a few weeks ago.
My plane back was over-booked so I got a coupon
valid for a round-trip anywhere in the US; I might
be back in the summer.
Charles
∂08-Apr-88 1443 MPS
Susie is at the Gunther's house.
Pat
∂08-Apr-88 1455 VAL seminars
Mike said April 22 would be too early. So we'll have Arkady next time, Clancy
after that, and Mike when you're back from Europe.
∂08-Apr-88 1753 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
ON RAMIFICATIONS, QUALIFICATIONS AND DOMAIN CONSTRAINTS
IN FORMAL THEORIES OF ACTION
Arkady Rabinov (AIR@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU)
Stanford University
Friday, April 15, 3:15pm
MJH 301
The existing formal theories of action lack the ability to describe
worlds with complicated and dynamically changing relationships
between objects. As an example, we consider moving blocks in the
blocks world where blocks can be stapled together and fastened to the
ground. It is difficult to describe all indirect effects of an
action; this is the ramification problem. It is difficult to describe
all indirect preconditions for an action; this is the qualification
problem. And it is impossible to describe qualififications for an
action in terms of the potential violations of domain constraints
the action would cause; we call this the domain constraint problem.
We show how to solve these problems using an axiomatic description of
casual connections between actions and of expected results of actions.
∂09-Apr-88 1958 LES re: Citizens arrest
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Apr-88 19:52-PT.]
Possible but not likely. In any case, this move was quite effective.
Whereas there were hordes of off-road vehicles on the land shortly after
that pasttime became popular in the early '70s and they ignored me when
I simply asked them to stop, within two weeks after I started arresting
people, the flow became a dribble. I noticed that the High School kids'
communiccation was particularly effective: I didn't see any more of them
after two days of arrests.
∂09-Apr-88 2024 JK
∂09-Apr-88 1521 JMC ios, cbcl, etc.
I have looked at the material you gave me. The one entitled
"Ending the Paper Chase" has extra copies of some pages and
is missing others - at least the ending is missing. Can you
have someone send me another copy. The following
considerations occurred to me.
1. We should look at X.12. Does it have the virtues of
CBCL, e.g. list format, expandibility, the Chomsky property.
2. There is a possible niche for MAD. Namely, an IOS integrator
which would permit people at a an outfit like Gates rubber to deal with
MAD's IOS integrator in a uniform way which would deal with the variety
of IOSs.
3. I would suggest arranging a meeting with Gates Rubber and exploring
the possibility of a contract. Assuming no contract is obtained,
whoever talks to them will get an idea of what the requirements
would be for a MAD IOS integrator.
--------------------
OK-- however, I will be gone for a vacation till wednesday. From your comments
I conclude that you have a more specific list of technical requirements for
CBCL than at least I was aware of. Is this written up anywhere?
JK
∂09-Apr-88 2030 JK
∂09-Apr-88 2028 JMC reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Apr-88 20:24-PT.]
There is only the published paper.
--------
You have a published paper on this stuff? If so, how can I get hold of it?
∂10-Apr-88 0939 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU triangles
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU ([128.114.129.2]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Apr 88 09:39:19 PDT
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.57/1.1)
id AA14415; Sun, 10 Apr 88 08:40:13 PST
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 88 08:40:13 PST
From: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8804101640.AA14415@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: triangles
The isosceles triangle of height sqrt(7) and base 2 is not embeddable
in Z↑4. (Previously I showed it's not embeddable in Z↑3, but thought
Z↑4 would take too long.) Reason: the equation
7(a↑2 + b↑2 + c↑2 + d↑2) = u↑2 + v↑2 + w↑2 + p↑2
and au+bc+cw+dp = 0
is not solvable mod 32 (and hence not in integers). After a little
more thought I was able to cut the necessary computations down to
what could be done in abou 14 hours (overnight) on my AT.
Provided, of course, that there's no bug in my program: lacking
a formal proof of correctness of the program one has to rely on manual
inspection of it, and correct behavior in finding solutions of the equation
for other values of the parameters. An earlier version, for example,
contained a C expression of the form a*b%n instead of the correct
(a*b)%n (% is "mod" in C) and produced identical results.
I spent a while looking for values of parameters to find an example
of a triangle embeddable in three dimensions but not in four, but I didn't
find one yet, though there are plenty of suspects.
∂10-Apr-88 0941 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU correction
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU ([128.114.129.2]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Apr 88 09:41:07 PDT
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.57/1.1)
id AA14425; Sun, 10 Apr 88 08:42:07 PST
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 88 08:42:07 PST
From: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8804101642.AA14425@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: correction
last sentence of other msg should read, "embeddable in four dimensions but
not in three."
∂10-Apr-88 2153 HALPERN@IBM.COM Getting together?
Received: from IBM.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Apr 88 21:52:51 PDT
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 88 14:54:51 PDT
Sender: halpern@IBM.com
From: Joe Halpern <halpern@IBM.com>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <880410.145451.halpern@IBM.com>
Subject: Getting together?
John, we spoke about getting together at TARK. I'm planning to be
at Stanford this Tuesday afternoon. Are you free for a little
while then? -- Joe
∂10-Apr-88 2341 goldberg@csli.stanford.edu Re: Ernie Konnyu and AIDS
Received: from csli.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Apr 88 23:41:54 PDT
Received: from localhost by csli.stanford.edu (3.2/4.7); Sun, 10 Apr 88 23:45:51 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ernie Konnyu and AIDS
In-Reply-To: Your message of 10 Apr 88 23:17:00 PDT.
X-Mailer: MH-6.5
X-Home-Phone: (415)-326-8301
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 88 23:45:49 PDT
From: Jeffrey Goldberg <goldberg@csli.stanford.edu>
Thanks. (I was aware of what HR stood for.) I was not certain of the
semantics of "I sponosered legislation ...". By saying that something
is legislation, one implicates or implies that the item is law. But, I
guess that I have an overly narrow definition of `legislation'.
The item I got did not actually say "vote for me". It was an AIDS
information flyer with a small section on what Konnyu's been up
to wrt AIDS.
What I got was sent at government expense. I don't know if this is the
same thing that Matthew Ginz[ue]rg got. Certainly registered Republicans
will be getting Cambell/Konnyu campaign material that I will not be
getting.
-jeff
∂11-Apr-88 0013 goldberg@csli.stanford.edu Re: Ernie Konnyu and AIDS
Received: from csli.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Apr 88 00:00:28 PDT
Received: from localhost by csli.stanford.edu (3.2/4.7); Mon, 11 Apr 88 00:04:15 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ernie Konnyu and AIDS
In-Reply-To: Your message of 10 Apr 88 23:50:00 PDT.
X-Mailer: MH-6.5
X-Home-Phone: (415)-326-8301
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 00:04:12 PDT
From: Jeffrey Goldberg <goldberg@csli.stanford.edu>
I wasn't aware of this Cambell/Konnyu debate. In the past I
have received government paid for mailings from Konnyu that I
thought were questionable, but not much more than I have seen
from other elected officials. The AIDS mailer I got is
perfectly kosher, and couldn't be considered even slightly a
misuse of the spirit of the regulations.
-jeff
∂11-Apr-88 0700 JMC
1099 to Okner
∂11-Apr-88 1000 JMC
Arrange all travel.
∂11-Apr-88 1000 JMC
gerry re suny
∂11-Apr-88 1124 HALPERN@IBM.COM Re: Getting together?
Received: from IBM.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Apr 88 11:24:06 PDT
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 11:10:45 PDT
Sender: halpern@IBM.com
From: Joe Halpern <halpern@IBM.com>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <880411.111045.halpern@IBM.com>
Subject: Re: Getting together?
In-Reply-To: Your message of 10 Apr 88 2223 PDT
John, 2 PM sounds good. See you tomorrow. -- Joe
∂11-Apr-88 1327 Mailer Re: Rednecks
Received: from csli.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Apr 88 13:27:12 PDT
Received: from localhost by csli.stanford.edu (3.2/4.7); Mon, 11 Apr 88 13:31:06 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: goldberg@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, SINGH@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, goldberg@csli.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Rednecks
In-Reply-To: Your message of 11 Apr 88 12:20:00 PDT.
X-Mailer: MH-6.5
X-Home-Phone: (415)-326-8301
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 13:31:05 PDT
From: Jeffrey Goldberg <goldberg@csli.stanford.edu>
The term `redneck' is a derogatory term to my knowledge. I gave
a brief definition. I certainly don't consider all southerners
rednecks (not even all conservative southerns rednecks), and I
most certainly don't consider all conservatives rednecks. When I
wrote the message I thought that this disclaimer was not needed.
Oh well.
That I was defining a stereotype in my message was supposed to
be clear. If I had been asked to define `dirty yid' I would
have done so differently than if I'd been asked to define
'jew'. 'Redneck' is a term with a meaning (just as 'dirty yid'
is) even if there is not a single person who fits the
stereotype.
I am surprised that JMC misunderstood. When he used the term
'redneck' in his posting I was assumed that he was teasing his
audience about our view of Konnyu supporters. Surely he knew
that it was a derogatory term which didn't really apply to
himself (even though he may vote like one).
I share JMC's concern about the northern/big-city antisouthern
bias. I encountered it two years ago when I decided to spend a
vacation in North and South Carolina. Many people I know
questioned my decision in a way that openly admitted of strong
bias.
One the other hand, a number of Carolinans acted as if I were
from another country. Some had a number of very strange views
about California (but so do a lot of Californians).
-jeff 'Damn Yankee' goldberg
∂11-Apr-88 1342 CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Ernie Konnyu, AIDS, and redneck
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Apr 88 13:42:34 PDT
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 13:10:53 PDT
From: Homer Chin <CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Ernie Konnyu, AIDS, and redneck
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: goldberg@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Sun, 10 Apr 88 23:17:00 PDT
Message-ID: <12389670162.78.CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
JMC writes:
> Konnyu merely hopes that we *rednecks* will know that his heart is in the
> right place and vote for him against Tom Campbell in the Republican
> primary.
(emphasis mine)
Thank you for identifying yourself.
--Homer.
-------
∂11-Apr-88 1359 CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Rednecks
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Apr 88 13:59:52 PDT
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 13:50:10 PDT
From: Homer Chin <CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Rednecks
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon, 11 Apr 88 12:20:00 PDT
Message-ID: <12389677313.78.CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
JMC writes:
> Of course, general prejudice against Jews was used by the Nazis to put
> over their genocide, and nothing like that is in the cards for rural
> Southerners.
If you meant to call yourself a rural Southerner, why didn't you?
Instead you termed yourself a redneck, which is, in common usage, a
disparaging term and very different from "a rural Southerner." If you
call yourself a Nazi or a nerd, I don't think you should be upset
when other people come up with a negative definition of that term.
-------
∂11-Apr-88 1524 HALPERN@IBM.COM Re: Getting together?
Received: from IBM.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Apr 88 15:24:19 PDT
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 14:38:53 PDT
Sender: halpern@IBM.com
From: Joe Halpern <halpern@IBM.com>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <880411.143853.halpern@IBM.com>
Subject: Re: Getting together?
In-Reply-To: Your message of 11 Apr 88 1145 PDT
2:40 is fine. I have another appointment at 3:30, but if we need
more time we can always take up from where we left off later in the
afternoon.
∂11-Apr-88 1555 goldberg@csli.stanford.edu Re: Redneck
Received: from csli.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Apr 88 15:55:47 PDT
Received: from localhost by csli.stanford.edu (3.2/4.7); Mon, 11 Apr 88 15:59:45 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Redneck
In-Reply-To: Your message of 11 Apr 88 14:20:00 PDT.
X-Mailer: MH-6.5
X-Home-Phone: (415)-326-8301
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 15:59:44 PDT
From: Jeffrey Goldberg <goldberg@csli.stanford.edu>
Thanks. I am pleased that this misunderstanding is cleared up.
-jg
∂11-Apr-88 1628 Qlisp-mailer meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Apr 88 16:28:21 PDT
Received: from localhost.ARPA by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.12/25-eef)
id AA08843; Mon, 11 Apr 88 16:26:54 pdt
Message-Id: <8804112326.AA08843@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: meeting
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 16:26:52 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Will be this wednesday at noon in MJH301. The agenda will be
"current affairs"
∂11-Apr-88 1652 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Lakoff
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Apr 88 16:52:28 PDT
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1988 16:46 PDT
Message-ID: <RDZ.12389709483.BABYL@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU>
From: RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Lakoff
I put a copy of the preface to Lakoff's new book on your desk. I'm
curious what you think about his sketch of the "objectivist" position.
Do you agree with it? Do you think it's important for doing
logic-style AI?
Ramin
∂11-Apr-88 2121 barwise@russell.stanford.edu
Received: from russell.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Apr 88 21:21:26 PDT
Received: from localhost by russell.stanford.edu (3.2/4.7); Mon, 11 Apr 88 21:25:41 PDT
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of 11 Apr 88 19:46:00 PDT.
Address: CSLI, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 (415) 723-0110
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 21:25:40 PDT
From: Jon Barwise <barwise@russell.stanford.edu>
Keith Devlin is a mathematical logician from England. For many years
he worked in set theory: forcing, constructible sets, large cardinals,
and the like. A few years ago he got convinced by John Perry and my
book on situation semantics that logic needed to be rethought. So he
is here this year writing a book on logic and information, taking our
ideas, but developing them in his own way. Next year he will become a
prof of c.s. at Leeds. THough he will be here one more year as a
visitor. Why?
∂12-Apr-88 0112 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Lakoff
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Apr 88 01:12:37 PDT
Date: Tue 12 Apr 88 01:07:03-PDT
From: Ramin Zabih <RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Lakoff
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 12 Apr 88 01:11:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12389800538.42.RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
???
-------
∂12-Apr-88 0900 JMC
Suppes office
∂12-Apr-88 0934 devlin@csli.stanford.edu Re: semi-apology
Received: from csli.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Apr 88 09:34:03 PDT
Received: by csli.stanford.edu (3.2/4.7); Tue, 12 Apr 88 09:38:02 PDT
Date: Tue 12 Apr 88 09:38:01-PDT
From: Keith Devlin <DEVLIN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: semi-apology
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <576869881.0.DEVLIN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Dear John,
Thanks for your messages. I fear the title of my MS may have led you to
see it as something it is not intended to be. It is not meant as a textbook
surveying past and/or current work in AI. Indeed, despite many years working
in Logic/Set Theory, I cannot claim to be an expert in Logic-in-AI, though I
think I am aware of most of what has been done in that area. The MS is,
however, meant to be somewhat "provocative", in that I am trying to develop
and provoke others into adopting a different way of looking at "logic". So
your response does indicate some measure of success!
As to the material itself, Barwise is, of course, some considerable way ahead
of me in trying to evolve an alternate way of looking at "logic", and I would
hesitate to lay claim to anything in my MS as originating from myself - though
since I would not include something that did not fit in with my own way of
looking at things, this does not provide me with a defense against attack!
Though I would like to think that this kind of work would prove useful in the
design of intelligent systems, this is not my goal. Indeed, I suspect that it
would be a mistake to try to figure out applications at such an early stage
in the game.
As far as the potential for applications goes, it really boils down, I think,
to how one regards that commutative diagram on page 58 of the MS, and
whether there are "non standard" ways of solving it. The PDP work suggests
(to me at least) that there can be non standard solutions. But as I say,
looking for AI applications at this early stage does not seem sensible to me
(it would certainly be extremely depressing).
At any rate, I appreciate your taking the time to look at the MS in its
present state.
Keith Devlin
-------
∂12-Apr-88 1050 CLT qlisp
sharon bergman will have some papers for you to sign later this
morning so we can get the paperwork through spo and on to spawar.
you might check with her just before noon if you are here.
∂12-Apr-88 1112 @um.cc.umich.edu:Paul_Abrahams@Wayne-MTS LISP 2 memos for Herbert Stoyan
Received: from umix.cc.umich.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Apr 88 11:11:51 PDT
Received: by umix.cc.umich.edu (5.54/umix-2.0)
id AA08587; Tue, 12 Apr 88 14:16:59 EDT
Received: from Wayne-MTS by um.cc.umich.edu via MTS-Net; Tue, 12 Apr 88 14:05:43 EDT
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 88 12:12:30 EDT
From: Paul_Abrahams%Wayne-MTS@um.cc.umich.edu
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <47675@Wayne-MTS>
Subject: LISP 2 memos for Herbert Stoyan
John--
During a housecleaning I unearthed a stack of old LISP 2 project memos. Do
you think that Herbert Stoyan would be interested in them? And if so, do you
have his address? I once had it, but cannot retrieve it. Also, let me know
which Germany (west or east) he is in. Thanks.
Paul Abrahams
∂12-Apr-88 1115 Mailer failed mail returned
In processing the following command:
MAIL
The following message was aborted because of a command error,
namely, nonexistent recipient(s):
Paul
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
12-Apr-88 1115 JMC _Abrahams%Wayne-MTS@um.cc.umich.edu
re: LISP 2 memos for Herbert Stoyan
[In reply to message sent Tue, 12 Apr 88 12:12:30 EDT.]
I'm sure he would like the LISP 2 stuff. He has been in
West Germany for quite a few years. Here is my current address
file entry for him.
Stoyan, Herbert Information Sciences
University of Konstanz
PO-Box 5560
D-775 Konstanz 1
Federal Republic of Germany
tel: 07531-88-3593
home: Kapplerbergstr. 73
D-7753 Allensbach
tel: 07533-3408
(Ursula, Roland, Norman)
------- End undelivered message -------
∂12-Apr-88 1212 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: workshop
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Apr 88 12:12:49 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 12 APR 88 12:06:44 PDT
Date: 12 Apr 88 11:55 PDT
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: workshop
In-reply-to: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank)'s message of Tue, 12
Apr 88 17:42:07 -0200
To: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com, reinfra%ztivax@siemens.com,
reinfra%ztivax%unido.UUCP@parcvax.xerox.com
cc: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <880412-120644-14350@Xerox>
I hope this gets to you, I am mailing it to three addresses. Apparently none
of my previous replies got through.
I dont think I will have anything to present at Grassau, since I have not done
any work in this area for many years. I assumed that you invited me to ask
awkward questions.
Pat Hayes
∂12-Apr-88 1415 devlin@csli.stanford.edu Answers
Received: from csli.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Apr 88 14:15:38 PDT
Received: by csli.stanford.edu (3.2/4.7); Tue, 12 Apr 88 14:19:36 PDT
Date: Tue 12 Apr 88 14:19:32-PDT
From: Keith Devlin <DEVLIN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Answers
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <576886772.0.DEVLIN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Dear John,
Re-reading your message, here are a couple more thoughts.
The type of situation in which Jon sees all member of CSLI is not
problematical. It depends upon whether the agent individuates sets of
objects-it-does-individuate as objects in their own right. Having assumed
individuation of situations, I saw no point of having sets as something
different, but would just take the situation in which all members of
CSLI were present (as they would be for Jon to see them - or even to
think about them, though the situation would then not necessarily be
easy for the passer-by to recognise). So sets (the ones an agent can
recognise) are okay as special cases of situations.
Later on I do (or rather will) deal with existential quantification in some
sense, also conjunction. And a form of negation is built into the notion
of infon, of course. But despite my math logic background, I am trying
hard not to slip into assuming that and/or/not etc. is necessarily the
way to go. The result is that my views are still in a state of flux, and
I find it hard to convince myself of things at times, let alone others,
though being surrounded by others with similar views (at CSLI) does help.
Representing the constraints that would allow inference that a car journey
from Pasadena, CA to Pasadena, TX (which I never heard of until now) is
possible is not any problem given my formalism - no more than it would be
to represent it using appropriate atomic formulas of logic. But whether
that observation would be any use for AI purposes (other than toy systems)
is another matter.
What motivates my present approach, by the way, (since it is not AI, as I
said) is my experience in mathematics, where even in constructible set
theory (my main area), a subject rooted in logic, almost all the arguments
were semantic ones, far removed from anything like predicate logic. Though
in mathematics it is clear (at least to me) that logic can handle everything,
it does not come close to corresponding to the common practice. I believe
Barwise is similarly motivated - we certainly have similar backgrounds in
logic.
Keith
-------
∂13-Apr-88 1000 JMC
grade essays
∂13-Apr-88 1018 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu su.etc
Received: from acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Apr 88 10:18:36 PDT
Received: by acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu with TCP; Wed, 13 Apr 88 10:18:20 PDT
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 88 10:18:20 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: su.etc
I'm coming to the conclusion that su.etc is a pretty worthless forum
for political discussion. I'm getting tired of fending off Homer's
ad hominum attacks, and seeing so much one-sided information flow out
of Goldberg, Crispin, et al.
Hmm, just received a mail message from goldberg@csli. Be right back...
Oh, now that's interesting. Jeff doesn't think that attacking evidence
is proper, and so he refuses to respond to such attacks. Of course, that
leaves only ad hominum argumentation.
Ah, well, I think I'll spend the time on my dissertation instead. :-)
-=paulf
∂13-Apr-88 1123 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM messages to reinfra
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Apr 88 11:23:22 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 13 APR 88 11:20:35 PDT
Date: 13 Apr 88 11:20 PDT
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: messages to reinfra
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
cc: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Message-ID: <880413-112035-16305@Xerox>
John, greetings. Do you have any idea how to email to Michael Reinfrank? I
have tried many permutations of addresses, but nothing gets through, and I need
to contact him.
Do you have any plans for what you are going to say there? Do you have a
publication for him? ( In my case, No to both )
Pat
∂13-Apr-88 1124 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Re: Friday no good
Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Apr 88 11:24:40 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Wed, 13 Apr 88 11:24:11 PDT
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 13 Apr 88 11:22:32 PDT
Date: 13 Apr 88 11:23 PST
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Friday no good
Date: 13 April 1988, 11:22:15 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott (415)-926-2469 ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: Friday no good
In-Reply-To: JMC AT SAIL.STANFORD.EDU -- 04/12/88 14:57
I have my class at 1pm on thursday. How about next monday.
∂13-Apr-88 1352 VAL Invitees for the workshop
Etherington
Gelfond
Ginsberg
Haugh
Kautz
Konolige
Levesque
Lifschitz
McCarthy
McDermott
Morris
Perlis
Prsymusinska
Prsymusinski
Rabinov
Reiter
Shoham
∂13-Apr-88 1427 MPS moscow
Franklin still needs to hear from you regarding your flight
home from Moscow.
Pat
∂13-Apr-88 1541 devlin@csli.stanford.edu Lunch and things
Received: from csli.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Apr 88 15:39:48 PDT
Received: by csli.stanford.edu (3.2/4.7); Wed, 13 Apr 88 15:43:49 PDT
Date: Wed 13 Apr 88 15:43:44-PDT
From: Keith Devlin <DEVLIN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Lunch and things
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <576978224.0.DEVLIN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
The kind of way of getting the Pasadena result I had in mind would be via
a constraint that said it was possible to get from any one city to any
other within the continental US (say) and then take the facts that both
Pasadenas are in the continental US. Presumably the kind of thing you would
say.
In fact, there is nothing to prevent modus ponens being one of the
"constraints", so situation theory can be regarded as trying to extend
predicate logic is some respects. In any event, predicate logic can be
dressed up in sit. theoretic terms, though doing so seems to me a pointless
exercise.
Some visiting Japanese computer folk around here are trying to develop some
kind of sit. theory AI language, but I know little about it, and cannot
myself imagine anything significant in that direction given the present
state of our art here at CSLI - but maybe that is just my lack of vision.
Lunch next week is problematical, but how about the week after? (Though I
think so slowly that aside from human interaction it is probably far more
fruitful to exchange e-mail messages.)
-------
∂13-Apr-88 1655 ME re: How about 1989 and 1990 calendar files?
OK, 1989 and 1990 calendars are available now via the commands:
MAPLE 1989[up,doc]
MAPLE 1990[up,doc]
Or online just say READ 1989 or READ 1990.
∂13-Apr-88 1714 CLT
I would like to leave about 5:45 this evening
∂13-Apr-88 1813 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu re: su.etc
Received: from acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Apr 88 18:13:54 PDT
Received: by acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu with TCP; Wed, 13 Apr 88 18:13:38 PDT
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 88 18:13:38 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: su.etc
I'm always free for lunch; just so happens my schedule works that way.
(This week Friday is already spoken for.) So, just let me know
a few hours ahead of time. (I read my mail VERY regularly.)
-=paulf
∂13-Apr-88 1829 devlin@csli.stanford.edu re: Lunch and things
Received: from csli.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Apr 88 18:26:32 PDT
Received: by csli.stanford.edu (3.2/4.7); Wed, 13 Apr 88 18:30:31 PDT
Date: Wed 13 Apr 88 18:30:30-PDT
From: Keith Devlin <DEVLIN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Lunch and things
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <576988230.0.DEVLIN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Oh dear. Did I say I was not presently interested in AI? What I meant
was that I did not expect that the kind of thing I was working on now
was likely to have any application in AI in the near future (I have no
idea what "near" means here.), and so was not concerning myself with
how to implement things.
And far from regarding questions of generality as "solved" or "uninteresting",
it is a suspicion that classical logic(s) cannot be made to deal effectively
with such issues that leads me to look for another way. I fear you have the
impression that I am attacking, or deriding current AI, when all I am is one
logician taking some time to see if there is another way.
-------
∂13-Apr-88 2042 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU writing
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Apr 88 20:42:22 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.12/25-eef)
id AA02118; Wed, 13 Apr 88 20:40:56 pdt
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 88 20:40:56 pdt
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8804140340.AA02118@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: writing
Below find a brief summary of the proposed writing activity for the
next while. None of this is really a "doctrinal" paper, tho combined 2
and 4 certainly come close. We have yet to explore all the varied
flavors of parallelism, however, so perhaps it is still too early for
a definitive document. I think Kelly will have a working integrator in
a couple of months, and he has a fair number of ideas about ways to
parallelise it, so that will be a fairly major thing...
Writing Schedule
1. Joe will turn his simulator notes into a TRable state
roughly by May 1st.
2. Arkady will clean up his notes on the GCD implementation in a few
weeks (tentatively May 15)
3. Dan will summarize his scheduling experiments, and describe his
scheduler implementation and the language constructs he has been
pushing for the last couple of months within about a month.
(tentative May 15)
4. I will clean up the sorting papers Joe and I have been working on a
few months back -- hopefully this can be done by about May 15th or so.
Perhaps best would be to combine 2 with 4, since between them they
give a reasonable sample of QLISP programs. Dan's stuff is in a
somewhat different paradigm, so is probably best left to its own
devices. 1 is essentially a part of Joe's impending thesis, and I
think it will actually be useful to do it separately, so he can refer
to it in the real thesis.
Does all this appear reasonable?
Igor
∂14-Apr-88 1019 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:stevens%antares@anl-mcs.arpa CADE - 9 announcement
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Apr 88 10:18:53 PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 14 Apr 88 10:12:25-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Thu 14 Apr 88 13:09:20-EDT
Received: from anl-mcs.ARPA (TCP 3200200067) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 14 Apr 88 13:10:38 EDT
Received: from ezra (ezra.ARPA) by anl-mcs.ARPA (4.12/4.9)
id AA04850; Thu, 14 Apr 88 12:02:10 cst
Received: from localhost by ezra (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA22846; Thu, 14 Apr 88 12:02:03 CDT
Message-Id: <8804141702.AA22846@ezra>
To: aiout@anl-mcs
Subject: CADE - 9 announcement
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 88 12:02:01 -0500
From: stevens%antares@anl-mcs.arpa
CADE - 9
9th International Conference on Automated Deduction
May 23-26, 1988
Preliminary Schedule and Registration Information
CADE-9 will be held at Argonne National Laboratory (near Chicago) in cele-
bration of the 25th anniversary of the discovery of the resolution princi-
ple at Argonne in the summer of 1963.
Dates
Tutorials: Monday, May 23
Conference: Tuesday, May 24 - Thursday, May 26
Main Attractions:
1. Presentation of more than sixty papers related to aspects of automated
deduction. (A detailed listing of the papers is attached.)
2. Invited talks from
Bill Miller, president, SRI International
J. A. Robinson, Syracuse University
Larry Wos, Argonne National Laboratory
all of whom were at Argonne 25 years ago when the resolution principle
was discovered.
3. Organized dinners every night, including the Conference banquet,
"Dinner with the Dinosaurs", at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural His-
tory.
4. Facilities for demonstration of and experimentation with automated
deduction systems.
5. Tutorials in a number of special areas within automated deduction.
Tutorials:
We have tried to make the tutorials relatively short and inexpensive. It
is hoped that many researchers that are skilled in specialized areas of
automated deduction will take the opportunity to get an overview of related
research areas. Some of the details (like titles, exactly which member of
a team will give the tutorial, etc.) have not yet been finalized. The fol-
lowing information reflects our current information. It may change
slightly, but expect that no major changes will occur.
Tutorial 1: Constraint Logic Programming
This will be a tutorial on the Constraint Logic Programming Scheme,
and systems that have implemented the concepts (see "Constraint Logic
Programming", J. Jaffar and J-L Lassez, Proc. POPL87, Munich, January
1987).
Tutorial 2: Verification and Synthesis
This will be a tutorial by Zohar Manna and Richard Waldinger on their
work in verification and synthesis of algorithms.
Tutorial 3: Rewrite Systems
This will be a tutorial given by Mark Stickel covering the basic ideas
of equality rewrite systems.
Tutorial 4: Theorem Proving in Non-Standard Logics
This tutorial will be given by Michael McRobbie. It will cover a
number of topics from his new book.
Tutorial 5: Implementation I: Connection Graphs
This tutorial will be given by members of the SEKI project. It will
cover issues concerning why connections graphs are used and how they
can be implemented.
Tutorial 6: Implementation II: an Argonne Perspective
This tutorial will present the central implementation issues from the
perspective of a number of members of the Argonne group. It will
cover topics like choice of language, indexing, basic algorithms, and
utilization of multiprocessors.
Tutorial 7: Open questions for Research
This tutorial will be given by Larry Wos. It will focus on two col-
lections of open questions. One set consists of questions about the
field of automated theorem proving itself, questions whose answers
will materially increase the power of theorem-proving programs. The
other set consists of questions taken from various fields of mathemat-
ics and logic, questions that one might attack with the assistance of
a theorem-proving program. Both sets of questions provide intriguing
challenges for possible research.
How to Register
Fill out the following registration form (the part of this message between
the rows of ='s) and return as soon as possible to:
Mrs. Miriam L. Holden, Director
Conference Services
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
U. S. A.
Questions relating to registration and accommodations can be directed to
Ms. Miriam Holden or Joan Brunsvold at (312) 972-5587.
!
============================================================================
9th International Conference on Automated Deduction
May 23-26, 1988
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, Illinois, USA
Registration Form
(please print or type)
Name_________________________________________________________________________
(First) Middle) (Last)
Organization_________________________________________________________________
Business Address_____________________________________________________________
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip)
Business Phone_____________________Citizenship_______________________________
Electronic mail______________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Registration Fees
Nonstudent Student
Registration $180.00 __ $75.00 __
One Tutorial 50.00 __ 30.00 __
Two Tutorials 75.00 __ 40.00 __
Three Tutorials 90.00 __ 50.00 __
Two Optional Meals 40.00 __ 40.00 __
Total Enclosed: ____________________
Note: Checks ($U.S. dollars) must be made payable to Argonne National
Laboratory. (No credit cards accepted)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Housing
I would like accommodations for the NIGHTS of May____ through ____, 1988.
__ Willowbrook Holiday Inn __ Budgetel
7800 South Kingery Highway __ 855 79th Street
Willowbrook, IL 60521 Willowbrook, IL 60521
(312) 325-6400 (312) 654-0077
__ Single ($54.57/night) __ Single ($33.66/night)
__ Double ($65.27/night) __ Double ($39.44/night)
__ Name of Second Occupant________________________________________
__ No housing accommodations required
Rooms will be reserved on guaranteed basis. If you have a change in plans,
please advise us to cancel your reservation or call the Holiday Inn or
Budgetel.
___________________________________________________________________________
!
___________________________________________________________________________
Social Functions
I plan to attend:
__ Dinner at Carriage Greens Country Club on Monday, May 23.
(included in registration fee)
__ Dinner at Memories of China Restaurant in Chicago on Tuesday, May 24
__ "Dinner with Dinosaurs" Banquet at Field Museum on Wednesday, May 25
(Dinner on May 24 and Banquet on May 25 are both included in the
optional meals fee - see above.)
____________________________________________________________________________
Transportation
Both O'Hare and Midway airports are about a 45-minute car trip from Argonne
and the hotels. Limousine service can be arranged (at your expense) with
Travelers Limousine from either airport at a cost of $19.00/person plus
$4.00 for each additional person in the car. If you would like us to
arrange the limousine service for you, please complete:
I will arrive on ________________ at _______________ on ___________ airline
Flight number ______________________ from __________________ (city & state)
Chartered bus service will provide transportation to and from the confer-
ence site each day and to and from the arranged dinner each night.
===========================================================================
Please return this form with your check to:
Mrs. Miriam L. Holden, Director
Conference Services
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
U. S. A.
Preliminary Conference Schedule
Monday, May 23
_________________________________________________________________________
TUTORIALS
slot 1 slot 2 slot 3
9 - 11:30 Constraint Logic Prog. Verification --
12:30 - 3 Rewrite systems Theorem-proving Implementation I
in non-standard
logics
3:30 - 6 Open problems -- Implementation II
__________________________________________________________________________
6:30-7 Cocktails at Carriage Green
7-9 Dinner at Carriage Green
Tuesday, May 24
8:30-9 Coffee/welcome
9-10 Invited talk by William Miller of SRI
10-10:30 Coffee
10:30-12 Sessions 1 and 2
1:20-2:20 Sessions 3 and 4
2:20-3 Coffee
3-4 Sessions 5 and 6
4-4:30 Coffee
4:30-5:30 Sessions 7 and 8
7:30 Dinner at House of Hunan in Chicago (optional meal)
_________________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, May 25
8:30-9 Coffee
9-10:30 Sessions 9 and 10
10:30-11 Coffee
11-12 Sessions 11 and 12
1:30-2:30 Invited talk by J.A. Robinson
"How Machine-Oriented Might a Logic Be?"
2:30-9 Time in Chicago/Banquet at Field Museum (optional meal)
banquet speaker will be Larry Wos:
"A Review of the First 25 Years of Automated
Theorem Proving, and a Prediction Concerning
the Next 25 Years"
__________________________________________________________________________
Thursday, May 26
8:30-9 Coffee
9-10:00 Sessions 13 and 14
10-10:30 Coffee
10:30-12 Sessions 15 and 16
1:20-2:20 Sessions 17 and 18
2:20-3 Coffee
3-4 Sessions 19 and 20
4-4:30 Closing Remarks
_________________________________________________________________________
Session Schedule
Session 1
First-Order Theorem Proving Using Conditional Rewriting
Hantao Zhang
Deepak Kapur
Elements of Z-Module Reasoning
T.C. Wang
Session 2
Flexible Application of Generalised Solutions Using Higher Order Resolution
Michael R. Donat
Lincoln A. Wallen
Specifying Theorem Provers in a Higher-Order Logic Programming Language
Amy Felty
Dale Miller
Query Processing in Quantitative Logic Programming
V. S. Subrahmanian
Session 3
An Environment for Automated Reasoning About Partial Functions
David A. Basin
The Use of Explicit Plans to Guide Inductive Proofs
Alan Bundy
LOGICALC: an environment for interactive proof development
D. Duchier
D. McDermott
Session 4
Implementing Verification Strategies in the KIV-System
M. Heisel
W. Reif
W. Stephan
Checking Natural Language Proofs
Donald Simon
Consistency of Rule-based Expert Systems
Marc Bezem
Session 5
A Mechanizable Induction Principle for Equational Specifications
Hantao Zhang
Deepak Kapur
Mukkai S. Krishnamoorthy
Finding Canonical Rewriting Systems Equivalent to a Finite Set of
Ground Equations in Polynomial Time
Jean Gallier
Paliath Narendran
David Plaisted
Stan Raatz
Wayne Snyder
Session 6
Towards Efficient Knowledge-Based Automated Theorem Proving for
Non-Standard Logics
Michael A. McRobbie
Robert K. Meyer
Paul B. Thistlewaite
Propositional Temporal Interval Logic is PSPACE
A. A. Aaby
K. T. Narayana
Session 7
Computational Metatheory in Nuprl
Douglas J. Howe
Type Inference and Its Applications in Prolog
H. Azzoune
Session 8
Procedural Interpretation of Non-Horn Logic Programs
Arcot Rajasekar
Jack Minker
Recursive Query Answering with Non-Horn Clauses
Shan Chi
Lawrence J. Henschen
Session 9
Case Inference in Resolution-Based Languages
T. Wakayama
T.H. Payne
Notes on Prolog Program Transformations, Prolog Style, and Efficient
Compilation to the Warren Abstract Machine
Ralph M. Butler
Rasiah Loganantharaj
Exploitation of Parallelism in Prototypical Deduction Problems
Ralph M. Butler
Nicholas T. Karonis
Session 10
A Decision Procedure for Unquantified Formulas of Graph Theory
Louise E. Moser
Adventures in Associative-Commutative Unification (A Summary)
Patrick Lincoln
Jim Christian
Unification in Finite Algebras is Unitary(?)
Wolfram Buttner
Session 11
Unification in a Combination of Arbitrary Disjoint Equational Theories
Manfred Schmidt-Schauss
Partial Unification for Graph Based Equational Reasoning
Karl Hans Blasius
Jorg Siekmann
Session 12
SATCHMO: A theorem prover implemented in Prolog
Rainer Manthey
Francois Bry
Term Rewriting: Some Experimental Results
Richard C. Potter
David Plaisted
Session 13
Analogical Reasoning and Proof Discovery
Bishop Brock
Shaun Cooper
William Pierce
Hyper-Chaining and Knowledge-Based Theorem Proving
Larry Hines
Session 14
Linear Modal Deductions
L. Farinas del Cerro
A. Herzig
A Resolution Calculus for Modal Logics
Hans Jurgen Ohlbach
Session 15
Solving Disequations in Equational Theories
Hans-Jurgen Burckert
On Word Problems in Horn Theories
Emmanuel Kounalis
Michael Rusinowitch
Canonical Conditional Rewrite Systems
Nachum Dershowitz
Mitsuhiro Okada
G. Sivakumar
Program Synthesis by Completion with Dependent Subtypes
Paul Jacquet
Session 16
Reasoning about Systems of Linear Inequalities
Thomas Kaufl
A Subsumption Algorithm Based on Characteristic Matrices
Rolf Socher
A Restriction of Factoring in Binary Resolution
Arkady Rabinov
Supposition-Based Logic for Automated Nonmonotonic Reasoning
Philippe Besnard
Pierre Siegal
Session 17
Argument-Bounded Algorithms as a Basis for Automated Termination Proofs
Christoph Walther
Automated Aids in Implementation Proofs
Leo Marcus
Timothy Redmond
Session 18
A New Approach to Universal Unification and Its Application to AC-Unification
Mark Franzen
Lawrence J. Henschen
An Implementation of a Dissolution-Based System Employing Theory Links
Neil V. Murray
Erik Rosenthal
Session 19
Decision Procedure for Autoepistemic Logic
Ilkka Niemela
Logical Matrix Generation and Testing
Peter K. Malkin
Errol P. Martin
Optimal Time Parallel Algorithms for Term Matching
Rakesh M. Verma
I.V. Ramakrishnan
Session 20
Challenge Equality Problems in Lattice Theory
William McCune
Single Axioms in the Implicational Propositional Calculus
Frank Pfenning
Challenge Problems Focusing on Equality and Combinatory Logic:
Evaluating Automated Theorem-Proving Programs
Larry Wos
William McCune
Challenge Problems from Nonassociative Rings for Theorem Provers
Rick Stevens
∂14-Apr-88 1109 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu re: Friday no good
Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Apr 88 11:09:44 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Thu, 14 Apr 88 11:09:21 PDT
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 14 Apr 88 11:06:36 PDT
Date: 14 Apr 88 11:06 PST
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: re: Friday no good
Date: 14 April 1988, 11:04:58 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott (415)-926-2469 ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: re: Friday no good
In-Reply-To: JMC AT SAIL.STANFORD.EDU -- 04/13/88 12:19
Sorry, but I have alot to do this morning, including preparing for class.
How about next Wed.?
Greetings,
Elliott
∂14-Apr-88 1308 tah@linz.stanford.edu Tomorrow's LOP seminar CANCELLED!
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Apr 88 13:07:54 PDT
Received: from linz.Stanford.EDU by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA01517; Thu, 14 Apr 88 13:06:20 PDT
Received: by linz.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA12692; Thu, 14 Apr 88 13:04:42 PDT
Message-Id: <8804142004.AA12692@linz.stanford.edu>
To: lop@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Tomorrow's LOP seminar CANCELLED!
Date: 14 Apr 88 13:04:20 PDT (Thu)
From: Tom Henzinger <tah@linz.stanford.edu>
Because of the conflict with McCarthy's High Noon Hi-Tech lecture,
Goguen's LOP talk has been postponed. There will be no seminar
tomorrow.
∂14-Apr-88 1442 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Program Committee Reception
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Apr 88 14:41:58 PDT
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 88 14:39:40 PDT
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Program Committee Reception
To: hart@kl.sri.com, feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
nilsson@score.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
cc: aaaI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Message-ID: <12390472756.37.AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
You are invited to the Program COmmittee's reception on Friday, April 22,
6:00 pm in the Redwood III Ballroom at the Hyatt Palo Alto.
Hope you can make it!
Claudia
-------
∂14-Apr-88 1603 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: connection
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Apr 88 16:03:49 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 14 APR 88 15:58:37 PDT
Date: 14 Apr 88 15:57 PDT
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: connection
In-reply-to: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank)'s message of Thu, 14
Apr 88 08:34:08 -0200
To: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com
cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, reinfra@unido.ARPA, ztivax@reinfra.ARPA
Message-ID: <880414-155837-19137@Xerox>
Thanks for the info: I was becoming desperate so had tried every combination
imaginable and then some, in the hope of one getting through, and clearly one
did.
I dont have a paper for the conference, and had been assuming that you invited
me along to ask awkward questions, ie contribute negatively rather than
positively. I havnt done any work in the area for several years now, so I cant
put anything sensible together, Im afraid.
Pat
∂14-Apr-88 1645 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU Teaching next year
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Apr 88 16:45:32 PDT
Date: Thu 14 Apr 88 16:39:27-PDT
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Teaching next year
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12390494562.47.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Per my message of April 5, we still have you listed as teaching CS306 in
Fall 88/89 (TTh 2:45-4:00), and CS101 in the Winter (TTh 1:15-2:30). Please
let me know if this is incorrect so that we can revise the listing in Courses
and Degrees, and in our course database.
Thanks again.
Claire
-------
∂14-Apr-88 1658 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu [RPERRAULT@Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM: [Sue Smith <SSMITH@KL.SRI.COM>: BAA - Long Range Machine Intell P]]
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Apr 88 16:58:26 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA27297; Thu, 14 Apr 88 16:55:59 PDT
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 88 16:55:59 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8804142355.AA27297@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, shoham@score.stanford.edu,
weise@mojave.stanford.edu
Subject: [RPERRAULT@Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM: [Sue Smith <SSMITH@KL.SRI.COM>: BAA - Long Range Machine Intell P]]
I happen to be on a mailing list that got the following msg about a cbd
announcment:
--------
Return-Path: <@Score.stanford.edu:RPERRAULT@Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM>
Date: Thu 14 Apr 88 15:39:20-PST
From: RPERRAULT@Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM (Ray Perrault)
Subject: [Sue Smith <SSMITH@KL.SRI.COM>: BAA - Long Range Machine Intell P]
To: aic-staff@Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM
Cc: rperrault@Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM
Mail-System-Version: <VAX-MM(229)+TOPSLIB(126)@ai.sri.com>
Those of you who read this carefully will see that "Project total
fund availability for FY89 is $1 million". Simpson says that they
needed some amount of money indicated to make the BAA legal but that
they now expect that FY89 funding will be roughly the same as FY88.
This announcement covers all AI activities at ISTO, SC and not-SC.
Ray
---------------
Return-Path: <SSMITH@KL.SRI.COM>
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM with INTERNET ;
Thu, 14 Apr 88 13:04:16 PDT
Date: Thu 14 Apr 88 13:03:30-PDT
From: Sue Smith <SSMITH@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: BAA - Long Range Machine Intell Proj
To: DARPA-DB@KL.SRI.COM, PUBLIc-DARPA-DB@KL.SRI.COM
Message-ID: <12390455250.26.SSMITH@KL.SRI.COM>
DARPA-DB: .BIDS.BAA.
COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY
ISSUE NO: PSA-9567
APRIL 12, 1988
BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT: LONG RANGE MACHINE INTELLIGENCE PROJECTS BAA
#88-09. Due 080888. The Def Advanced Research Projects Agency, Info
Science and Technology Ofc, DARPA/ISTO, is interested in receiving
proposals for R&D of technologies for intelligent systems. This work
includes but is not ltd to areas of researc including vision, spoken
language systems, learning, planning, and knowledge based processing. The
research is expected to produce a demonstration of capability, and in many
cases a prototype will be developed where code can be distributed to the
research community for evaluation and use. Teaming between research grps
will be allowable when appropriate. Proposals submitted may be evaluated as
they are received or they may be collected and reviewed periodically by
in-house scientists or a peer grp. Award decisions will be based on a
competitive selection of proposals. Proposals may be submitted any time
through 8 Aug 88. Individual proposal evaluations may be based on
acceptability or nonacceptability in comparison w/state of the art researc
in the community at large. Evaluation of proposals will be performed using
the following criteria listed in descending order of relative importance:
1) overall scientific, tech, and socio-economic merit of the proposal; 2)
potential contributions of the effort to the agency's specific mission; 3)
the offeror's capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques, or
unique combinations of these which are integral factors for achieving the
proposal objectives; 4) the quals, capabilities and exerience of the
proposed principal investigator, team leader, or key personnel who are
critical in achieving the proposal objectives; and 5) realism of the
proposed cost and availability of funds. Selection will be based primarily
on the first 3 criteria Cost realism and reasonableness will only be
significant in deciding between 2 technically equal proposals. Proposals
submitted should consist of a clear statement of objectives; a tech section
to include but not ltd to background, experience, methodology, and expected
contribution; a SOW and milestones, a cost portion and plans for project
mgmt. Details of any cost sharing to be undertaken by the offeror should be
included in the proposal. Responses should be addressed to either of the
two following pgm mgrs: LTC Robert Simpson, Ph.D., or Dr. J A Sears,
DARPA/ISTO. Projected total fund availability for FY 89 is $1 million. This
CBD notice itself constitutes the Broad Agency Announcement as contemplated
in FAR 6.102(d)(2). No addtl written info is avail, nor will a formal RFP
or other sol regarding this announcement be issued. Reqs for same will be
disregarded. The Govt reserves the right to select for award all, some or
none of the proposals received in response to this announcement. All
responsible sources may submit a proposal which shall be considered by
DARPA. (099)
SPONSOR: Def Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Conts Mgmt (CMO),
1400 Wilson Blvd, Arlington VA 22209-2308, attn Douglas Pollock,
202/694-1771
-------
-------
∂14-Apr-88 1811 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
ON RAMIFICATIONS, QUALIFICATIONS AND DOMAIN CONSTRAINTS
IN FORMAL THEORIES OF ACTION
Arkady Rabinov (AIR@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU)
Stanford University
Friday, April 15, 3:15pm
MJH 301
The existing formal theories of action lack the ability to describe
worlds with complicated and dynamically changing relationships
between objects. As an example, we consider moving blocks in the
blocks world where blocks can be stapled together and fastened to the
ground. It is difficult to describe all indirect effects of an
action; this is the ramification problem. It is difficult to describe
all indirect preconditions for an action; this is the qualification
problem. And it is impossible to describe qualififications for an
action in terms of the potential violations of domain constraints
the action would cause; we call this the domain constraint problem.
We show how to solve these problems using an axiomatic description of
casual connections between actions and of expected results of actions.
(Copies of the paper are available in MJH358.)
∂15-Apr-88 0815 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Teaching next year
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Apr 88 08:15:07 PDT
Date: Fri 15 Apr 88 08:09:03-PDT
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Teaching next year
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Thu 14 Apr 88 17:07:00-PDT
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12390663792.22.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
O.K.---thanks for the reply.
Claire
-------
∂15-Apr-88 0900 MPS overheads
Did you leave the overheads for me to do this morning? I am
not able to find them.
Pat
∂15-Apr-88 1519 CLT houses
I made an appointment with Mark (the real estate man) to
look at a couple houses Sat at 5pm.
∂15-Apr-88 1544 MPS video on SDI
Diane Honigberg (325-5869 or 322-9943) did a video with you on SDI. She
is doing research as a graduate student (psychology dept) and has 7
questions regarding that video. The questions are attitudinal in nature.
She would like to see you for 15 minutes today if possible. If not, is there
another time to see her, or do you want me to get the questionnaire from
her and then you can fill it out and mail it back to her.
Pat
∂15-Apr-88 1711 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu lunch and etc
Received: from acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Apr 88 17:11:49 PDT
Received: by acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu with TCP; Fri, 15 Apr 88 17:11:31 PDT
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 88 17:11:31 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: lunch and etc
I don't expect that we'll see any response to your posting from anyone except
Jeff, since the rest of the gang won't see anything wrong with it.
I have a good friend whose outlook is somewhat similar to Jeff's; he's the
national president of the Young Democrats. So, there may be some hope for
them yet...:-)
At any rate, hope to see you some time next week.
-=paulf
ps...Did you see the AP opinion piece attributing the Honduran riots to left
wing groups that Matta supported financially?
∂15-Apr-88 2135 CLT taxes
did you call cate and have money transferred to your SEP
if not you should tell okner that it wasn't done by
the 15th and find out what to do about it.
∂16-Apr-88 1045 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
THE KNOWLEDGE ENGINEER AS THEORETICIAN
William J. Clancey (clancey.pa@xerox.com)
Institute for Research on Learning
Friday, April 22, 3:15pm
MJH 301
According to the commonly held view, the practice of knowledge engineering
involves interviewing experts, "stuffing" representation frameworks, and coding
(hacking networks) to get a program to have the right I/O behavior. We might
call this "routine knowledge engineering." In contrast, an AI researcher
pursuing a theory of representation, cognitive modeling, or scientific modeling
in general (e.g., DENDRAL, PROTEAN) is more interested in developing generative
principles:
1. What are the assumptions about the world or social constraints on
communication that justify certain behavior, constraining it or making it
advantageous ("rational")? How are these assumptions and constraints inferred
or otherwise retained from recurrent experiences?
2. What are the abstractions that recur in specific knowledge bases, such as the
physical processes of flow through conduits, that could be collected once and
for all and instantiated to produce the same behavior as a body of specific
situation-action rules in different domains?
3. What is the abstract structure of the reasoning processes that recur in
design, diagnosis, control, repair, etc. and what are the mathematical and
"cognitive" constraints on such search processes? For example, what are the
recurrent set manipulations such as collecting, sorting, and filtering that are
common in search processes?
Thus, the theoretical knowledge engineer is actually a mathematician, a
carpenter ("software engineer"), a psychiatrist, and a physicist rolled into
one. In this seminar I will review the analysis that led from MYCIN to NEOMYCIN
and my recent reformulation of NEOMYCIN in terms of formal operators for
manipulating sets and graphs. I will emphasize the relation of the unfolding
models to common sense knowledge.
∂16-Apr-88 1112 pullen@vax.darpa.mil We are looking for a Post-Doc
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Apr 88 11:12:47 PDT
Posted-Date: Sat 16 Apr 88 13:44:26-EDT
Received: by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA20762; Sat, 16 Apr 88 13:44:29 EDT
Date: Sat 16 Apr 88 13:44:26-EDT
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: We are looking for a Post-Doc
To: ARCH-PI@vax.darpa.mil, DPSYS-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: ISTO-STAFF@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <577219466.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <VAX-MM(216)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
DARPA/ISTO is looking for a recent doctoral graduate to work with the
Strategic Computing Parallel Architectures/Teraops programs. The
individual selected will assist DARPA Program Managers in technical
assessment, planning, and execution of these programs, and will also
be encouraged to pursue independent research up to half-time.
Salary is expected to be competitive with junior faculty positions.
It is anticipated that this person will work with us for one to two years.
This is an exceptional opportunity for professional development due
to the breadth of exposure the position will offer. Individuals
applying should possess good interpersonal skills and desire experience
in management of advanced research efforts.
Interested parties should contact Mark Pullen, <pullen@vax.darpa.mil>.
Please spread the word!
-------
∂16-Apr-88 1302 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Oops
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Apr 88 13:02:11 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Sat, 16 Apr 88 13:01:47 PDT
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 88 13:01:47 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Oops
Hi,
Just got your message. Since we never communicated mid-week I assumed we
weren't on for today (thinking that our last communication set only a
tentative plan). Unfortunately I'm not free today. Sorry if there was
a mis-understanding on my part. I could have a lunch on Tuesday, if you
are free?
-helen
∂16-Apr-88 1414 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Oops
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Apr 88 14:14:21 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Sat, 16 Apr 88 14:13:55 PDT
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 88 14:13:55 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Oops
Yes Tuesday 1145 is fine. See you in front of the department.
-Helen
∂16-Apr-88 2124 ME NS garbage
∂16-Apr-88 1936 JMC
NS is garbaging badly. All stories are garbaged.
ME - It seems to have fixed itself shortly after you sent this message.
I don't know what's causing this.
∂17-Apr-88 0120 paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu Yet another column
Received: from acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Apr 88 01:20:50 PDT
Received: by acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu with TCP; Sun, 17 Apr 88 01:20:31 PDT
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 88 01:20:31 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@acis-nw-rt5.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Yet another column
_Shots Across the Bow_
A Column of Personal Opinion
Paul Flaherty
"If the space advocates had been as well organized as the Wisconsin
Dairy farmers, an American space station would have been in orbit a quarter
of a century ago...."
--G. Harry Stine
Perhaps no event in recent memory has demonstrated the utter
frustration of American technology as the Challenger Incident. Ask just
about anyone with a technical bent where they were that day, and chances are,
they can do so with a fair amount of detail.
I was working underneath the Unibus on my lab's pdp-11 when a
tech came in and told me that the shuttle had blown up. "Nonsense," said
I; "they probably did a once - around and came down at Edwards." "No,"
he replied; "it blew up." Trying to keep my composure, I ran down to the
hospital lobby TV set, only to be greeted with That Picture.
Going to classes the next day was somewhat like attending a funeral.
We spent entire class periods reflecting on what went wrong. Speculation
was widespread. One professor likened it the the shock of Sputnik, and
said that it was inevitable, given this country's weak support of research
and development of space. Pretty soon, he speculated, something would go
wrong, and the Soviets would catch up to our prowess in space. At that
comment, the class laughed; after all, we're been to the moon and back...
Two years later, no one is laughing anymore.
The Soviets now have a Saturn - class launch vehicle (called
Energia), and will have a reusable shuttle in short order. There is
nothing technical preventing them from doing what we did nineteen years ago.
Nor is anything political preventing them. It just "isn't in their plans",
at the moment.
We, on the other hand, have no heavy launch vehicle, no manned
vehicles capable of going beyond Low Earth Orbit; for a while, all the
US was capable of launching was a small sounding rocket called Scout.
Our Saturn spare parts are rusting as museum pieces in Houston and at
The Cape. Boeing, the prime contractor for the Saturn, sold all of the
plans for the Great Moon Rocket, as souvenirs. NASA, the "can do"
agency, had become the "can't fail" leader of a nonexistent space program.
We spent almost a year trying to place the blame. We castigated
a design, a contractor, an administrator, and an agency that foundered
without goals. Never once, however, did we criticize a system that
produced an agency that became top-heavy with bureaucrats, not did we
criticize a technologically ignorant populace for not knowing the
difference. The real problem, hinted at by Richard Feynman, is that while
we developed the technology and the hardware for space, we failed to
develop an educated public, capable of appreciating it.
Look at a typical high school curriculum, and you'll see what I
mean. Most schools don't offer calculus; fewer still offer any courses in
elementary probability and statistics. By far, the emphasis is on the
Humanities; courses in creative writing and sociology abound. Now, don't
get me wrong; the Humanities do have their place in the scheme of things.
Most of those subjects, however, can easily be self taught, with little
external guidance. The Sciences, however, require more equipment, more
guidance, and more discipline from the students.
There are two reasons for this dismal situation. The first is the
stranglehold that the Left has on public school curriculum planning,
which in and of itself has produced an imbalance in the educational
system. The second cause is the noncompetitive wage paid to high school
math and science teachers; funds that could be spent here are instead
wasted in pet "educational projects", usually administered by the
aforementioned liberal planners. Clearly, there is a crying need for
conservative input in the elementary and secondary schools.
Another factor worth a passing mention was the Left's fascination
with "appropriate technology" and "antimechanization" during the 70's.
Funny, but Walter Mondale's comments about abolishing the space program,
made while he was a senator in the 70's, never made it into the press in
1984.
William F. Buckley often laments the lack of "conservative activism";
we never go out into the streets and chant slogans and have fun like the
liberals do. The decline of the American space program is a moral
outrage, and deserves to be protested publically. We owe it to the
thousands of engineers and scientists of NASA, who enhanced the pride of
this country so often during the late 60's and early 70's (when we needed
it most). The development of space is crucial to defense interests, more
crucial than the B1, the MX, or the 600 ship Navy. It is crucial to our
economic interests; the space program has already paid for itself many times
over in better weather prediction alone. Space deserves to be an issue
in this year's campaign, and it is clearly in the Republican's best interest
to do so.
Let not the Challenger Seven die in vain.
∂17-Apr-88 1819 JSW SAIL
To: ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In case you're interested, Marty told me that his salary is now
being charged half to SAIL and half to Unix systems, because he
is helping with Unix maintenance until a replacement for Dan
Kolkowitz is hired. This should help reduce SAIL expenses.
∂17-Apr-88 1901 ARK SAIL costs
To: JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
∂17-Apr-88 1819 JSW SAIL
To: ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In case you're interested, Marty told me that his salary is now
being charged half to SAIL and half to Unix systems, because he
is helping with Unix maintenance until a replacement for Dan
Kolkowitz is hired. This should help reduce SAIL expenses.
ARK - But will it reduce SAIL charges? According to the budget I got, the
annual salary expense charged directly to SAIL was 80-100K/year (I'm at
home, so I don't have the exact number). I would like to know who this is
paying for and what percentages of these people are being paid this way.
∂18-Apr-88 0004 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:kapur@albanycs.albany.edu RTA 89
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Apr 88 00:04:15 PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Sun 17 Apr 88 23:57:58-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Sat 16 Apr 88 22:08:52-EDT
Received: from albanycs.albany.edu (TCP 20063000404) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 16 Apr 88 22:11:08 EDT
Received: by albanycs.albany.edu (5.54/4.8)
id AA11507; Sat, 16 Apr 88 22:07:15 EST
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 88 22:07:15 EST
From: kapur@albanycs.albany.edu (Deepak Kapur)
Message-Id: <8804170307.AA11507@albanycs.albany.edu>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu, aiout@anl-mcs
Subject: RTA 89
RTA-89
CALL FOR PAPERS
Third International Conference on
Rewriting Techniques and Applications
April 3-5, 1989
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, U.S.A.
The third bi-annual Conference on Rewriting Techniques and
Applications will be held in Chapel Hill on April 3-5, 1989. Papers are
being solicited in any of the following or related areas:
Term rewriting systems Symbolic and algebraic computation
Conditional rewriting Equational programming languages
Graph rewriting and grammars Completion procedures
Algebraic semantics Rewrite-based theorem proving
Equational reasoning Unification and matching algorithms
Lambda and combinatory calculi Term-based architectures
Original papers, as well as technical expository ones, are solicited.
Descriptions of new, implemented systems will also be considered. All
submissions should be clearly written in English and include references and
comparisons with related work, where appropriate. (If a substantially
similar paper has or will be submitted for publication elsewhere, this fact
must be noted in the cover letter.) Each submission should include 10
(ten) copies of a full draft paper of approximately 15 (fifteen)
double-spaced pages. (If a copier is unavailable to the author, one copy
will suffice.) Please include an electronic address, if available.
Submissions must reach the following address no later than October 17,
1988:
Nachum Dershowitz, RTA-89
University of Illinois
1304 West Springfield Ave. telephone: [+1] (217) 333-8879
Urbana, IL 61801-2987 Internet: nachum@a.cs.uiuc.edu
U.S.A. Bitnet: nachum@uiucvmd
Notification of acceptance or rejection by December 5, 1988.
Camera-ready copy (following special guidelines) due January 20, 1989.
Program Committee:
Bruno Courcelle (Bordeaux) Deepak Kapur (Albany)
Nachum Dershowitz (Urbana), Chair Claude Kirchner (Nancy)
Jean Gallier (Philadelphia) Jan Willem Klop (Amsterdam)
Jieh Hsiang (Stony Brook) Dallas Lankford (Ruston)
Jean-Pierre Jouannaud (Orsay) Mark Stickel (Menlo Park)
Local Arrangements Chair:
David Plaisted
New West Hall 035-A
University of North Carolina
Chapel-Hill, NC 27514 telephone: [+1] (919) 962-7340
U.S.A. Internet: plaisted@cs.unc.edu
RTA-89 will be held on or near the campus of the University of North
Carolina in Chapel Hill. A block of rooms has been reserved at the
Carolina Inn near campus.
Chapel Hill, a town of about 40,000 in central North Carolina, blends a
mild climate, a relaxed southern atmosphere, and the charm of a college
town with such cultural advantages as excellent theater and music, an art
museum, and a planetarium. The Carolina beaches, Cape Hattaras, Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, and the Blue Ridge Mountains are only a few
hours away. North Carolina is known for its dogwoods, which are in bloom
in early April.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was the first state
university to open its doors in 1795, and currently enrolls approximately
22,000 students. The Computer Science Department has about 120 full-time
graduate students, and is particularly well known for its work in computer
graphics. In 1987 the Department moved into a new building, which has one
of the most advanced communications systems in the country. Together with
Duke University and North Carolina State University, UNC at Chapel Hill is
one of the vertices of the Research Triangle, a rapidly growing cluster of
laboratories and start-up companies. A number of major corporations have
facilities at the nearby Research Triangle Park, one of the nation's
largest and most successful research centers. The Microelectronics Center
of North Carolina (MCNC) is also located at the Research Triangle Park.
Previous meetings were held in Dijon (1985) and Bordeaux (1987); their
proceedings were published by Springer-Verlag as part of their Lecture
Notes in Computer Science series.
Further details and the final program will be sent to anyone submitting a
paper or otherwise expressing interest in the meeting.
****************************** PLEASE POST ******************************
∂18-Apr-88 0900 CLT
call okner/cate about sep contribution
∂18-Apr-88 2209 weening@jeeves.stanford.edu Sun account
Received: from jeeves.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Apr 88 22:09:35 PDT
Received: by jeeves.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA17548; Mon, 18 Apr 88 22:09:18 PDT
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 88 22:09:18 PDT
From: weening@jeeves.stanford.edu (Joe Weening)
Message-Id: <8804190509.AA17548@jeeves.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Sun account
I've created an account for you on Jeeves, the Sun file server, which
will let you log in on most of the Suns running Unix in MJH including
the new Sun-4. The account name is "jmc" with the same password you
have on Gang-of-Four.
The Sun-4 is named "sunday". This name isn't in the host tables yet,
so for now you need to telnet to its network address (36.8.0.180) or
use its console in room 030.
∂18-Apr-88 2341 ARK More about SAIL
To: ball@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
CC: ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, Tom@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
nilsson@ATHENA.STANFORD.EDU, wheaton@Score.Stanford.EDU
The sheet about costs for SAIL that you gave me said benefits for SAIL is
24405 and salaries including benefits is 117556. From this, I deduce that
salaries not including benefits is 93151. Without disclosing to me
individual salaries, could you tell me whose salaries are being charged to
SAIL and at what percentages? I understand since the departure of Dan
Kolkowitz that Marty Frost is now half charged to the Unix systems for
network assistance. Does this mean that the rates for SAIL will be
reduced slightly?
Based on the information you provided me, I no longer consider it
effective to take SAIL private. This small amount of additional
information will allow me to consider the case of SAIL charges closed for
now.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Arthur
∂19-Apr-88 0110 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com Munich, May
Received: from siemens ([129.73.7.1]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Apr 88 01:10:14 PDT
Received: by siemens (5.54/1.15)
id AA10248; Tue, 19 Apr 88 04:07:37 EDT
From: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 10:09:14 -0200
Message-Id: <8804190809.AA13879@ztivax.uucp>
Received: by ztivax.uucp; Tue, 19 Apr 88 10:09:14 -0200
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Munich, May
Cc: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com
Dear John McCarthy:
people from ECRC told me that you'll be visiting them on May 9th, and that you might be
interested in visiting the Siemens AI Lab as well. We'd be happy to host you for
a day, say May 10th. Our research interests here are:
naive physics, non-monotonic reasoning (in the group I'm with as of now),
and logic programming and natural language processing (in neighboring groups).
Please let me know if you're interested in coming, and if you have any particular
interests.
Concerning the NMR-Workshop in June, you should receive detail information by paper mail
within the next few days.
Mail addressing seems to be a subtle problem these days, I one again talked to
our postmasters who said siemens.com has been registered as an ARPA domain, and
hence reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com SHOULD work.
Best regards,
Michael Reinfrank
∂19-Apr-88 0204 Mailer re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Apr-88 01:34-PT.]
I am puzzled by John McCarthy's continuing defense of school prayers.
Or is it an offense against bullying? Or is it simply blind faith in
the right of the Right?
Does John really think that children in public schools should have to
listen to prayers? If so, which religions should be approved for
this honor? And will he, as an atheist, want equal time? If so, what
does an atheist prayer sound like?
∂19-Apr-88 0646 ball@polya.stanford.edu More about SAIL
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Apr 88 06:46:21 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA08060; Tue, 19 Apr 88 06:46:13 PDT
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 06:46:13 PDT
From: ball@polya.stanford.edu (Jim Ball)
Message-Id: <8804191346.AA08060@polya.stanford.edu>
To: ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Cc: ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, Tom@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
nilsson@ATHENA.STANFORD.EDU, wheaton@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Arthur Keller's message of 18 Apr 88 2341 PDT <8804190641.AA02543@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: More about SAIL
Arthur,
I'm not in the office today so I don't have my numbers with me. I'll
take a look at the numbers later this week and see if I can provide
enough information to you without giving out specific individual salaries.
-Jim
∂19-Apr-88 1018 RFN
TO: Prof. McCarthy
FROM: Rosemary
RE: Pat Simmons
will not be in today, April 19.
∂19-Apr-88 1024 BYRD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Apr 88 10:24:51 PDT
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 10:24:09 PDT
From: Greg Byrd <Byrd@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue, 19 Apr 88 01:34:00 PDT
Message-ID: <12391736961.61.BYRD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
JMC writes:
"...What is done on behalf of the cause varies according to the
degree of Western culture in the civilization, however."
Could you elaborate on that please?
...Greg
-------
∂19-Apr-88 1145 nfields@vax.darpa.mil quarterly report
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Apr 88 11:45:31 PDT
Received: from sun16.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA29372; Tue, 19 Apr 88 14:40:48 EDT
Posted-Date: Tue 19 Apr 88 14:40:29-EDT
Received: by sun16.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00156; Tue, 19 Apr 88 13:40:40 EST
Date: Tue 19 Apr 88 14:40:29-EDT
From: Nicole Fields <NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: quarterly report
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: scherlis@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <577482029.0.NFIELDS@SUN16.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(216)+TOPSLIB(128)@SUN16.DARPA.MIL>
To the DARPA Software Contractor Community:
Due to changes presently being made to simplify and standardize the
quarterly report format, we are postponing their due date. In
particular, we will ask that financial information be submitted in a
standard form that (we hope) will be machine readable here. A copy of
the correct format will be sent to you within the next few weeks.
The reports will be due 15 May. If you have any questions, please
contact me at (202) 695-9373 or at nfields@vax.darpa.mil.
Sincerely,
Nicole Fields
(Program Manager Assistant)
-------
∂19-Apr-88 1306 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Oh god!
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Apr 88 13:06:43 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Tue, 19 Apr 88 13:06:05 PDT
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 13:06:05 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Oh god!
I'm very sorry. I have been so busy that everything is slipping my mind.
Lunch time, for example, came and went while I feverishly edited (for the
final time I hope) a manuscript which has been pushed back and pushed back
for months. Well all I can hope is that you will be willing to
reschedule (and will trust me this time to remember!).
Embarassedly,
-helen
P.S. The reason your reminder didn't get through is that I was in another
unix shell (the lab account) and messages don't get forwarded there.
∂19-Apr-88 1326 Mailer re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I'm afraid that I still do not understand John McCarthy's argument.
Is he saying that school prayers are simply a quaint old custom and
that anyone who finds them objectionable is a bully?
I recall that I used to find Bible readings every morning in school a bit
puzzling and uncomfortable, even though I was a Christian then. My Jewish
friends didn't say anything about it publicly, but if they had they
probably would have been put down.
My teacher happened to also be a Sunday School teacher, but I wonder how
the Jewish teachers felt about giving Bible readings every morning, as
they were required to do?
I notice that the term "bullying" turns up a lot in current Rightist
rhetoric. William Bennett was quoted as using it in his speech at
Stanford the other night. It seems to be used mostly in discussions of
losing causes. Could it be that all winners are bullies?
Les Earnest
∂19-Apr-88 1438 Mailer Freedom of Speech
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Apr-88 13:53-PT.]
I agree with John McCarthy that the statement from SUNY Law School
is a threat to freedom of speech. If I were a student there, I would
be tempted to post a few ethnic jokes on their bboards, just to test
the limits.
I also agree with John that "there is currently a lot of left wing
bullying going on on campuses." There is not nearly as much right wing
bullying. The difference in style is probably the result of median age
differences: the rightists are more often older and are less often
students.
At the risk of indulging in a hand-waving generalization, let me suggest
that typical right wing style is to form private alliances and to work
toward their goals more covertly than the noisey leftists. In some
cases, these alliances might more accurately be called "conspiracies."
The newpapers abound in examples.
Les Earnest
∂19-Apr-88 1524 @SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU:Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Apr 88 15:24:29 PDT
Received: from KSL-1186-4.STANFORD.EDU by SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Tue, 19 Apr 88 15:21:25 PDT
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 15:15:55 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Atheists for the School Prayer Amendment
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
cc: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <607460507.A0732.KSL-1186-4.Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message from John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> of 19 Apr 88 1353 PDT
I don't know whether JMC went to an unusual elementary/secondary/high
school, or if the greater discipline in schools of that time reduced the
problem, or if JMC simply has excessively fond memories. Whichever it may be,
JMC woefully underestimates the capacity of school-children for cruelity
towards those who do not conform to seemingly "innocuous" practices such as
school prayer. It is part of a general cruelity towards those who do not
conform in general, often with the tacit support of the teacher and the school
infrastructure. Children who are "different" cause the teachers to do more
work.
Even when the teacher may be sympathetic, there is no way he can make his
charges not bully the "different" child (much less *like* the child). Kids
get tormented for stuttering, being too smart, too dumb, too weak, too shy,
too talkative, the wrong religion, the wrong color, the wrong nationality, the
wrong name,... The list goes on and on. I remember kids being bullied for
being "atheist" when neither the bully nor the bullied even knew what the word
meant (it's like "queer"). Obviously, several of the religions teach hatred
of non-believers at an early age.
Therefore the single most important reason to keep religion out of
schools is that religion is irrelevant to the mission of the schools and it
can be used to harm children with a minority religious viewpoint.
As far as the overall issue of discipline in schools: this is not a
liberal/conservative or pro-/anti-NEA issue. Frankly, the liberals, the
conservatives, the NEA, and the anti-NEA forces have all worked together to
ruin the US education system, and they all must share the blame. I am so
totally disgusted with the US school system that I decided long ago that I
would not voluntarily subject any child of mine to the schools in this
country; I would rather pay an enormous sum to send the kid overseas to a
country where it is still possible to acquire an education. Fortunately, the
issue has not come up to date.
∂19-Apr-88 1728 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM [hayes.pa: Grassau program]
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Apr 88 17:25:15 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 19 APR 88 11:59:22 PDT
Date: 19 Apr 88 11:59 PDT
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: [hayes.pa: Grassau program]
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <880419-115922-234@Xerox>
Your copy ( since the mailing software isnt smart enough to realise that `stnford' must mean `stanford' ).
Pat
----- Begin Forwarded Messages -----
Date: 18 Apr 88 09:59 PDT
From: hayes.pa
Subject: Grassau program
To: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com
cc: hayes.pa, jmc@sail.stnford.edu, dekleer.pa, E-SANDEWALL@LISBET.liu.se
Dear Michael
My package of information about Grasseau just arrived, including the
program. I am horrified to discover that you have me listed as giving the
first invited address. I feel extremely reluctant to do this. I was not
under the impression that I would be giving a formal address at all: as I
have expained to you, I do not regard myself as in any sense a current
authority on the subject of nonmonotonic reasoning, and had thought of my
role as being an asker of awkward questions rather than a - perhaps THE -
featured speaker.
I would be much happier if the program were rearranged so that at
the very least my talk were placed in a less conspicuous place, and
ideally so that I gave no talk.
I am sorry if this causes you problems, but I really am
embarrassed by the current arrangements.
Sincerely
Pat Hayes
----- End Forwarded Messages -----
∂19-Apr-88 2210 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed to meet this Thursday
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Apr 88 22:09:59 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA19582; Tue, 19 Apr 88 22:09:18 PDT
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 22:09:18 PDT
From: ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Message-Id: <8804200509.AA19582@polya.stanford.edu>
To: feed
Subject: formfeed to meet this Thursday
Don't forget! (Like last time, when I neglected to send out the
reminder till 12.07 on Thursday ...)
I'm hoping that we can talk about whatever it was that I missed
at the nonmon seminar, if nothing else comes up ...
Matt
∂20-Apr-88 1002 MPS phone message
Dr. Nafeh's office called. Would like you to call back
408 943-1711.
Naomi called from IREX. She wants to know if you will go
to Frankfurt on May 15 to pick up your visa and then go to
Moscow from there. She will plan for someone to bring your
visa from the states there.
Pat
∂20-Apr-88 1252 tah@linz.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Apr 88 12:52:35 PDT
Received: from linz.Stanford.EDU by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA11473; Wed, 20 Apr 88 12:49:13 PDT
Received: by linz.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA17387; Wed, 20 Apr 88 12:47:37 PDT
Message-Id: <8804201947.AA17387@linz.stanford.edu>
To: lop@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Date: 20 Apr 88 12:47:32 PDT (Wed)
From: Tom Henzinger <tah@linz.stanford.edu>
*************************************
* LOGIC OF PROGRAMS [LOP] Seminar *
*************************************
Fridays 11:30-12:30, MJH 301
April 22: Dr. Keith L. Clark (Imperial College),
"Parallel Logic Programming and its Applications"
April 29: Dr. Joseph A. Goguen (SRI),
"OBJ as a Theorem Prover"
∂20-Apr-88 1324 DEK I need to reach Gosper
... and he said he tends to be awake in the middle of the night.
That's fine with me, because I'm also sleeping afternoons these days...
But I don't have his phone number. Do you have a number where I
can likely reach him in the middle of the night? (Your PHON file
has a number marked "symbolics secret" or something like that---Pat
showed it to me---but I didn't note it down carefully because I
assume it is no longer current.) Does he still stay with Wehrauchs?
If so, a number for RWW may work, but I don't have that either.
∂20-Apr-88 1328 DEK PS
well, FIND told me 948-2149 for RWW, I'll try that
∂20-Apr-88 1508 Mailer re: School Prayer etc.
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Apr 88 15:08:43 PDT
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 88 15:09:16 PDT
From: Homer Chin <CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: School Prayer etc.
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: poser@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed, 20 Apr 88 10:39:00 PDT
Message-ID: <12392051011.26.CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
JMC writes:
> ... I have promised myself not to allow assertions like "the United
> States attacked Cambodia" to pass unprotested. Instead it was
> Mr. Poser, in his juvenile way, who helped the communists kill
> two million Cambodians.
I am not sure how Mr. Poser, by refusing to recite the pledge of
allegiance "helped the communists kill two million Cambodians." The
immediate causal factor that allowed for the mass slaughter of
Cambodians was the destabilization of Cambodia by the extension of the
Vietnam war into Cambodia. It would not have been possible for Pol
Pot to carry out his atrocities without the destabilization of
Cambodia brought about by misguided US policies in that region. I
would have to agree with Poser in his assessment that the US must bear
the primary responsibility for the Indo-China tragedy by thwarting
nationalistic sentiment in Vietnam and preventing nationwide free
elections in 1956.
"Instead it was Mr. Poser, in his juvenile way, who helped the
communists kill two million Cambodians" seems to imply that the US
should have remained in IndoChina and somehow was capable of winning
the war, a theory that has not much credibility except among the
extreme right-wing sector of the US population (and don't count Mr.
Nixon among those).
-------
∂20-Apr-88 1624 MPS appointment
I will be leaving at 4:30 today. I have an appointment
with my daughter's therapist in Redwood City. See you
tomorrow.
Pat
∂20-Apr-88 1804 JSW Sun-4
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, RDZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I was off in my estimate of the price of a Sun-4 a couple of days
ago. Tom Dientbier tells me the machine downstairs is about $65,000,
and a diskless Sun-4/110 is about $25,000.
∂20-Apr-88 2000 JMC
sarah,susie,ursula
∂20-Apr-88 2000 JMC
material for Tom B.
∂20-Apr-88 2211 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Hey there
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Apr 88 22:10:55 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Wed, 20 Apr 88 22:10:10 PDT
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 88 22:10:10 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Hey there
Thanks for being understanding about the lunch scheduling. If you're
willing to chance it, how would NEXT Tuesday be? I'll make sure I
put it in my "remind" file this time!
-helen
∂21-Apr-88 0954 ball@polya.stanford.edu More about SAIL
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Apr 88 09:54:03 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA20518; Thu, 21 Apr 88 08:38:55 PDT
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 88 08:38:55 PDT
From: ball@polya.stanford.edu (Jim Ball)
Message-Id: <8804211538.AA20518@polya.stanford.edu>
To: ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Cc: ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, Tom@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
nilsson@ATHENA.STANFORD.EDU, wheaton@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Arthur Keller's message of 18 Apr 88 2341 PDT <8804190641.AA02543@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: More about SAIL
Date: 18 Apr 88 2341 PDT
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The sheet about costs for SAIL that you gave me said benefits for SAIL is
24405 and salaries including benefits is 117556. From this, I deduce that
salaries not including benefits is 93151. Without disclosing to me
individual salaries, could you tell me whose salaries are being charged to
SAIL and at what percentages? I understand since the departure of Dan
Kolkowitz that Marty Frost is now half charged to the Unix systems for
network assistance. Does this mean that the rates for SAIL will be
reduced slightly?
Based on the information you provided me, I no longer consider it
effective to take SAIL private. This small amount of additional
information will allow me to consider the case of SAIL charges closed for
now.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Arthur
___________________________________________________________________________
Arthur,
The breakdown of expenses for the SAIL system for 1987-88 is as follows:
Direct Costs 159,591
Indirect Costs 52,724
Depreciation 35,155
total 247,470
Direct costs are those costs which are directly associated with the
operation of the DEC10 including a percentage of the salaries of certain
individuals. The total allocated salaries for the 1987-88 fiscal year are
$117,556 including $24,405 for benefits.
T. Harvey ----
S. Bjork ----
D. Coates ----
J. Ball ----
M. Frost ----
T. Dienstbier ----
Group Total 87,391
Student Operators 5,760
_________
Total Salaries 93,151
I have not indiciated the percentages of each salary, since that could
lead to revealing actual salaries of individuals. In the 1987-88 budget
Martin Frost was budgeted at 100%. The maximum for any other individual
was 15% of their salary.
Martin Frost's percentage of salary is being adjusted downward if we can
justify it for the next budget run and rate setting. I expect to have that
rate setting effective in July at the earliest but more probably in
September at the start of the new fiscal year. We are replacing Dan
Kolkowitz as soon as possible so the whole picture has to be watched very
closely, not just the SAIL situation.
-Jim Ball
∂21-Apr-88 1103 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed meets today!
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Apr 88 11:03:37 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA25442; Thu, 21 Apr 88 11:03:05 PDT
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 88 11:03:05 PDT
From: ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Message-Id: <8804211803.AA25442@polya.stanford.edu>
To: feed
Subject: formfeed meets today!
At noon, in MJH 252. See you there.
Matt
∂21-Apr-88 1132 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU moral responsibility
Received: from crystals (crystals.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Apr 88 11:32:43 PDT
Received: by crystals ; Thu, 21 Apr 88 11:32:20 pdt
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 88 11:32:20 pdt
From: William J. Poser <poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-Id: <8804211832.AA15845@crystals>
To: jmc@sail, su-etc@score
Subject: moral responsibility
JMC asks me whether the peace movement has a moral responsibility
for the consequences of its actions. The answer is surely yes. In this
case as in others I believe that people are responsible for the forseeable
consequences of their actions. JMC's assertion that my view of the
Indochina situation exempts the anti-war movement from responsibility for
its actions is based on a totally unjustifiable inference. I said no such
thing. Rather, I said that the massacres by the Khmer Rouge were not forseen
in 1970 and that preventing them was not at issue.
I agree with Homer Chin that the US Government rather than
the anti-war movement bears the primary responsibility (other than the
Khmer Rouge, of course, who are obviously the ones really to blame) for what
happened in Cambodia since it was the US intervention that destabilized the
country and led to the Khmer Rouge victory.
I suggest that in order to indict the anti-war movement JMC needs
to show two things. One is that things are worse as a result of the actions
of the anti-war movement. It isn't sufficient to say that they were bad.
He has to argue that things are worse than if there had been no
anti-war movement. The other is to show that these consequences were
forseeable. If they weren't, then we would have causation but not
moral responsibility. (Note that the word "responsibility" is used a bit
loosely, often with the meaning of "contributory cause". On my view at
least, and I believe this view is widely held, causation is not sufficient
for moral responsibility - there must also be intention or at least
reckless disregard for the forseeable consequences of one's actions.)
JMC then raises what as far as I can see is an unrelated point,
namely whether the Sandinistas are morally responsible for adhering to
agreements they sign. What this has to do with the moral responsibility
of the anti-war movement is not very clear. But I will answer the question
anyway. Sure, of course they should honor their word. You mean there is another
reasonable answer to this question? Or is it rhetorical?
∂21-Apr-88 1231 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU anti-war movement & Sandinistas
Received: from crystals (crystals.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Apr 88 12:31:28 PDT
Received: by crystals ; Thu, 21 Apr 88 12:31:06 pdt
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 88 12:31:06 pdt
From: William J. Poser <poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-Id: <8804211931.AA16006@crystals>
To: jmc@sail, su-etc@score
Subject: anti-war movement & Sandinistas
I await JMC's argument. We are at least in agreement on the ground
rules.
As for the Sandinistas, there probably are people who don't care
whether they live up to their side of the agreement. I'm not one of them.
I'd guess that most of my friends who are anti-contra also disapprove of
such things as the censorship of La Prensa. But JMC is certainly right that
there are people who are willing to support whatever the Sandinistas do.
Jim Wright is perhaps not part of the "Peace Movement" per se,
but he sure seems to be part of it is far as the Reagan Administration is
concerned. Oscar Arias probably isn't part of the "Peace Movement" either.
I also suggest that we not pick on the Sandinistas alone. From what I can
see, the country that is most grossly in violation of the accords is the
United States' good buddy Honduras.
Bill
∂21-Apr-88 1323 ARK Marty is being fully charged to SAIL!
To: JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
∂21-Apr-88 0954 ball@polya.stanford.edu More about SAIL
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Apr 88 09:54:03 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA20518; Thu, 21 Apr 88 08:38:55 PDT
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 88 08:38:55 PDT
From: ball@polya.stanford.edu (Jim Ball)
Message-Id: <8804211538.AA20518@polya.stanford.edu>
To: ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Cc: ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, Tom@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
nilsson@ATHENA.STANFORD.EDU, wheaton@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Arthur Keller's message of 18 Apr 88 2341 PDT <8804190641.AA02543@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: More about SAIL
Date: 18 Apr 88 2341 PDT
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The sheet about costs for SAIL that you gave me said benefits for SAIL is
24405 and salaries including benefits is 117556. From this, I deduce that
salaries not including benefits is 93151. Without disclosing to me
individual salaries, could you tell me whose salaries are being charged to
SAIL and at what percentages? I understand since the departure of Dan
Kolkowitz that Marty Frost is now half charged to the Unix systems for
network assistance. Does this mean that the rates for SAIL will be
reduced slightly?
Based on the information you provided me, I no longer consider it
effective to take SAIL private. This small amount of additional
information will allow me to consider the case of SAIL charges closed for
now.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Arthur
___________________________________________________________________________
Arthur,
The breakdown of expenses for the SAIL system for 1987-88 is as follows:
Direct Costs 159,591
Indirect Costs 52,724
Depreciation 35,155
total 247,470
Direct costs are those costs which are directly associated with the
operation of the DEC10 including a percentage of the salaries of certain
individuals. The total allocated salaries for the 1987-88 fiscal year are
$117,556 including $24,405 for benefits.
T. Harvey ----
S. Bjork ----
D. Coates ----
J. Ball ----
M. Frost ----
T. Dienstbier ----
Group Total 87,391
Student Operators 5,760
_________
Total Salaries 93,151
I have not indiciated the percentages of each salary, since that could
lead to revealing actual salaries of individuals. In the 1987-88 budget
Martin Frost was budgeted at 100%. The maximum for any other individual
was 15% of their salary.
Martin Frost's percentage of salary is being adjusted downward if we can
justify it for the next budget run and rate setting. I expect to have that
rate setting effective in July at the earliest but more probably in
September at the start of the new fiscal year. We are replacing Dan
Kolkowitz as soon as possible so the whole picture has to be watched very
closely, not just the SAIL situation.
-Jim Ball
∂21-Apr-88 1452 JSW CPU comparisons
To: "@STATS.DIS[1,JSW]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I've been running some tests of Lisp programs and thought you might be
interested to see the results on various CPUs. I've run three of the
Gabriel benchmarks on Lucid Common Lisp, both compiled and interpreted,
and on my simulator, which is also an interpreter but is much more of a
memory hog.
Here are the results on Gang-of-Four (Alliant using just one processor),
Polya (VAX-8700) and Sunday (Sun-4/260). These are expressed as speedup
numbers with Alliant = 1 because it is the slowest of the three.
Alliant VAX Sun-4
Compiled tak 1.0 2.5 5.5
Compiled destructive 1.0 1.9 4.1
Compiled boyer 1.0 2.8 4.0
Interpreted (all 3) 1.0 2.7 3.5
Simulated (all 3) 1.0 2.6 2.6
My interpretation of these is that the Sun-4 performs best on computations
that are not memory-intensive. The compiled code probably makes good use
of the registers. The interpreted code (which makes more memory references)
and the simulator (which garbage collects like crazy) don't perform as well.
Polya was moderately loaded with other programs while I ran these tests;
Gang-of-Four and the Sun-4 were not.
Joe
∂21-Apr-88 1606 bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
Received: from argus.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Apr 88 16:06:20 PDT
Received: from NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK by argus.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Thu, 21 Apr 88 16:05:44 PDT
Received: from aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk by NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id aa06463; 19 Apr 88 15:13 BST
From: Alan Bundy <bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 15:11:41 BST
Message-Id: <8965.8804191411@affric.aiva.ed.ac.uk>
To: jmc%su-ai.stanford.edu@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
John
Was your paper "Coloring maps and the Kowlaski doctrine" ever
published. I want to reference it, and have the tech report version, but
would prefer a more publically accessible ref, if possible.
Alan
∂21-Apr-88 1704 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
THE KNOWLEDGE ENGINEER AS THEORETICIAN
William J. Clancey (clancey.pa@xerox.com)
Institute for Research on Learning
Friday, April 22, 3:15pm
MJH 301
According to the commonly held view, the practice of knowledge engineering
involves interviewing experts, "stuffing" representation frameworks, and coding
(hacking networks) to get a program to have the right I/O behavior. We might
call this "routine knowledge engineering." In contrast, an AI researcher
pursuing a theory of representation, cognitive modeling, or scientific modeling
in general (e.g., DENDRAL, PROTEAN) is more interested in developing generative
principles:
1. What are the assumptions about the world or social constraints on
communication that justify certain behavior, constraining it or making it
advantageous ("rational")? How are these assumptions and constraints inferred
or otherwise retained from recurrent experiences?
2. What are the abstractions that recur in specific knowledge bases, such as the
physical processes of flow through conduits, that could be collected once and
for all and instantiated to produce the same behavior as a body of specific
situation-action rules in different domains?
3. What is the abstract structure of the reasoning processes that recur in
design, diagnosis, control, repair, etc. and what are the mathematical and
"cognitive" constraints on such search processes? For example, what are the
recurrent set manipulations such as collecting, sorting, and filtering that are
common in search processes?
Thus, the theoretical knowledge engineer is actually a mathematician, a
carpenter ("software engineer"), a psychiatrist, and a physicist rolled into
one. In this seminar I will review the analysis that led from MYCIN to NEOMYCIN
and my recent reformulation of NEOMYCIN in terms of formal operators for
manipulating sets and graphs. I will emphasize the relation of the unfolding
models to common sense knowledge.
∂21-Apr-88 1738 Qlisp-mailer new-qlisp -> qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Apr 88 17:38:50 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.12/25-eef)
id AA05424; Thu, 21 Apr 88 17:38:17 pdt
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 88 17:38:17 pdt
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8804220038.AA05424@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: new-qlisp -> qlisp
As of this evening, new-qlisp has become qlisp, and qlisp has become
old-qlisp. If you have been using new-qlisp, just type "qlisp"
instead. If you have been using qlisp, you will need to recompile
files for the new version. (Use of old-qlisp is discouraged, but it
is there if needed.)
The shell script that prevented more than two copies of new-qlisp from
running at once now does the equivalent thing for qlisp.
∂21-Apr-88 2018 billo@cmx.npac.syr.EDU Qlisp
Received: from cmx.npac.syr.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Apr 88 20:18:37 PDT
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 88 23:19:44 EDT
From: billo@cmx.npac.syr.edu (Bill O)
Received: by cmx.npac.syr.EDU (5.51/Northeast Parallel Architectures Center)
id AA28212; Thu, 21 Apr 88 23:19:44 EDT
Message-Id: <8804220319.AA28212@cmx.npac.syr.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Qlisp
Dear Prof. McCarthy:
I work for the Northeast Parallel Architectures Center at Syracuse
University, and I am writing to you about Qlisp. Here at NPAC we have
several parallel machines (including a couple of Connection Machines,
an Alliant FX/80, and an 18 processor Encore Multimax) and we are
constantly evaluating new architectures for possible future
acquisition. Because AI is one of the subject areas that we hope to
develop expertise in, we are very interested in obtaining version of
Lisp with constructs for parallelism. My question concerns Qlisp. Is
it currently implemented on any multi-processor computers, and if so,
what kind. Of course, we would be thrilled if it were already available
for one of the machines we currently own, but we would still be interested
in knowing of other implementations (or proposed implementations).
Also, if it is available, how would we go about getting it?
Thank you very much for lending your valuable time to this query.
∂22-Apr-88 0757 siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de visit.to.germany
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Apr 88 07:57:49 PDT
Received: from germany.csnet by RELAY.CS.NET id an05126; 22 Apr 88 9:07 EDT
Received: from uklirb by iraun1.ira.uka.de. id aa06734; 21 Apr 88 15:04 MET DST
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 88 15:04:02 MET DST
From: Joerg Siekmann <siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de>
To: jmc%sail.stanford.edu@ira.uka.de
Subject: visit.to.germany
Hi John, my name is joerg siekmann at the university of Kaiserslautern.We
met at several conferences etc,also in germany at karlsruhe IJCAI,when i
was the local arrengements chairman,but in all probability you may not
remember these occasions.
I have learnt from the people at ECRC Muenchen that you intend to come togermanyat that in fact we may stand a good chance of you coming to Kaisaerslautern,
given an appropriate invitation.
Here at Kaiserslautern a national institute for AI-research is currently being
founded and a talk by you would just come at the right moment.
The ECRC people suggested the 12. or 13. of may as apossible date.Since the 12.
is a public holiday,the actual talk should be 13. if that is convenient for
you.
As this is a matter of urgency (talk needs to be properly announced etc) I shall
try to contact you by phone as well.
Sincerely yours Joerg Siekmann
∂22-Apr-88 0955 S.SALUT@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: Junk phone calls...
Received: from LEAR.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Apr 88 09:55:37 PDT
Date: Fri 22 Apr 88 09:51:56-PDT
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Junk phone calls...
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Thu 21 Apr 88 23:29:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12392517529.110.S.SALUT@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
Actually, having fun with the caller is what I used to do: I would
practice psychological torture on them:
- either saying yes, yes, yes, I like it, I want it... and saying NO to the
final (binding) question.
- or playing totally stupid: I'm sorry, I don't understand...
But nowadays I guess I wasn't in the mood for that anymore.. Also, I do
realize that the person who is calling me is "innocent", and I would rather
not make innocent people cry.
What I was looking for is a message that they could carry back to their
supervisor so as to get a change of policy. I guess tracking down a big
shot in the company might be a good idea, although a bit time consuming..
Alex
-------
∂22-Apr-88 1342 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM [reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank): addressing]
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Apr 88 13:42:38 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 22 APR 88 13:34:01 PDT
Date: 22 Apr 88 13:33 PDT
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: [reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank): addressing]
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
cc: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Message-ID: <880422-133401-1494@Xerox>
I lost my link with Michael, but heres a new one which is supposed to work.
Pat
----- Begin Forwarded Messages -----
Return-Path: <reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com>
Received: from siemens (siemens-slip.siemens.com) by Xerox.COM ; 22 APR 88 04:06:46 PDT
Received: by siemens (5.54/1.15)
id AA09472; Fri, 22 Apr 88 07:05:44 EDT
From: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 88 13:06:19 -0200
Message-Id: <8804221106.AA12167@ztivax.uucp>
Received: by ztivax.uucp; Fri, 22 Apr 88 13:06:19 -0200
To: hayes.pa
Subject: addressing
Cc: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com
Johan reached me using unido!ztivax!reinfra@seismo.CSS.GOV
Michael
----- End Forwarded Messages -----
∂22-Apr-88 1652 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
****** Next week we meet on Tuesday, instead of Friday. ******
ABDUCTION THROUGH DEDUCTION
Kave Eshghi
Imperial College of Science and Technology, Britain
Tuesday, April 26, 3:15pm
MJH 301
A scheme is introduced for hypothetical reasoning in the
context of logic programming systems. It is compared with negation
as failure, and its application to default reasoning is considered.
The role of integrity checking in abduction is discussed, and a
metalevel formulation of integrity constraints is adopted which
can lead to a rich interaction between hypothesis generation and
integrity checking.
∂22-Apr-88 2211 paulf@shasta.stanford.edu Re: Sex/Israeli Law
Received: from shasta.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Apr 88 22:11:42 PDT
Received: by shasta.stanford.edu; Fri, 22 Apr 88 21:12:13 PST
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 88 21:12:13 PST
From: Paul A. Flaherty <paulf@shasta.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Sex/Israeli Law
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <20136@labrea.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Cc:
In article <20136@labrea.STANFORD.EDU> you write:
>[In reply to message from RITTS@sierra.stanford.edu sent Mon 18 Apr 88 11:52:31-PST.]
>
>I don't agree that maternity/paternity leave policies are irresponsible
>because they encourage couples to have children. Each country is sovereign
>and responsible for its own population. A few are severely oppressed
>by excessive population and many others are not. For an urban country
>Israel is not overcrowded, and its population makes contributions to
>world culture, science, technology and culture out of proportion to
>its population. More Israelis will benefit the world. So would more
>Americans.
>
> I fear that the reduction in the number of people with
>scores over 700 in the verbal SAT between 1965 and 1985 from 33,000
>to 14,000 may be related to the fact that the high SAT people are
>not reproducing themselvelves.
No doubt about it. Most of the folks I know in that range are either
delaying having kids, or have sworn off the idea alltogether. Part of
the problem is that childbearing usually means the end of the woman's
career, and since men of intellegence usually try to marry women of
intellegence, well, that's that.
And then, there are those of us who are married to our work...:-)
-=paulf
∂23-Apr-88 1641 @Score.Stanford.EDU:boyer%CLI.COM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Availability of Boyer and Moore's Prover
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Apr 88 16:41:42 PDT
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Sat 23 Apr 88 16:02:28-PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU via Chaosnet; 22 Apr 88 20:50-EDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Fri 22 Apr 88 20:43:46-EDT
Received: from CLI.COM (TCP 1202000076) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 22 Apr 88 20:26:45 EDT
Received: by CLI.COM (4.0/1); Fri, 22 Apr 88 19:21:13 CDT
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 88 19:21:13 CDT
From: Robert S. Boyer <boyer@CLI.COM>
Message-Id: <8804230021.AA05197@CLI.COM>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu, aiout@anl-mcs.arpa
Subject: Availability of Boyer and Moore's Prover
A Common Lisp version of our theorem-prover is now available under the
usual conditions: no license, no copyright, no fee, no support. The
system runs well in three Common Lisps: KCL, Symbolics, and Lucid.
There are no operating system or dialect conditionals, so the code may
well run in other implementations of Common Lisp.
Included as sample input is the work of Hunt on the FM8501
microprocessor and of Shankar on Goedel's incompleteness theorem and
the Church-Rosser theorem.
To get a copy follow these instructions:
1. ftp to Arpanet/Internet host cli.com.
(cli.com currently has Internet numbers
10.8.0.62 and 192.31.85.1)
2. log in as ftp, password guest
3. get the file /pub/nqthm/README
4. read the file README and follow the directions it gives.
Inquiries concerning tapes may be sent to:
Computational Logic, Inc., Suite 290
1717 W. 6th St.
Austin, Texas 78703
A comprehensive manual is available. For information on obtaining a
copy, write to the address above.
Bob Boyer J Moore
boyer@cli.com moore@cli.com
Due to major changes in the Arpanet, getting through to cli.com may be
difficult starting May 1 until one of the alternative Internet options
is solidly in place.
∂23-Apr-88 1746 HALPERN@IBM.COM Getting together?
Received: from IBM.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Apr 88 17:23:51 PDT
Date: 21 Apr 88 15:38:44 PDT
From: "Joseph Y. Halpern" <HALPERN@ibm.com>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <042188.153845.halpern@ibm.com>
Subject: Getting together?
John, I was planning to be around the department in the later afternoon
tomorrow (about 4). Will you be around? Do you want to get together
for a little while? -- Joe
∂24-Apr-88 0219 Qlisp-mailer Seminar at Berkeley
To: qlisp@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Joe Weening <JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Some of us should go to this talk. Note that it is this Monday.
CS 298-6
SYMBOLIC MATHEMATICS
And
SCIENTIFIC SOFTWARE
CARL PONDER
UCB CS DIVISION
PARALLELISM AND ALGEBRAIC
MANIPULATION SYSTEMS
2:00 - 3:00 p.m
Monday, April 25, 1988
35 Evans Hall
In my thesis I look at possible methods of speeding up
symbolic algebraic computations, including parallel algo-
rithms, alternative representations of expressions, use of
the {it FFT,} and various hashing mechanisms. A combination
of formal and empirical analyses are used in evaluating
these ideas. In summary, no good parallel algorithms for Gr
used by the Maple system to compact storage and eliminate
redundant computation appear to be too expensive to be use-
ful, and asymptotically-efficient algorithms for multiplying
and powering polynomials appear to parallelize well.
This talk will discuss the issues involved in using paral-
lelism to perform algebraic manipulation. Primary focus will
be on the problem of representing and operating on polynomi-
als, polynomials being one of the most important classes of
expressions in algebraic manipulation systems. Parallel
algorithms for polynomial multplication and powering will be
presented and analyzed.
∂24-Apr-88 0256 JSW Progress and summer support
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I have been working hard to get the simulator paper into shape for a tech
report and it is basically done at this point. It now contains an example
of some measurements on the Boyer benchmark, showing how a simple attempt
to parallelize it using futures works somewhat for a small number of
processors but breaks down with more than about 10. The point of the
paper is just to show what information the simulator provides, rather than
to give a full example of how to parallelize a program.
The plan for the thesis is to use Boyer (which has some or-parallelism),
polynomial multiplication (which is purely and-parallel) and the Lucid
node-compiler (which is best handled with futures), and on all of these
look at various partitioning strategies (unconditional process creation,
cutoff based on task size, virtual processor allocation, and cutoff based
on the amount of work currently in the run queue) as well as scheduling
strategies (FIFO, LIFO, 1 queue, several queues) and see what works best
for each sort of problem and why things do or don't work.
Having the Sun-4 and the additional Alliant processors come in at this
time will certainly help in doing all the simulations needed for this.
(Three of the four CEs have arrived and will be installed this week;
the fourth is backordered.)
By the end of April, I hope to have enough to convince the committee that
I will be ready for orals before June 1, which is the deadline for spring
quarter. My preference is for the week of May 23-27. Sharon Hemenway
says that she needs at least 3 weeks notice in order to find a University
chairman.
I would like to be supported as a research assistant this summer, assuming
there is funding. If I finish my thesis during the summer, will I then be
promoted to research associate or are there formalities needed before that
happens?
∂25-Apr-88 1000 JMC
courses
∂25-Apr-88 1107 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:boyer@CLI.COM Availability of Boyer and Moore's Prover
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Apr 88 11:07:18 PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (AI.AI.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Mon 25 Apr 88 10:52:14-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Mon 25 Apr 88 13:35:56-EDT
Received: from anl-mcs.ARPA (TCP 3200200067) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 25 Apr 88 13:16:36 EDT
Received: from CLI.COM (cli.com.ARPA) by anl-mcs.ARPA (4.12/4.9)
id AA00930; Mon, 25 Apr 88 09:16:48 cdt
Received: by CLI.COM (4.0/1); Fri, 22 Apr 88 19:21:13 CDT
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 88 19:21:13 CDT
From: Robert S. Boyer <boyer@CLI.COM>
Message-Id: <8804230021.AA05197@CLI.COM>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu, aiout@anl-mcs.arpa
Subject: Availability of Boyer and Moore's Prover
A Common Lisp version of our theorem-prover is now available under the
usual conditions: no license, no copyright, no fee, no support. The
system runs well in three Common Lisps: KCL, Symbolics, and Lucid.
There are no operating system or dialect conditionals, so the code may
well run in other implementations of Common Lisp.
Included as sample input is the work of Hunt on the FM8501
microprocessor and of Shankar on Goedel's incompleteness theorem and
the Church-Rosser theorem.
To get a copy follow these instructions:
1. ftp to Arpanet/Internet host cli.com.
(cli.com currently has Internet numbers
10.8.0.62 and 192.31.85.1)
2. log in as ftp, password guest
3. get the file /pub/nqthm/README
4. read the file README and follow the directions it gives.
Inquiries concerning tapes may be sent to:
Computational Logic, Inc., Suite 290
1717 W. 6th St.
Austin, Texas 78703
A comprehensive manual is available. For information on obtaining a
copy, write to the address above.
Bob Boyer J Moore
boyer@cli.com moore@cli.com
Due to major changes in the Arpanet, getting through to cli.com may be
difficult starting May 1 until one of the alternative Internet options
is solidly in place.
∂25-Apr-88 1158 JSW Editor/Lisp interfaces
There's been a discussion of editor-based interfaces on the SLUG
(Symbolics Users Group) mailing list for the past few days. Here
is the most recent message if you are interested. I haven't saved
all the preceding messages, but could get them if you want.
∂25-Apr-88 1149 @KL.SRI.COM:slug-admin@Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM ZTOP mode
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Apr 88 11:49:29 PDT
Received: from Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM by KL.SRI.COM with TCP; Mon 25 Apr 88 11:02:22-PDT
Received: from media-lab.MIT.EDU by Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM with INTERNET ;
Mon, 25 Apr 88 09:54:13 PDT
Received: by media-lab.MIT.EDU (5.54/4.8) id AA25204; Mon, 25 Apr 88 12:52:51 EDT
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 88 12:54 EDT
From: Henry@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Henry Lieberman)
Subject: ZTOP mode
To: royt@pravda.gatech.edu
cc: Gumby@MCC.COM (David Vinayak Wallace), slug@Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM
In-Reply-To: <880422005751.3.GUMBY@BRAHMA.ACA.MCC.COM>
Message-Id: <880425125413.4.HENRY@QUANTUM.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: Henry@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
I have been working on Editor/Lisp interfaces for many years.
[In fact, I did what was probably the first one of these --
in MacLisp and Teco God knows how many years ago.] When the
Lisp machine was first operational, I did one for it. It was
roundly denounced by the Symbolics systems hackers; then they
tried to do one of their own, which never quite worked right and
nobody really used. This was the "ZTOP mode" that appeared in the
system until it was diked out in recent versions. Meanwhile, I still
have the one I wrote, which I and others have been using almost
continually since then. Since then, several other MIT-spinoff language
implementations have adopted the same general style of interaction --
notably Coral Common Lisp for the Mac, and Quintus Prolog for the Sun.
I almost never use "Lisp Listeners". It does not work as a "mode".
Instead, you get one [or more] Zmacs buffer[s] called "History"
containing forms evaluated at the top level. It is best used with
multiple windows, some containing buffers of definitions, one
containing the History buffer. There remain certain problems with
interaction with the Lisp interpreter that I never solved
satisfactorily. Interaction with the error breakpoint loop, some
cases where the code does READ-and-PRINT I/O, interaction with
programs that use the RUBOUT-HANDLER protocol [and now the "command
processor"], other window system issues, the use of a separate process
to EVAL forms, are problems that I never completely resolved. I also
have a redesigned, more menu-driven top level interface that I will
someday get around to implementing. I welcome any people who have
also thought about or attacked these problems and would like to
correspond about the subject.
Henry Lieberman
Henry@AI.AI.MIT.Edu
∂25-Apr-88 1807 VAL Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar: Correction and Reminder
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Tomorrow we meet in MJH352, (not 301, as was announced before).
ABDUCTION THROUGH DEDUCTION
Kave Eshghi
Imperial College of Science and Technology, Britain
Tuesday, April 26, 3:15pm
MJH 352
A scheme is introduced for hypothetical reasoning in the
context of logic programming systems. It is compared with negation
as failure, and its application to default reasoning is considered.
The role of integrity checking in abduction is discussed, and a
metalevel formulation of integrity constraints is adopted which
can lead to a rich interaction between hypothesis generation and
integrity checking.
∂25-Apr-88 1825 HALPERN@IBM.COM addresses?
Received: from IBM.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Apr 88 18:25:18 PDT
Date: 25 Apr 88 16:34:45 PDT
From: "Joseph Y. Halpern" <HALPERN@ibm.com>
To: meyer@xx.lcs.mit.edu, zm@sail.stanford.edu, ma@src.dec.com,
VARDI@ibm.com, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <042588.163452.halpern@ibm.com>
Subject: addresses?
Would you have either hardcopy or email addresses for either of Erwin
Engler or Dov Gabbay? Thanks. -- Joe
∂26-Apr-88 1203 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed: NO meeting this week
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Apr 88 12:03:26 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA04626; Tue, 26 Apr 88 12:03:08 PDT
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 88 12:03:08 PDT
From: ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Message-Id: <8804261903.AA04626@polya.stanford.edu>
To: feed
Subject: formfeed: NO meeting this week
... since we met last week. The next meeting will be Thursday May 5.
See you there!
Matt
∂26-Apr-88 1210 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU The moon
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Apr 88 12:10:36 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Tue, 26 Apr 88 12:09:22 PDT
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 88 12:09:22 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: The moon
Cc: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU
Hi there,
A nice quote, thanks. Gee but I sure hope that is not intended as a
reply to my lunch query of last week. Not having heard from you, I
sort of made non-plans (that is, I stayed at home today). I'm leaving
for a week-long conference on Saturday. Would you be interested in
lunch this Thursday?
-helen
∂26-Apr-88 1240 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: The moon
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Apr 88 12:39:58 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Tue, 26 Apr 88 12:38:44 PDT
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 88 12:38:44 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: The moon
Oh, that's too bad. Ok well let me know when you are back in town
again. I did note that Stendahl was not much of an astronomy buff.
Hope you enjoy your travels.
-helen
∂26-Apr-88 1345 JSW Dod Equipment Program
Things that come to mind are:
(1) Upgrading the Alliant: buying the CEs and cache that they have lent
to us; adding more memory, disks, and IPs. Maybe we could get the N.A.
and/or database people to share the use of the machine to increase the
chance of being funded.
(2) Getting the Symbolics multiprocessor.
(3) A machine with more processors, such as a BBN Butterfly.
I noticed that Anoop Gupta's name was not on the distribution list; he
will probably be interested in this program.
∂26-Apr-88 1424 PHY
To:John McCarthy
According to my records, you are supposed to send me on-line
Part E, Theory, Logical Foundations, for the Spring comprehensive,
which I have not yet received. -Phyllis
∂26-Apr-88 1620 bek@cs.duke.edu article
Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (CS.DUKE.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Apr 88 16:20:08 PDT
Received: by duke.cs.duke.edu (5.54/DUKE/10-20-87)
id AA05347; Sun, 24 Apr 88 14:32:40 EDT
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 88 14:32:40 EDT
From: Barrett E. Koster <bek@cs.duke.edu>
Message-Id: <8804241832.AA05347@duke.cs.duke.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: article
Dear John,
I just checked the Duke library for the book with McCarthy and Hayes in
it. Not there. Sorry. You don't happen to have a copy of the text on
line, do you?
Barrett Koster bek@cs.duke.edu
∂26-Apr-88 1622 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: fax machine
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Apr 88 16:22:21 PDT
Date: Tue 26 Apr 88 16:10:36-PDT
From: Yoav Shoham <SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: fax machine
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: faculty@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 26 Apr 88 15:57:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12393635039.22.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I'd love a fax machine here
Yoav
-------
∂26-Apr-88 1635 ARK Re: fax machine
I also vote for a fax machine.
Arthur
∂26-Apr-88 1720 DCL fax
John,
How do you distinguish between fax and electronic mail?
By the way, all good hotels have fax now, but few provide computer
network facilities.
It would be nice to have a proposal for removing the "tower of complexity"
you refer to. Also, some networks seems to be very unreliable.
Is fax unreliable also?
Example: A msg. by net from Stanford to Oslo has a good chance of failing.
A fax from Stanford to Singapore seems to work very reliably.
- David
∂26-Apr-88 1903 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: fax machine
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Apr 88 19:03:01 PDT
Date: Tue 26 Apr 88 18:57:05-PDT
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: fax machine
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU, faculty@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 26 Apr 88 15:57:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12393665345.19.TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I agree with John. I have even considered getting one for the Forum.
It is very inconvenient to send and receive FAX messages. If the
material is online, we can send it to Forsythe Hall online. But if we
have hardcopy or when we receive fax messages, we must send a messenger
to Forsythe.
Carolyn
-------
∂26-Apr-88 1931 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU Re: fax machine
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Apr 88 19:30:58 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 26 Apr 88 19:32:32 PDT
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 88 19:32:32 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: fax machine
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Would you care to elaborate on the statement that "...communication is by
direct telephone connection whichis the way electronic mail should have
been done in 1970 and still should be done."?
-=paulf
∂26-Apr-88 2028 paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu fax et al
Received: from umunhum.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Apr 88 20:28:43 PDT
Received: by umunhum.stanford.edu (1.2/inc-1.2)
id AA17946; Tue, 26 Apr 88 20:29:37 pdt
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 88 20:29:37 pdt
From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Message-Id: <8804270329.AA17946@umunhum.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: fax et al
I was writing a reply to your message, but jessica crashed in the middle of my
telnet session. Blasted machine has been crashing two, three times per day.
Anyway, I'll reply as soon as they get the beast running again. I'd rather
reply over lunch though; are you free this week?
-=paulf
∂27-Apr-88 0410 yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no Visa Application, China Conference '88.
Received: from tor.nta.no by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Apr 88 04:07:51 PDT
Posted-Date: 27 Apr 88 12:57 +0100
Received: by tor.nta.no (5.54/3.21)
id AA17052; Wed, 27 Apr 88 13:01:12 +0200
Date: 27 Apr 88 12:57 +0100
From: Jianhua Yang <yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no>
To: "Bell David Andrew, UK" <cbjw23@ujvax.ulster.ac.UK>,
"Blanco Jose Miguel, Spain" <upvfi.goya!root@TOR.nta.no>,
"Berztiss Alfs T., USA" <alpha%pitt.CSNET@TOR.nta.no>,
"Demolombe Robert, France" <demolomb@tls-cs.cert.FR>,
"Dittrich Klaus R., FRG" <dittrich%germany.CSNET@TOR.nta.no>,
"Dubois Eric, Belgium" <prlb2!dubois@TOR.nta.no>,
"Falkenberg Eckhard D., NL" <kunivv5!ef@TOR.nta.no>,
"Illarramendi Maria A., Spain" <upvfi.goya!root@TOR.nta.no>,
"Jiang, Yue Jun, UK" <jany@cscvax.sx.ac.UK>,
"Knudsen Erik B., Sweden" <suadb!erik@TOR.nta.no>,
"Lum Vincent, USA" <lum@nps-cs.ARPA>,
"McCarthy John, USA" <jmc@sail.stanford.EDU>,
"Meersman, Robert A., NL" <meersman%ktikub5.BITNET@TOR.nta.no>,
"Moulin Bernard, Canada" <moulin%lavalvm1.netnorth@TOR.nta.no>,
"Nguyen Toan Gia, France" <nguyen@imag.imag.FR>,
"Nijssen Gerardus M., Australia" <shir%uqcspe.OZ@TOR.nta.no>,
"Nossum Rolf T., Norway" <nossum%vax.nr.uninett@TOR.nta.no>,
"Potter Walter Don, USA" <ugacs!potter@TOR.nta.no>,
"Reimer Ulrich, FRG" <so_infsc%dknkurz1.BITNET@TOR.nta.no>,
"Reiter Raymond, Canada" <reiter@ai.toronto.EDU>,
"Schiff Jack, FRG" <ecrcvax!jack@TOR.nta.no>,
"Schrefl Michael, Austra" <tuhold!schrefl@TOR.nta.no>,
"Sernadas Amilcar, Portugal" <sernadas%inesc.riup@TOR.nta.no>,
"Sernadas Cristina, Portugal" <mcvax!css!inesc@TOR.nta.no>,
"Shao Jianhua, UK" <cblq23@ujvax.ulster.ac.UK>,
"Sowa John, USA" <sowa%yktvmx.BITNET@TOR.nta.no>,
"Spaccapietra Stefano, France" <spacca@pollux.inria.FR>,
"Twine Steven Mark, Australia" <twine%uqcspe.OZ@TOR.nta.no>,
"Wangler Benkt A.R., Sweden" <suadb!benkt@TOR.nta.no>,
"Wei Linsheng, Canada" <lwei%uotcsi2.BITNET@TOR.nta.no>,
"Wieringa Roel Johan, NL" <roelw@cs.vu.NL>,
"Wohed Rolf A.W., Sweden" <suadb!rolf@TOR.nta.no>,
"Zaniolo Carlo, USA" <carlo@mcc.COM>
Cc: "Yang Jianhua, Norway" <yang%norunit.BITNET@TOR.nta.no>
Message-Id: <206*yang@vax.runit.unit.uninett>
Subject: Visa Application, China Conference '88.
Dear Colleagues,
I would like to inform you that CICCST (China International
Conference Center for Science and Technology) has already sent
invitation letters to all participants. The invitation letters
are in these days arriving different places in the whole (IFIP)
world (e.g., Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, as
far as I know).
However, if you do not receive such an invitation letter in a
week or so, please do not hesitate to contact me by telefax,
e-mail, phone, telex, express-mail, and/or whatsoever (preferably
in that order of preference), such that I can contact
CICCST immediately.
I would also like to remind you that you should start with the visa
application procedure now via the Chinese Embassies/Consulates
near you, unless they tell you that you can get the visa within
a short time. If you have not received the invitation, I think that
you still can start the visa application, simply by explaining to
the Chinese Embassies/Consulates that you will send them the
invitation as soon as it reaches you. It is assumed that the
participants will apply for visa to China by themselves.
We will of course try to help there will be any problem in
connection with the visa application.
Sincerely yours,
Jianhua Yang
<yang@norunit.BITNET>
<yang@idt.unit.no>
<yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@tor.nta.no>
<telex: 55637 NTHAD.N>
<Phone: +47-7-593677 / -594460>
<Facsimile: +47-7-594466>
∂27-Apr-88 0946 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU [H. Roy Jones <JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>: Re: 326,32x]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Apr 88 09:46:40 PDT
Date: Wed 27 Apr 88 09:38:02-PDT
From: Yoav Shoham <SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [H. Roy Jones <JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>: Re: 326,32x]
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12393825718.33.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John, here's the response I got from Roy Jones about the current schedule.
I'm scheduled to teach another course in the winter, but don't mind
flipping things around. Basically, I'm flexible. If you'd like to change
times that fine, and I can go along either with fully joint teaching or
with seperate teaching with guest appearances. Yoav
---------------
Mail-From: JONES created at 26-Apr-88 20:02:43
Date: Tue 26 Apr 88 20:02:43-PDT
From: H. Roy Jones <JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: 326,32x
To: SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12393632848.22.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12393677294.18.JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
You're correct. McCarthy or Lifschitz course is 323 and is scheduled
for winter, while yours is 324 and is scheduled for spring. It was
decided that it made the most sense to have 323 324 be winter spring
so that new phd students could take 221 (old 224) in the fall and then
the advanced logic sequence the rest of the year. It wouldn't be
inconceivable to change it, but it doesn't make much sense.
Roy
-------
-------
∂27-Apr-88 1024 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Teaching next year
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Apr 88 10:24:44 PDT
Date: Wed 27 Apr 88 10:19:20-PDT
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Teaching next year
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Thu 14 Apr 88 17:07:00-PDT
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12393833237.22.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Any word on what courses you plan on teaching next year? We still have
you listed for CS306 in Fall, and CS101 in Winter.
Thanks again.
Claire
-------
∂27-Apr-88 1111 STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Teaching next year
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Apr 88 11:11:25 PDT
Date: Wed 27 Apr 88 11:06:00-PDT
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Teaching next year
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 27 Apr 88 10:57:00-PDT
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-ID: <12393841731.22.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks for the reply.
Claire
-------
∂27-Apr-88 1245 Mailer re: Civil Liberties 17: Vampirism -- Driving the Stake
Received: from ardvax.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Apr 88 12:45:43 PDT
Received: from KSL-1186-5.Stanford.EDU by ardvax.stanford.edu with TCP; Wed, 27 Apr 88 12:44:08 PDT
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 12:39:55 PDT
From: Bill Yeager <yeager@ardvax.stanford.edu>
Subject: re: Civil Liberties 17: Vampirism -- Driving the Stake
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <608142347.A2945.KSL-1186-5.yeager@ARDVAX.STANFORD.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message from John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> of 27 Apr 88 1227 PDT
I guess what irk's me most about the drug testing issue (I admit to playing
devil's advocate) is that some poor athlete takes a drug for asthma
and end's up being disqualified because of the presence of a miniscule amount
of X or its metabolites in the individual's urine.
It isn't clear to me that clinical trials have been run
on every drug on the banned list to evaluate their effects on athletic
performance. In fact, I would bet that
some of the prohibited drugs have either zero or a negative effect and that
many of them pose no serious health threats(long or short term) ...
Bill
∂27-Apr-88 1339 bek@cs.duke.edu paper
Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Apr 88 13:39:28 PDT
Received: by duke.cs.duke.edu (5.54/DUKE/10-20-87)
id AA28636; Wed, 27 Apr 88 16:39:57 EDT
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 16:39:57 EDT
From: Barrett E. Koster <bek@cs.duke.edu>
Message-Id: <8804272039.AA28636@duke.cs.duke.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: paper
John,
I got your paper by ftp. Thanks. I'll digest it for a while and
then let you know what I think.
Barry
∂27-Apr-88 1410 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Our 1-page flame
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Apr 88 14:10:25 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA04995; Wed, 27 Apr 88 14:09:45 pdt
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 14:09:45 pdt
From: Ramin Zabih <rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8804272109.AA04995@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Our 1-page flame
Here's what John Woodfill and I wrote. We're planning on coming to
talk to you about this stuff at 4:30. See you then.
Ramin
********************************************************************
Assumption: some logical theory of the sort widely assumed in AI can
approximate human higher-faculty reasoning. By "the sort widely
assumed in AI" we mean the style typified in LFAI, and widely ascribed
to the "Logicist" camp. By "higher-faculty reasoning", we mean the
sort of reasoning that distinguishes humans from animals.
Pro's:
[1] Clearly works for things like digital circuit design/diagnosis.
[2] Well-defined research program with clear semantics. (So far, the
"only game in town").
Con's:
[1] Much common-sense knowledge is never explicitly acquired. This
casts serious doubt on the possibility of declaratively representing
it.
[2] Implicitly requires lots of observer- and context-independent
facts, presupposing a categorization (or "cutting up") of the world
that preceeds language.
[3] Moving away from prelinguistic facts requires adding some X (we
wish to avoid overusing the word "context") . This X has the
following properties:
It provides a logical model corresponding to the real world,
from some agent's view at some time (an "orbiculus").
It provides some notion of reference, ie, a mapping between
parts of the world and elements of the model.
Communication works by virtue of having similar orbiculi and
similar interpretations of terms.
∂27-Apr-88 1507 NSH
∂27-Apr-88 1036 JMC
Would you like to teach cs306 again next year?
Yes, I think I'd enjoy teaching cs306 again.
It really was a lot of fun the last time and the
students were really excellent. If you prefer, I could
assist you or Carolyn in teaching the course.
I examined the NSF request for proposals and decided
that it is not worth the effort of putting together a
proposal for $4000/undergraduate/yr.
Shankar
∂27-Apr-88 1634 JSW Orals
Sharon says that the university won't provide a chairman between June 2
and July 4. But as long as you can get someone from another department to
do it, there will be no problem scheduling the exam in June.
∂27-Apr-88 1830 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: fax et al
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Apr 88 18:29:44 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 27 Apr 88 18:30:12 PDT
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 18:30:12 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: fax et al
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Just got your invitation. Guess we'll have to try again next week...
-=paulf
∂28-Apr-88 0127 unido!ecrcvax!herold@uunet.UU.NET Visit to Munich and ECRC
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Apr 88 01:26:53 PDT
Received: from unido.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14) with UUCP
id AA13564; Thu, 28 Apr 88 04:26:41 EDT
Received: by unido.uucp with uucp;
Thu, 28 Apr 88 09:02:05 +0100
Received: by ecrcvax.ecrc (5.51/4.7)
id AA24536; Thu, 28 Apr 88 09:59:24 +0200
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 88 09:59:24 +0200
From: "Alexander Herold" <unido!ecrcvax!herold@uunet.UU.NET>
Message-Id: <8804280759.AA24536@ecrcvax.ecrc>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Visit to Munich and ECRC
Cc: ecrcvax!herold@uunet.UU.NET, ecrcvax!herve@uunet.UU.NET,
uklirb!siekmann@uunet.UU.NET, ztivax!reinfra@uunet.UU.NET
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
As Herve Gallaire has told me, you are staying for one week in Munich before
leaving for Moskow. I tried to arrange some dates for you during this visit.
Of course, these dates are not fixed, so if you have any other plans we can
rearrange everything. I would like to propose you the following schedule:
Monday, the 9th of May: ECRC
Tuesday, the 10th of May: you are invited to visit Siemens, the contact
person will be Mike Reinfrank (you probably know him)
Wednesday, the 11th of May: you are invited to visit the Technical University
of Munich (the contact is person is Prof. Radig)
Thursday, the 12th of May is a public holiday. I would like to propose you
that you are going this day to Kaiserslautern which is about 400 km from
Munich. There is a direct train connection from Munich to Kaiserslautern.
Friday the 13th of May you are invited to visit the University of
Kaiserslautern. They would like that you are giving a talk there. (the
contact person is Prof. Siekmann, with whom you already had contact). If you
are leaving for Moscow via Frankfurt it is not very far to go form
Kaisersluatern to Frankfurt.
Please let me know, if this preliminary schedule is ok for you.
With best regards
Alexander Herold
my net address is:
mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!herold or herold%ecrcvax.UUCP@Germany.CSNET
you can also reach me by phone: 49-89-92699189
∂28-Apr-88 1040 OKUNO@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU [Ken Kahn <Kahn.pa@Xerox.COM>: Jacob Levy would like to meet with the QLisp group]
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Apr 88 10:39:57 PDT
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 88 10:40:10 PDT
From: Hiroshi "Gitchang" Okuno <Okuno@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [Ken Kahn <Kahn.pa@Xerox.COM>: Jacob Levy would like to meet with the QLisp group]
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU, clt@sail.Stanford.EDU,
rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Knowledge Systems Laboratory, CSD, Stanford University
Group: Heuristic Programming Project
Project: Advanced Architectures Project
Address: 701 Welch Road, Building C, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1703
Phone: +1 (415)725-4854
Message-ID: <12394099172.14.OKUNO@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
John, Carolyn and Igor,
I got a following message from Ken Kahn. Could you arrange a meeting
of the QLISP project with Jacob Levy, who was a Ph.D student under
Judi Shapiro last year, but I'm not sure about his current status.
Thanks in advance,
- Gitchang -
Return-Path: <Kahn.pa@Xerox.COM>
Received: from Xerox.COM by SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Thu, 28 Apr 88 10:27:51 PDT
Received: from Salvador.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 28 APR 88 10:27:05 PDT
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 88 10:27:07 PDT
From: Ken Kahn <Kahn.pa@Xerox.COM>
Subject: Jacob Levy would like to meet with the QLisp group
To: Hiroshi "Gitchang" Okuno <Okuno@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
cc: JLevy.pa@Xerox.COM
Message-ID: <880428-102705-7467@Xerox>
Hi. Jacob Levy is a member of the Vulcan group from the Weizmann
Institute. He is scouting around for both work and interesting
projects in the area. Could you help arrange a meeting between him
and other members of the QLISP group to both exchange ideas (among
much else Jacob has implemented CFL (a concurrent functional language)
which compiles to FCP [flat concurrent prolog]) and to explore the
possibility of employment. Thanks.
-------
∂28-Apr-88 1134 justeson@polya.stanford.edu letters/jobs
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Apr 88 11:32:11 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA15087; Thu, 28 Apr 88 11:32:08 PDT
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 88 11:32:08 PDT
From: justeson@polya.stanford.edu (John Justeson)
Message-Id: <8804281832.AA15087@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: letters/jobs
I haven't seen you around lately, so I wanted to let you know I'm accepting
a 2-year postdoc at Watson. It's contingent on passing a drug screening,
and I don't know how reliable they are, so I won't know for sure for another
week. So, if you're contacted for more letters, hang on to them but don't
bother to send anything for the time being. I'll let you know when everything
is resolved.
Thanks very much for all your help.
John
∂28-Apr-88 1517 tah@linz.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Apr 88 15:16:59 PDT
Received: from linz.Stanford.EDU by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA01184; Thu, 28 Apr 88 15:14:20 PDT
Received: by linz.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA25816; Thu, 28 Apr 88 14:27:34 PDT
Message-Id: <8804282127.AA25816@linz.stanford.edu>
To: lop@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: goguen@csl.sri.com
Subject: Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Date: 28 Apr 88 14:27:30 PDT (Thu)
From: Tom Henzinger <tah@linz.stanford.edu>
*************************************
* LOGIC OF PROGRAMS [LOP] Seminar *
*************************************
Fridays 11:30-12:30, MJH 301
April 29: Dr. Joseph A. Goguen (SRI),
"OBJ as a Theorem Prover"
May 6: Dr. Douglas R. Smith (Kestrel Institute),
"A Tactical Approach to Algorithm Design"
∂28-Apr-88 1525 MPS Birthday
I forgot to ask you yesterday if it was alright for me
to take my birthday holiday on Friday. Well, I did.
If you really need me to come in, give me a call at
967-5767. Otherwise, see you on Monday.
Pat
∂29-Apr-88 0441 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU JPL Paper
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Apr 88 04:41:39 PDT
Received: ID <THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Fri 29 Apr 88 07:43:42-EDT
Date: Fri 29 Apr 88 07:43:41-EDT
From: Rich.Thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: JPL Paper
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Message-ID: <12394296423.9.THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
Plans are now firm to make the AI & Philosophical Logic
collection the December 1988 issue of the Journal of Philosophical
Logic. That means August 1 is an absolute date for final copy. And I'd
need to see a draft a month before that. What is the outlook for your
position paper on that understanding?
Thanks,
--Rich
-------
∂29-Apr-88 1001 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU re: JPL Paper
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Apr 88 10:01:18 PDT
Received: ID <THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Fri 29 Apr 88 13:03:17-EDT
Date: Fri 29 Apr 88 13:03:15-EDT
From: Rich.Thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: re: JPL Paper
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Fri 29 Apr 88 09:11:00-EDT
Message-ID: <12394354596.15.THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
Other contributors are:
Halpern & Fagin
Israel
Levesque
Lifshitz (expansion of AAAI-87 paper)
Shoham
Vladimir's paper will provide background on circumscript can
describe contents of other papers if you need more information.
--Rich
-------
∂29-Apr-88 1341 JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU CS101
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Apr 88 13:41:44 PDT
Date: Fri 29 Apr 88 13:36:12-PDT
From: H. Roy Jones <JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: CS101
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: : ;
Message-ID: <12394393363.29.JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Currently, we're offering CS101 every other year. However, because of
a change in requirements, very few students are taking the class. Most
of the students the class is intended for are taking CS75 and CS105. I'd
like to cancel the class so we can make better use of your valuable teaching
time. Does this sound ok?
Roy
-------
∂29-Apr-88 1439 Qlisp-mailer meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Apr 88 14:38:49 PDT
Received: from SUN.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef)
id AA00607; Fri, 29 Apr 88 14:39:15 pdt
Message-Id: <8804292139.AA00607@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: meeting
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 88 14:39:13 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
will be held this coming wednesday, May 4th, in MJH 301 at noon.
We will discuss the ongoing computer algebra efforts, as well as
the papers some of us are writing.
CU there.
∂29-Apr-88 1501 chandler@polya.stanford.edu CSD Retreat
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Apr 88 15:01:19 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA22242; Fri, 29 Apr 88 15:01:03 PDT
Message-Id: <8804292201.AA22242@polya.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1988 15:01:02 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: cheriton@pescdero.stanford.edu, ullman@score.stanford.edu,
feignebaum@sumex.stanford.edu, genesereth@score.stanford.edu,
oliger@pride.stanford.edu, mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu,
mayr@score.stanford.edu
Cc: chandler, nilsson@tenaya.stanford.edu
Subject: CSD Retreat
Our records indicate that you will attend the retreat but there's no
indication that you will give a talk. Please let me know if you will
be giving a talk, enabling me to complete my records. Thanks for your
help.
∂29-Apr-88 1507 chandler@polya.stanford.edu CSD Retreat
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Apr 88 15:07:19 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA22610; Fri, 29 Apr 88 15:07:05 PDT
Message-Id: <8804292207.AA22610@polya.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1988 15:07:00 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: cab@sail.stanford.edu, gill@score.stanford.edu, ejm@sierra.stanford.edu,
oliger@pride.stanford.edu, rosenbloom@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: nilsson, chandler
Subject: CSD Retreat
Please help me complete me records and enable me to make final arrangements
for the retreat by letting me know as soon as possible if you will (1) be
attending and (2) if you are planning to give a talk.
Thanks much for your help.
∂29-Apr-88 2317 JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU re: CS101
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Apr 88 23:17:18 PDT
Date: Fri 29 Apr 88 23:11:51-PDT
From: H. Roy Jones <JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: CS101
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Fri 29 Apr 88 16:33:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12394498158.12.JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Ok, let's offer it again in 89-90 and address the question again then.
Roy
-------
∂30-Apr-88 0700 JMC
Hedman re Chudnovsky
∂30-Apr-88 2053 LAWS@KL.SRI.COM Response to "Missed Message"
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Apr 88 20:53:23 PDT
Date: Sat 30 Apr 88 20:53:02-PDT
From: Ken Laws <LAWS@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: Response to "Missed Message"
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Reply-To: AIList-Request@SRI.COM
Message-ID: <12394735031.13.LAWS@KL.SRI.COM>
Return-Path: <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from SAIL.Stanford.EDU by KL.SRI.COM with TCP; Sat 30 Apr 88 13:02:33-PDT
Date: 30 Apr 88 1302 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: missed message
To: ailist@SRI.COM
I sent you the following on the 18th. Since it wasn't included in your
recent digest number #86, I assume it got lost due to the incorrect
address having been generated by some reply macro. This seems like
a good occasion to solicit reactions to our 1969 notions. If you like,
I'll send a longer message summarizing the ideas, but I probably won't
have time to do it before I go on a two week trip starting May 4.
[This was received, and was sent out in V6 N76 on April 21.
I have no objection to running it again, but perhaps a few
details about your position might draw more response. Most
of the list members weren't following philosophical AI
discussions in 1969. -- KIL]
18-Apr-88 1745 JMC re: AIList V6 #72 - Queries
To: AIList@KL.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Sun 17 Apr 1988 23:35-PDT.]
McCarthy, John and P.J. Hayes (1969): ``Some Philosophical Problems from
the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence'', in D. Michie (ed), Machine
Intelligence 4, American Elsevier, New York, NY discusses the problem of
free will for machines. I never got any reaction to that discussion,
pro or con, in the 19 years since it was published and would be grateful
for some.
-------
∂01-May-88 1002 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
Received: from ono-sendai.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 May 88 10:02:21 PDT
Received: by ono-sendai.stanford.edu with TCP; Sun, 1 May 88 10:02:20 PDT
Date: Sun, 1 May 88 10:02:20 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
Just finished reading Rand's _The New Left: The Anti - Industrial Revolution_.
If you havn't read this, I'll loan you my copy.
-=paulf
∂01-May-88 1035 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
Received: from ono-sendai.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 May 88 10:35:52 PDT
Received: by ono-sendai.stanford.edu with TCP; Sun, 1 May 88 10:35:52 PDT
Date: Sun, 1 May 88 10:35:52 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
Tomorrow will be just fine. Where?
-=paulf
∂01-May-88 1047 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
Received: from ono-sendai.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 May 88 10:47:12 PDT
Received: by ono-sendai.stanford.edu with TCP; Sun, 1 May 88 10:47:11 PDT
Date: Sun, 1 May 88 10:47:11 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
Um, no I don't know what you look like, but then, you don't know what I look
like, either (5'10", heavy set, mustache). I'll be at the bike rack in front.
-=paulf
∂01-May-88 1053 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
Received: from ono-sendai.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 May 88 10:53:13 PDT
Received: by ono-sendai.stanford.edu with TCP; Sun, 1 May 88 10:53:14 PDT
Date: Sun, 1 May 88 10:53:14 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Ayn Rand's _The New Left_
Okay. If you have access to _MacWorld_ magazine, there is a picture of me
in the April issue (p. 117).
-=paulf
∂02-May-88 0945 chandler@polya.stanford.edu re: CSD Retreat
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 May 88 09:45:17 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA16558; Mon, 2 May 88 09:45:20 PDT
Message-Id: <8805021645.AA16558@polya.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 May 1988 9:45:18 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: CSD Retreat
In-Reply-To: Your message of 29 Apr 88 1635 PDT
John, what are your room requirements....single or double? Will you
be staying over Friday and Saturday nights? Please advise ASAP. Thanks.
∂02-May-88 1000 JMC
change reservation
∂02-May-88 1007 devlin@csli.stanford.edu Lunch
Received: from csli.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 May 88 10:07:24 PDT
Received: by csli.stanford.edu (3.2/4.7); Mon, 2 May 88 10:11:42 PDT
Date: Mon 2 May 88 10:11:41-PDT
From: Keith Devlin <DEVLIN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Lunch
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <578596301.0.DEVLIN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
John,
I just saw on the ai bboard that you are about to go on a two week
trip, and that reminded me that I had intended to try to arrange
that lunch together. I shall get in touch again when you get back.
I am looking forward to it.
Keith Devlin
-------
∂02-May-88 1100 JMC
Inference bill
∂02-May-88 1238 VAL Nonmonotonic seminar - no meeting
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
There will be no meeting this Friday, May 6.
- Vladimir
∂02-May-88 1452 chandler@polya.stanford.edu re: CSD Retreat
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 May 88 14:52:30 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA03326; Mon, 2 May 88 14:52:36 PDT
Message-Id: <8805022152.AA03326@polya.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 May 1988 14:52:35 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: CSD Retreat
In-Reply-To: Your message of 02 May 88 1415 PDT
Thanks.
∂02-May-88 1733 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu herold%mcvax!unido!ecrcvax.uucp@uunet.uu.net
Received: from ono-sendai.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 May 88 17:33:06 PDT
Received: by ono-sendai.stanford.edu with TCP; Mon, 2 May 88 17:33:02 PDT
Date: Mon, 2 May 88 17:33:02 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: herold%mcvax!unido!ecrcvax.uucp@uunet.uu.net
The above address should work, as we are sending mail to a former CSL
student in the Netherlands, using the same scheme.
-=paulf
ps...The simplest way to get into any system at Stanford is to buy an
IBM pc with an ethernet card, and tap into the 36.56 subnet. Think
about how many telnet sessions are openned each day!
∂02-May-88 1909 MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.UU.NET Returned mail: Host unknown
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 May 88 19:09:41 PDT
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14)
id AA10707; Mon, 2 May 88 22:09:29 EDT
Date: Mon, 2 May 88 22:09:29 EDT
From: MAILER-DAEMON@uunet.UU.NET (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
Message-Id: <8805030209.AA10707@uunet.UU.NET>
To: <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <herold%mcvax!unido!ecrcvax.uucp@UUNET.UU.NET>... Host unknown
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14)
id AA10696; Mon, 2 May 88 22:09:29 EDT
Message-Id: <8805030209.AA10696@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 02 May 88 1909 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: visits
To: herold%mcvax!unido!ecrcvax.uucp@uunet.UU.NET
mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!herold@uunet.uu.net
visits
I hope this email address works. Please acknowledge if you get it. The
visits are fine except that I don't want to go to Kaiserslautern, because
I need to work on a paper and prefer to stay in Munich the whole week. I
presently plan to fly to Moscow directly from Munich.
∂02-May-88 1918 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu uunet
Received: from ono-sendai.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 May 88 19:18:28 PDT
Received: by ono-sendai.stanford.edu with TCP; Mon, 2 May 88 19:18:27 PDT
Date: Mon, 2 May 88 19:18:27 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: uunet
Hmmm, well, that is the "standard syntax", and should have worked.
I'm trying out another one right now, and if it doesn't get kicked back
to me, I'll let you know.
-=paulf
∂02-May-88 2122 paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu mail et al
Received: from ono-sendai.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 May 88 21:22:46 PDT
Received: by ono-sendai.stanford.edu with TCP; Mon, 2 May 88 21:22:45 PDT
Date: Mon, 2 May 88 21:22:45 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@ono-sendai.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: mail et al
mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!herold@uunet.uu.net should work (just worked for me).
Needless to say, this case fits in rather well with your opinions vis a vis
computer mail via the phone system. A typical mail path takes at least
two or three days to hack out.
You get what you pay for. :-)
-=paulf
∂03-May-88 0757 unido!ecrcvax!herold@uunet.UU.NET Re: visits
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 07:57:19 PDT
Received: from unido.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14) with UUCP
id AA05674; Tue, 3 May 88 10:57:04 EDT
Received: by unido.uucp with uucp;
Tue, 3 May 88 12:01:55 +0100
Received: by ecrcvax.ecrc (5.51/4.7)
id AA08443; Tue, 3 May 88 10:27:48 +0200
Date: Tue, 3 May 88 10:27:48 +0200
From: "Alexander Herold" <unido!ecrcvax!herold@uunet.UU.NET>
Message-Id: <8805030827.AA08443@ecrcvax.ecrc>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: visits
I herewith acknowledge your mail and I have cancelled the trip to
Kaiserslautern.
See you in Munich
∂03-May-88 0900 JMC
bjork + feigenbaum
∂03-May-88 0951 PAULF@KL.SRI.COM WAITS
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 09:51:21 PDT
Date: Tue 3 May 88 09:10:36-PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <PAULF@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: WAITS
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12395393587.25.PAULF@KL.SRI.COM>
Somebody was tossing out manuals in ERL yesterday, and I acquired the
WAITS MONITOR and UUO manuals. Made for a few hours of interesting
reading.
Given the specialized nature of the hardware, how is it going to be
replaced?
-=paulf
-------
∂03-May-88 1249 @Score.Stanford.EDU:IRVINE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU AI Qualifying Exam
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 12:49:35 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 3 May 88 12:44:07-PDT
Date: Tue, 3 May 88 12:49:15 PDT
From: Sue Irvine <Irvine@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: AI Qualifying Exam
To: Brown@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, Hayes-Roth@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU,
Feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, Buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU,
Keller@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, McCarthy@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
Nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, Genesereth@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
Latombe@COYOTE.STANFORD.EDU, Binford@COYOTE.STANFORD.EDU,
Shoham@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, Lifschitz@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
Rosenschein@ai.sri.com.stanford.edu
cc: Irvine@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12395433391.52.IRVINE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
We are preparing to schedule the AI qualifying exam on May 27, in which we
would like to invite your participation. We are planning parallel sessions
(two hours each) from 8:30 to 3:30, with a wrap-up decision session at 3:30.
Would you please send a message to my secretary (Irvine@Sumex) letting her
know whether you will be able to assist in administering the exam. Please
also let her know if there is a time during that day when you will be
unavailable.
The reading list for the qualifying exam is contained in Report
STAN-CS-86-1093 (also KSL 85-54) authored by Devika Subramanian and Bruce
Buchanan. We can send you a copy of the report if you like.
The students who have signed up for the exam are:
Michael Wolverton machine learning
Don Geddis planning & prob. solving
Joseph Jacobs Planning & prob. solving
David Jason Zhu planning & prob. solving
Eunok Paek nonmonotonic reasoning
Adam Grove logical methods in AI
Andrew Kosoresow prob. solving, distributed problem
solving & planning
Thank you,
Edward A. Feigenbaum
-------
∂03-May-88 1655 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed to meet on Thursday
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 16:55:08 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA23952; Tue, 3 May 88 16:54:50 PDT
Date: Tue, 3 May 88 16:54:50 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805032354.AA23952@polya.stanford.edu>
To: feed
Subject: formfeed to meet on Thursday
Don't forget! Andrew Baker says that he's solved the Yale shooting
problem, and proposes to tell us about it ...
Matt
∂03-May-88 1839 PAULF@KL.SRI.COM re: WAITS
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 18:38:59 PDT
Date: Tue 3 May 88 18:38:11-PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <PAULF@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: re: WAITS
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 3 May 88 11:43:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12395496914.11.PAULF@KL.SRI.COM>
Out of interest, what will you "replace" it with?
-=paulf
-------
∂03-May-88 2002 PAULF@KL.SRI.COM re: WAITS
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 20:02:03 PDT
Date: Tue 3 May 88 20:01:13-PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <PAULF@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: re: WAITS
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 3 May 88 18:44:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12395512028.11.PAULF@KL.SRI.COM>
Hmmm... be careful with Sun; they've grown too fast, and are having quality
control and maintenance problems. The Sequent that Luckham's group has
is pretty reliable. Do you want to continue to experiment with
peripherals like the IIIs? One thing that Stanford seems to be sorely
missing at the moment is a cooperative project between the hardware hacks,
and the software folks.
Of course, it is rather difficult to appraise a machine that I've never
logged in on...:-)
-=paulf
-------
∂03-May-88 2132 CLT rope
Please don't forget to take out the rope for Harold from the shed.
∂03-May-88 2229 PAULF@KL.SRI.COM re: WAITS
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 22:29:16 PDT
Date: Tue 3 May 88 22:28:27-PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <PAULF@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: re: WAITS
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12395538834.20.PAULF@KL.SRI.COM>
I have accounts on several machines (including sri-kl) on which I act as
a consultant, in exchange for access to the machine. I do it mainly for
the exposure to different operating systems and architectures. My standard
sales pitch includes the spotting of bugs and the eradication of said;
however, I'd be happy to make a formal recommendation on what to replace
SAIL with. For starters, would you like to retain some of the peripherals,
like the video switch, or the display terminals?
-=paulf
-------
∂03-May-88 2301 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 3 May 1988
Previous Balance 20.40
Payment(s) 20.40 (check 4/11/88)
-------
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.
∂04-May-88 0800 JMC
Feigenbaum
∂04-May-88 0800 JMC
rope
∂04-May-88 1400 @Score.Stanford.EDU:IRVINE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU AI Qual - URGENT
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 May 88 14:00:00 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Wed 4 May 88 13:52:39-PDT
Date: Wed, 4 May 88 13:37:38 PDT
From: Sue Irvine <Irvine@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: AI Qual - URGENT
To: Keller@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, McCarthy@score.Stanford.EDU,
Genesereth@score.Stanford.EDU, Binford@coyote.Stanford.EDU,
Buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
cc: Irvine@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12395704345.75.IRVINE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Please respond to my secretary (Irvine@sumex) as soon as possible about your
availability to participate in the AI qualifying exam on May 27. For those of
you who may be concerned about a possible conflict with the CS Department
Retreat, we will conclude the decision wrap-up session by 4:30.
Thank you,
Edward A. Feigenbaum
-------
∂04-May-88 1537 chandler@polya.stanford.edu Special Faculty Meeting 5/3/88 - Vote
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 May 88 15:37:40 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA04139; Wed, 4 May 88 15:37:29 PDT
Message-Id: <8805042237.AA04139@polya.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 May 1988 15:37:27 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: buchanan@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
goldberg@polya.stanford.edu, golub@mimsy.stanford.edu,
guibas@decwrl.dec.com, dek@sail.stanford.edu, mayr@score.stanford.edu,
jmc@sail.stanford.edu, ejm@sierra.stanford.edu,
pratt@navajo.stanford.edu, ullman@score.stanford.edu,
winograd@csli.stanford.edu
Cc: chandler, nilssen@tenaya.stanford.edu
Subject: Special Faculty Meeting 5/3/88 - Vote
The CSD faculty met 5/3 to consider the appointment of Jeffrey L. Eppinger,
as an assistant professor replacing Manolis Katevenis, and Monica S. Lam,
as an assistant professor replacing Keith Lantz. Their papers are available
for you to read in my office. Will you please drop by and have a look at
them as soon as possible and give me your vote? Thanks.
∂04-May-88 1714 @RELAY.CS.NET:bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca Delphes
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 May 88 17:14:21 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa18482; 4 May 88 17:50 EDT
Received: from ubc by RELAY.CS.NET id aa06250; 4 May 88 17:47 EDT
Received: by ean.ubc.ca id AA18531; Wed, 4 May 88 11:50:21 pdt
Date: 4 May 88 11:49 -0700
From: Wolfgang Bibel <bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca>
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <968*bibel@vision.ubc.cdn>
Subject: Delphes
John,
Only now I received an invitation to the Delphes-Meeting which
certainly would be an attractive place to go. Since time is so short
I'd rather see it also be a fruitful scientific event. For that reason
let me ask you whether you have decided to attend it which would be one
more good reason for me to go.
I sent you recently a couple of papers that are the first fruits of
being here in Northamerica.
Wolfgang
∂05-May-88 0948 Qlisp-mailer Contention for Memory
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 May 88 09:47:58 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef) id AA09625; Thu, 5 May 88 09:47:11 pdt
Date: Thu, 5 May 88 09:47:11 pdt
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8805051647.AA09625@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Contention for Memory
As we expected, when we recently boosted the number of processors
to 7, contention for allocation of memory became quite noticeable.
The main question is:
Should allocation/deallocation serialization be fixed to work right?
That depends on our applications. If all of our "interesting"
applications spend less than 1/8 of their time consing up data
structures (we will only have 8 processors) then I claim we probably
do not need to fix either allocation or deallocation.
Serial memory allocation and serial memory deallocation (GC)
are two sides of the same coin. If a program spends a fraction
X of its time doing these serial tasks, you can never get a speedup
greater than 1/x.
The towers of hanoi is a very nicely behaved, balanced problem.
However, when the function is parallelized, it only speeds up by
roughly a factor of 2, no matter how many processors are used (between
2 and 7), because it conses alot.
The reason for only a factor of two speedup is the *cons-lock*. The
hanoi program spends half its time making a call to cons, which is
necessarily (currently) serial.
The (optimized) Boyer program spends roughly 1/5 of its time consing.
So, in our system, speeding up the Boyer program by more than a factor
of 5 is not possible, no matter how many processors. The fastest time
for the Boyer benchmark is just under 3 seconds, using 7 processors,
and an optimized version of the code in Dick's book. This gave a
speed up of 3.9.
If you classify the Boyer program as "interesting", then the memory
allocation/deallocation problem should be fixed...
;;; Serial
(defun hanoi (a b c n)
(cond ((= n 1) (cons a c))
(T (cons (hanoi a c b (1- n))
(cons (cons a c)
(hanoi b a c (1- n)))))))
;;; Parallel
(defun phanoi (a b c n)
(cond ((= n 1) (cons a c))
(T #!(cons (phanoi a c b (1- n))
(cons (cons a c)
(phanoi b a c (1- n)))))))
∂05-May-88 1012 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed meets today!
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 May 88 10:12:29 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA29181; Thu, 5 May 88 10:12:18 PDT
Date: Thu, 5 May 88 10:12:18 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805051712.AA29181@polya.stanford.edu>
To: feed
Subject: formfeed meets today!
Don't forget! MJH 252 at noon ...
Matt
∂05-May-88 1018 tah@linz.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 May 88 10:18:23 PDT
Received: from linz.Stanford.EDU by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA29352; Thu, 5 May 88 10:15:46 PDT
Received: by linz.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA06150; Thu, 5 May 88 10:13:18 PDT
Message-Id: <8805051713.AA06150@linz.stanford.edu>
To: lop@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: smith@kestrel.stanford.edu
Subject: Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Date: 05 May 88 10:13:15 PDT (Thu)
From: Tom Henzinger <tah@linz.stanford.edu>
*************************************
* LOGIC OF PROGRAMS [LOP] Seminar *
*************************************
Fridays 11:30-12:30, MJH 301
May 6: Dr. Douglas R. Smith (Kestrel Institute),
"A Tactical Approach to Algorithm Design"
May 13: Dr. Val Breazu-Tannen (Univ. of Pennsylvania),
"Some Comparative Anatomy of Type Disciplines"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: A Tactical Approach to Algorithm Design
Speaker: Douglas R. Smith
Affiliation: Kestrel Institute (Palo Alto, California)
ABSTRACT:
We present an approach to automating algorithm design that is based on
formalizing classes of algorithms as abstract axiomatic theories. A
given problem specification is treated as a concrete theory embedded
in more general theories of the problem domains involved. Algorithm
design is a process of extending the concrete problem theory with an
appropriate instance of an abstract algorithmic theory. The extended
theory then allows the inference of various logic assertions that
constitute a logic program for computing solutions. Part of the power
of this approach is that much of this inference/algorithm design
process can be specified in the abstract and coded into a design
tactic that then applies across a broad variety of problems.
The design tactics we have developed are nearly automatic
and can be viewed as highly reusable derivation structures.
We illustrate this approach by presenting the abstract structure
underlying several well-known classes of algorithms. Tactics for
deriving global search and divide-and-conquer algorithms will be
presented and experience with a prototype synthesis system will be
discussed.
∂05-May-88 1154 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Sarah
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 May 88 11:54:20 PDT
Date: Thu 5 May 88 11:48:52-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Sarah
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: BScott@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12395946689.9.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John, I mentioned Sarah's availability this summer to Yvette Sloan, and also
sent Gene Golub a message asking him whether he would be around this summer
and would need a secretary. I'll let you know if anything definite turns
up.
Betty
-------
∂06-May-88 0541 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM let he who passed the first stone sin with a platypus
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 May 88 05:41:23 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 291441; Fri 6-May-88 08:41:05 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 62062; Fri 6-May-88 05:39:38 PDT
Date: Fri, 6 May 88 05:38 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: let he who passed the first stone sin with a platypus
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, "gasper@nuacc.acns.nwu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19880506123838.6.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
bcc: "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Indeed, it seems that
N
/===\
! !
N N ! ! SIN(A + B )
==== ==== ! ! I J
\ \ J = 1
SIN( > A + B ) = > --------------------- .
/ I I / 1≤J≤N
==== ==== /===\
I = 1 I = 1 ! !
! ! SIN(A - A )
! ! I J
J ≠ I
It is surprising that you can express the sin of the sum of 2n angles
as a sum of only n products of n factors. If you just used the straight
addition formula, you'd get a sum of 2↑(n-1) products of n factors,
assuming, for fairness, that you only trigexpanded down to
SINorCOS(A[I]+B[I]). (Otherwise, it would be 2↑n times as big!)
The formula is also interesting for B[I] := 0.
I still haven't tried to prove it, because I was chasing the q-version:
N N
/===\ SQQ(B ) ====
! ! I \
( ! ! -------) SQ( > A + B ) =
! ! SQQ(A ) / I I
I = 1 I ====
I = 1
N N
==== /===\
\ ! !
SQQ( > (A + B ) - A ) ! ! SQ(A + B )
N / J J I ! ! I J
==== ==== J = 1
\ J = 1
> ------------------------------------------- ,
/ 1≤J≤N
==== /===\
I = 1 ! !
SQQ(A ) ! ! SQ(A - A )
I ! ! I J
J ≠ I
where SQ := SIN_Q, and SQQ := SIN_Q / SIN_Q↑2, which is completely invisible in
Q=1 land! The identity I mentioned with CQQs, (invisible COS_Q / COS_Q↑2) was
a marvelous MacGuffin (where are you, m-$?) which was only true for n≤2. But
it took me a night to be sure, because the false formula it gave for n=3 was,
for random arguments, correct to 10 decimal places!. (And exact, of course,
for Q=1, and for 0 = sum of As and Bs.)
∂06-May-88 0817 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:zhangh@turing.cs.rpi.edu x↑n = x ring problem
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 May 88 08:17:11 PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 6 May 88 08:08:19-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Fri 6 May 88 11:07:50-EDT
Received: from turing.cs.rpi.edu (TCP 20065202532) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 6 May 88 10:32:37 EDT
Date: Thu, 5 May 88 15:41:09 EDT
From: zhangh@turing.cs.rpi.edu (Hantao Zhang)
Received: by turing.cs.rpi.edu (3.2/1.2-RPI-CS-Dept)
id AA17275; Thu, 5 May 88 15:41:09 EDT
Message-Id: <8805051941.AA17275@turing.cs.rpi.edu>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: x↑n = x ring problem
This short note is to report about the success of the RRL
(Rewrite Rule Laboratory) theorem prover in proving for many values of
n, for an associative ring that if for every x, x↑n = x, then the ring
is commutative. We first give a brief background of the problem and
then, give our results.
The above problem for the case n = 3, i.e. ,if every element
x of an associative ring satisfies x*x*x = x, then the ring is
commutative, has been considered as one of the most challenging
problems for automated reasoning programs (see for instance, Bledsoe, W.,
"Non-resolution theorem proving", Artificial Intelligence 9, 1, pp.1-35,
1977 and Wos, L., "Automated reasoning: 33 basic research problems",
pp.205-206, 1987). The first computer proof of this theorem was produced
by Robert Veroff in 1979 using AURA at Argonne. It took about 2 minutes
on an IBM 370/195. Later in 1984, Mark Stickel obtained a proof using
the extended Knuth-Bendix complete procedure with the built-in
associative and commutative unification algorithm (AC-completion
procedure for short) (CADE-7). Though Stickel's proof needed 14 hours
(including garbage collection) on a Symbolics Lisp machine, the
specification of the problem is more natural and simple than that of
Veroff's. Last year, Tie-Cheng Wang at Argonne reported another proof
using his Z-model reasoning system (see J. Automated Reasoning 3 (1987)
pp.437-451). Wang also found a computer proof for n = 4.
We (Deepak Kapur and I) worked on the heuristics of
AC-completion procedure during the last six monthes. The results of
our study have been implemented in our theorem prover RRL, a Rewrite
Rule Laboratory. For the n = 3 case, RRL produced the proof in 2 minutes
on a Symbolics machine using the same input as that used by Stickel.
If the distributivity law for a ring is built into the
representation of terms, RRL produced a proof of the case n = 3 in 30 seconds
and, more interestingly, also showed the commutativity of the ring for the
case n = 6 in 4 minutes. To our knowledge, this is the first computer proof
of this theorem when n = 6. By studying the proof produced by RRL for
the case n = 6, we designed a simple algebraic method for even n's.
For even n less or equal to 100,000, our method has about 80% chance
to succeed (the method does not work for some even values of n, such as
8, 16, 22, etc.). The biggest number we tried so far is 100,000. It took 6
hours to complete the proof. Unfortunately, we have not been able to develop
a computer proof for the case when n = 5.
We also worked out a trick called "proper-instantiation",
motivated by Wang's Z-model reasoning method. With this trick, RRL proved
for the n = 3 case in 5 seconds and for the n = 4 case in one minute.
RRL also found out the canonical systems for the case n = 3, 4 and 6.
The general theorem, that if for any associative ring, for
every element x, there is an n > 1 such that x↑n = x, the ring is
commutative, was proved by N. Jacobson in 1945.
If you want know to more about this problem, Stickel's paper
at CADE-7 and Lusk and Overbeek's paper ("Reasoning about equality" in
J. Automated Reasoning 6, pp. 209-228, 1985) are good references. If
you are interested in the detail of the proofs produced by RRL, please
send a message to zhangh@csv.rpi.edu .
Hantao Zhang
Dept. of Computer Science,
Rensselaer Polytechnique Institutue
Troy, NY 12180
∂06-May-88 0940 mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA Free will
Received: from CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU (YALE-CELRAY.ARPA) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 May 88 09:39:59 PDT
Received: by CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU; Fri, 6 May 88 12:14:50 EDT
From: Drew McDermott <mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA>
Full-Name: Drew McDermott
Message-Id: <8805061614.AA25274@CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date: Fri, 6 May 88 12:14:40 EDT
Subject: Free will
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
I posted this to comp.ai, but I may have done it wrong, so I may have
to do it again. Meanwhile, I thought I'd send you a copy. It doesn't
directly address your and Pat Hayes's proposals, but it seems to
in harmony with them.
My contribution to the free-will discussion:
Suppose we have a robot that models the world temporally, and uses
its model to predict what will happen (and possibly for other purposes).
It uses Qualitative Physics or circumscription, or, most likely, various
undiscovered methods, to generate predictions. Now suppose it is in a
situation that includes various objects, including an object it calls R,
which it knows denotes itself. For concreteness, assume it believes
a situation to obtain in which R is standing next to B, a bomb with a
lit fuse. It runs its causal model, and predicts that B will explode,
and destroy R.
Well, actually it should not make this prediction, because R will be
destroyed only if it doesn't roll away quickly. So, what will R do? The
robot could apply various devices for making causal prediction, but they
will all come up against the fact that some of the causal antecedents of R's
behavior *are situated in the very causal analysis box* that is trying to
analyze them. The robot might believe that R is a robot, and hence that
a good way to predict R's behavior is to simulate it on a faster CPU, but
this strategy will be in vain, because this particular robot is itself.
No matter how fast it simulates R, at some point it will reach the point
where R looks for a faster CPU, and it won't be able to do that simulation
fast enough. Or it might try inspecting R's listing, but eventually it
will come to the part of the listing that says "inspect R's listing."
The strongest conclusion it can reach is that "If R doesn't roll away,
it will be destroyed; if it does roll away, it won't be." And then of
course this conclusion causes R to roll away.
Hence any system that is sophisticated enough to model situations that its own
physical realization takes part in must flag the symbol describing that
realization as a singularity with respect to causality. There is simply
no point in trying to think about that part of the universe using causal
models. The part so infected actually has fuzzy boundaries. If R is
standing next to a precious art object, the art object's motion is also
subject to the singularity (since R might decided to pick it up before
fleeing). For that matter, B might be involved (R could throw it), or
it might not be, if the reasoner can convince itself that attempts to
move B would not work. But all this is a digression. The basic point
is that robots with this kind of structure simply can't help but think of
themselves as immune from causality in this sense. I don't mean that they
must understand this argument, but that evolution must make sure that their
causal-modeling system include the "exempt" flag on the symbols denoting
themselves. Even after a reasoner has become sophisticated about physical
causality, his model of situations involving himself continue to have this
feature. That's why the idea of free will is so compelling. It has nothing
to do with the sort of defense mechanism that Minsky has proposed.
I would rather not phrase the conclusion as "People don't really have
free will," but rather as "Free will has turned out to be possession of
this kind of causal modeler." So people and some mammals really do have
free will. It's just not as mysterious as one might think.
-- Drew McDermott
-------
∂06-May-88 1337 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:zhang@albanycs.albany.edu the x↑n =x ring problem
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 May 88 13:37:22 PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 6 May 88 13:31:37-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Fri 6 May 88 16:34:11-EDT
Received: from albanycs.albany.edu (TCP 20063000404) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 6 May 88 16:12:20 EDT
Received: by albanycs.albany.edu (5.54/4.8)
id AA00144; Fri, 6 May 88 13:53:15 EDT
Date: Fri, 6 May 88 13:53:15 EDT
From: zhang@albanycs.albany.edu (Hantao Zhang)
Message-Id: <8805061753.AA00144@albanycs.albany.edu>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: the x↑n =x ring problem
This short note is to report about the success of the RRL
(Rewrite Rule Laboratory) theorem prover in proving for many values of
n, for an associative ring that if for every x, x↑n = x, then the ring
is commutative. We first give a brief background of the problem and
then, give our results.
The above problem for the case n = 3, i.e. ,if every element
x of an associative ring satisfies x*x*x = x, then the ring is
commutative, has been considered as one of the most challenging
problems for automated reasoning programs (see for instance, Bledsoe, W.,
"Non-resolution theorem proving", Artificial Intelligence 9, 1, pp.1-35,
1977 and Wos, L., "Automated reasoning: 33 basic research problems",
pp.205-206, 1987). The first computer proof of this theorem was produced
by Robert Veroff in 1979 using AURA at Argonne. It took about 2 minutes
on an IBM 370/195. Later in 1984, Mark Stickel obtained a proof using
the extended Knuth-Bendix complete procedure with the built-in
associative and commutative unification algorithm (AC-completion
procedure for short) (CADE-7). Though Stickel's proof needed 14 hours
(including garbage collection) on a Symbolics Lisp machine, the
specification of the problem is more natural and simple than that of
Veroff's. Last year, Tie-Cheng Wang at Argonne reported another proof
using his Z-model reasoning system (see J. Automated Reasoning 3 (1987)
pp.437-451). Wang also found a computer proof for n = 4.
We (Deepak Kapur and I) worked on the heuristics of
AC-completion procedure during the last six months. The results of
our study have been implemented in our theorem prover RRL, a Rewrite
Rule Laboratory. For the n = 3 case, RRL produced the proof in 2 minutes
on a Symbolics machine using the same input as that used by Stickel.
If the distributivity law for a ring is built into the
representation of terms, RRL produced a proof of the case n = 3 in 30 seconds
and, more interestingly, also showed the commutativity of the ring for the
case n = 6 in 4 minutes. To our knowledge, this is the first computer proof
of this theorem when n = 6. By studying the proof produced by RRL for
the case n = 6, we designed a simple algebraic method for even n's.
Our method works for about 80% of even n's less or equal to 100,000,
(the method does not work for some even values of n, such as
8, 16, 22, etc.). The biggest number we tried so far is 100,000. It took 6
hours to complete the proof. Unfortunately, we have not been able to develop
a computer proof for the case when n = 5.
We also worked out a trick called "proper-instantiation",
motivated by Wang's Z-model reasoning method. With this trick, RRL got the
proof for the n = 3 case in 5 seconds and for the n = 4 case in one minute.
RRL also found out the canonical systems for the case n = 3, 4 and 6.
The general theorem, that if for any associative ring, for
every element x, there is an n > 1 such that x↑n = x, the ring is
commutative, was proved by N. Jacobson in 1945.
If you want know to more about this problem, Stickel's paper
at CADE-7 and Lusk and Overbeek's paper ("Reasoning about equality" in
J. Automated Reasoning 1, pp. 209-228, 1985) are good references. If
you are interested in the detail of the proofs produced by RRL, please
send a message to zhangh@cs.rpi.edu .
Hantao Zhang
∂06-May-88 1447 SLA%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Qlisp
Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 May 88 14:47:41 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Fri, 6 May 88 14:48:34 PDT
From: SLA%UMNACVX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 6 May 88 14:45:25 PDT
Date: Fri, 6 May 88 16:43 cst
Subject: Qlisp
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
X-Vms-To: IN%"jmc@sail.stanford.edu"
I am interseted in Qlisp and heard you are working on it. Is it
available, what does it run on? I would appreciate any information
you can give. Thanks,
Sincerely,
Sue Arneson
University of Minnesota
Academic Computing Services & Systems
SLA@UMNACVX
∂06-May-88 2246 NSH CADE
To: JMC, CLT, JK
After much discussion, I've decided that it would be
useful for me to attend the coming CADE at Chicago.
I need your approval for the trip -
I expect the grant would have
to pay airfare and registration. I can stay with a friend.
I'm also considering attending the Logic in Computer
Science conf. in Edinburgh and to incorporate it into a
trip to visit my folks in India. That should
cost the grant only the amount of hotel
and registration. I still havent decided if I'll do it.
Cheers,
Shankar
∂07-May-88 0138 @WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM the sins of infinite sums
Received: from WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM ([128.81.57.24]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 May 88 01:38:49 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 184400; Sat 7-May-88 01:34:38 PDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 62130; Sat 7-May-88 01:36:59 PDT
Date: Sat, 7 May 88 01:35 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: the sins of infinite sums
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19880507083547.8.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Character-Type-Mappings: (1 0 (NIL 0) (:FIX :ROMAN NIL) "CPTFONT")
(2 0 (NIL 0) (:DEVICE-FONT FONTS:SHIP :NORMAL) "SHIP")
Fonts: CPTFONT, CPTFONT, SHIP
bcc: "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
In my(?) recent sin formula, replace b[i] by c[i]-a[i] and let n→∞:
==== ==== /===\ SIN(C + A - A )
\ \ ! ! J I J
SIN( > C ) = > SIN(C ) ! ! ----------------- ,
/ I / I ! ! SIN(A - A )
==== ==== J ≠ I I J
I ≥ 0 I ≥ 0 J ≥ 0
seemingly independently of infinitely many A[I] on the right! (Assuming
Sum C[I] converges.) Obviously, no two A[I] may differ by a multiple of π,
but is that sufficient for convergence?
Answer: ε1 ε2No, C[J] := (-1)↑J/, A[I] := 1/I actually gives righthand terms that
*grow* like 2↑I/I↑(5/2).
∂07-May-88 1500 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:AI.BLEDSOE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU Re: the x↑n =x ring problem
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 May 88 15:00:25 PDT
Received: from OZ.AI.MIT.EDU (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Sat 7 May 88 14:54:06-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by OZ.AI.MIT.EDU with Chaos/SMTP; Sat 7 May 88 17:54:36-EDT
Received: from R20.UTEXAS.EDU (TCP 20024600436) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 7 May 88 17:38:26 EDT
Date: Sat 7 May 88 09:19:00-CDT
From: Woody Bledsoe <AI.BLEDSOE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: the x↑n =x ring problem
To: zhang@ALBANYCS.ALBANY.EDU, theorem-provers@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
cc: AI.BLEDSOE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU, ATP.Bledsoe@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
In-Reply-To: <8805061753.AA00144@albanycs.albany.edu>
Message-ID: <12396421847.8.AI.BLEDSOE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
I find this to be very interesting. Thanks for sending it to me.
Also, I would think that you note would make a good entry for the problem
section of JAR. Woody Bledsoe
-------
∂07-May-88 1531 CLT CADE
To: NSH
CC: JMC, JK
I am agreeable to your travel plans if no one else objects.
You should check with Sharon B. to see whether NSF
has any restrictions on foreign travel expenses or
requires any formal prior approval.
∂07-May-88 1910 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of March computer charges.
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 May 88 19:09:57 PDT
Date: Sat 7 May 88 18:30:49-PDT
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of March computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12396544148.9.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for March.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA705T 100 347.80 224.32 ***.** 8.55 5.00 3269.81
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA705T 100 109.77 25.50 15.28 114.03 5.00 269.58
MCCARTHY SUSHI SUSHI 100 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Total: 457.57 249.82 ***.** 122.58 10.00 3539.39
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.
-------
∂09-May-88 1346 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
BETWEEN CIRCUMSCRIPTION AND AUTOEPISTEMIC LOGIC
Vladimir Lifschitz
Stanford University
Friday, May 13, 3:15pm
MJH 301
We introduce a modification of circumscription which is in many ways
similar to autoepistemic logic, although it does not use modal operators.
Traditional ``minimizing'' circumscription can be viewed as a special case
of the new ``introspective'' version. At the same time, introspective
circumscription allows us to represent the forms of nonmonotonic reasoning
that correspond to the use of nonnormal defaults.
∂10-May-88 0940 Qlisp-mailer A Measurement of Bureaucratic Overhead
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 May 88 09:40:16 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.30/25-eef) id AA02211; Tue, 10 May 88 09:39:24 pdt
Date: Tue, 10 May 88 09:39:24 pdt
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8805101639.AA02211@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: A Measurement of Bureaucratic Overhead
I'll call the scheduler I've been hacking on "Plisp". One major
difference between the schedulers is the overhead time taken per
spawn. The following is a simplistic comparison of the cost per
spawn in PLISP and QLISP.
First of all, I don't like the point of this note, which is a
comparison of the cost per spawn in PLISP and in QLISP. The
difference is theoretically unimportant. As I've said before, I
believe the main benefit of PLISP is the dynamic spawning predicate,
QEMPTY-P or NSTACK-P (whatever it's called) which, potentially, has
alot of impact on the Language. I am preparing a paper on this topic.
Using the Plisp scheduler, I ran the fibonacci program, spawning a
process for each recursive call. The following is one set of
experiments, on (fib 16). The time spent on the actual computation is
32 milliseconds, and this is subtracted out to compute the overhead
per spawn. This experiment (along with others) verifies that the cost
of a spawn with two processors, in Plisp, is roughly .2 milliseconds,
and with 7 processors, the cost is .29 milliseconds. The PLISP
scheduler allocates 8 words of memory dynamically per spawn. I
believe that this is in the closure creation phase, but I'm not
certain. It could be in the funcall phase.
Milliseconds Spawns #Procrs ms/Spawn
Times: 336.0 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 2 0.2004 ms
Times: 241.9 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 3 0.2173 ms
Times: 193.5 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 4 0.2324 ms
Times: 165.8 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 5 0.2496 ms
Times: 148.1 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 6 0.2683 ms
Times: 136.6 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 7 0.2894 ms
0.20043845 = Overhead Cost in Milliseconds per Spawn on 2 Processors, PLISP
0.2894457 = Overhead Cost in Milliseconds per Spawn on 7 Processors, PLISP
The Qlisp scheduler allocates 36 words of memory per spawn. 22 of these words
are used by MAKE-PROCESS (I believe Qlisp still conses up process shells).
In the standard Qlisp, these are the parallel running times:
Milliseconds Spawns #Procrs ms/Spawn
Times: 1459.8 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 2 0.9044 ms
Times: 1144.8 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 3 1.0656 ms
Times: 885.6 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 4 1.0994 ms
Times: 784.6 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 5 1.2186 ms
Times: 720.6 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 6 1.3441 ms
Times: 783.3 Spawn: 3193.0 (NFIB 16) 7 1.7072 ms
0.9043533 = Overhead Cost in Milliseconds per Spawn on 2 Processors, QLISP
1.7072033 = Overhead Cost in Milliseconds per Spawn on 7 Processors, QLISP
In the two processor case, the spawn costs differ by a factor of 4.5,
which happens to be precisely the difference in the amount of consing
done by the two schedulers. In the seven processor case, the cost of
spawning differs by a factor of 6, in this example. The reason for
the increased ratio is probably due to greater cons contention in
QLISP. Also, note that the point of diminishing returns in QLISP on
this problem is 6 processors.
∂10-May-88 1350 @Score.Stanford.EDU:tom@polya.stanford.edu [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 May 88 13:50:26 PDT
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 10 May 88 13:44:30-PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA15087; Tue, 10 May 88 13:50:01 PDT
Date: Tue, 10 May 88 13:50:01 PDT
From: Tom Dienstbier <tom@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805102050.AA15087@polya.stanford.edu>
To: facil@score.stanford.edu
Subject: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
Now what are we going to do with this turkey? We are back to basically
trying to support this machine with no financial/staff support.
tom
Return-Path: <@Score.Stanford.EDU:ag@pepper.stanford.edu>
To: Thomas Dienstbier <TOM@score.stanford.edu>
Cc: ag@pepper.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 10 May 88 07:18:46 -0700.
<12397208239.16.TOM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 10 May 88 10:02:26 PDT
>From: ag@pepper.stanford.edu
Hi Tom! I guess what has primarliy happened is that our interest in the
NCUBE has dropped considerably. I had two students trying to make use of
it, and they found the software and hardware environment quite unusable
(regardless of the ethernet problem). The machine crashes frequently, the
editors don't work properly, and so on. So for the moment we have not
decided not to invest money into the machine. I think to make the machine
usable, we not only have to buy the ethernet equipment, but the rest of
the hardware and software environment needs to be updated too. --- Anoop.
∂10-May-88 1431 @Score.Stanford.EDU:binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 May 88 14:31:15 PDT
Received: from Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 10 May 88 14:25:17-PDT
Received: by Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA00605; Tue, 10 May 88 14:26:59 PDT
Date: Tue, 10 May 88 14:26:59 PDT
From: binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu (Tom Binford)
Message-Id: <8805102126.AA00605@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu>
To: tom@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: facil@score.stanford.edu
Subject: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
Tom
I suggest that we pull the plug.
Tom
∂10-May-88 1523 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 May 88 15:23:16 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 10 May 88 15:17:10-PDT
Date: Tue, 10 May 88 15:17:58 PDT
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
To: binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu, tom@polya.stanford.edu
cc: facil@score.stanford.edu, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <8805102126.AA00605@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <12397295474.27.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
I agree with Tom B., unless there is another user community that is willing to
support the machine, or the department as a whole decides it is worth having
around for some reason. I suggest sending a message to Faculty explaining the
situation and announcing that the machine will be surplussed unless someone
speaks up for and is willing to support it.
Tom R.
-------
∂10-May-88 1558 perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu sabbatical
Received: from gyre.umd.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 May 88 15:57:54 PDT
Received: from yoohoo.cs.umd.edu by gyre.umd.edu (5.58/4.7)
id AA13120; Tue, 10 May 88 18:57:58 EDT
Received: by yoohoo.cs.umd.edu (5.54/3.14)
id AA03272; Tue, 10 May 88 18:58:48 EDT
Date: Tue, 10 May 88 18:58:48 EDT
From: perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu (Don Perlis)
Return-Path: <perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8805102258.AA03272@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: sabbatical
Cc: NILSSON@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, perlis@mimsy.umd.edu, val@sail.stanford.edu
John,
I will be on sabbatical leave next year (1988-89). It occurs to me
that I would benefit greatly from interaction with you and Vladimir. While
I do not expect to be away from Maryland the entire year, I would be quite
interested in the possibility of spending one quarter at Stanford.
One of the topics I hope to concentrate on is that of intentionality
of language, in the sense you have called formal epistemology (or something
to that effect).
Another topic that I think is promising is that of
autocircumscription, which Vladimir has also been looking at recently. I
hope that this variant of circumscription may lend itself to a much broader
approach to reasoning with uncertainty. In particular, I hope it may
address in a convincing way problems such as the Yale Shooting Problem.
I also intend to continue work on step-logics begun with my student
Jennifer Elgot-Drapkin. This also has, I think, important ties to
commonsense reasoning.
If you feel it worth my while to apply more formally to the CS Dept
at Stanford, I will send my vita and various supporting materials. I do not
yet know whether I would need financial support of any kind. (If I do, it
would be approximately three months salary I would need. I could teach a
seminar if that is helpful, though I very much want to concentrate on
research.) In any case I would hope to have some space provided and access
to a workstation.
∂10-May-88 1707 @Score.Stanford.EDU:andy@polya.stanford.edu [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 May 88 17:07:00 PDT
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 10 May 88 15:48:57-PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA22426; Tue, 10 May 88 15:54:26 PDT
Date: Tue, 10 May 88 15:54:26 PDT
From: Andy Freeman <andy@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805102254.AA22426@polya.stanford.edu>
To: tom@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: facil@score.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Tom Dienstbier's message of Tue, 10 May 88 13:50:01 PDT <8805102050.AA15087@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
If we can't find a paying user community, I think we should give it
back to either shell or NCUBE. Maybe someone over in Geo/Petroleum
wants it.
-andy
∂11-May-88 0759 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu solicitation for issues and conclusions etc.
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 May 88 07:58:51 PDT
Date: Wed, 11 May 88 07:25 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: solicitation for issues and conclusions etc.
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, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS, THORNTON, AAIS::JUDY
Marjorie and I are now writing drafts of the Issues and Conclusions
chapters. We would like to request all of you to give some serious
thoughts to these matters. Please send us short paragraphs on anything
you think important enough to be included. Try to do so within the next
week. Send copies to both Marjorie and me. thanks.
∂11-May-88 1013 GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU <LWE@Sail>
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 May 88 10:13:10 PDT
Date: Wed 11 May 88 10:12:52-PDT
From: Lynn Gotelli <GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: <LWE@Sail>
To: ME@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: Baldwin@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12397502076.10.GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Marty, John, I have closed the sail account <LWE> for Lutz
Erbring for non-payment. It appears that he has not logged
into the account since 2/22/86 and a payment has not been
received from the University of Chicago since 8/2/85.
His account was set up originally as a outside user and
he agreed to pay for it himself. Every month a invoice
has been mailed to Lutz with a note most months to please
pay. We have not received any response. The balance on
the account as of 3/31/88 is $151.91. Lynn
-------
∂11-May-88 1800 jcm@ra.stanford.edu Theory Comp
Received: from ra.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 May 88 17:58:46 PDT
Received: by ra.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA20114; Wed, 11 May 88 17:58:25 PDT
Date: Wed, 11 May 88 17:58:25 PDT
From: jcm@ra.stanford.edu (John Mitchell)
Message-Id: <8805120058.AA20114@ra.stanford.edu>
To: binford@anaconda, burns@polya, cheriton@pescadero, goldberg@score,
jcm@polya, jmc@su-ai, kar@polya, mayr@score, nayak@polya,
plambeck@polya
Subject: Theory Comp
Overall, based on the look of the pre-test results,
the theory comp looks a bit too difficult. Since
David isn't around, I thought I'd follow the suggestions
of some student members of the committee and encourage
everyone to shorten and/or clarify their section of the exam.
∂11-May-88 1824 jcm@ra.stanford.edu Val Breazu-Tannen
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 May 88 18:24:28 PDT
Received: from ra.Stanford.EDU by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA15497; Wed, 11 May 88 18:23:11 PDT
Received: by ra.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA20147; Wed, 11 May 88 18:22:55 PDT
Date: Wed, 11 May 88 18:22:55 PDT
From: jcm@ra.stanford.edu (John Mitchell)
Message-Id: <8805120122.AA20147@ra.stanford.edu>
To: lop@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Val Breazu-Tannen
In addition to the talk here Friday, Luca Cardelli asked me
to post this announcement of a related Thursday talk at DEC.
Thur. May 12, 2:00pm
DEC SRC, 130 Lytton Ave, Palo Alto
COMBINING ALGEBRA AND HIGHER-ORDER TYPES
Val Breazu-Tannen
Department of Computer and Information Science
University of Pennsylvania
ABSTRACT. We study the higher-order rewrite/equational proof systems
obtained by adding the simply typed lambda calculus to algebraic
rewrite/equational proof systems. We show that if a many-sorted algebraic
rewrite system has the Church-Rosser property, then the corresponding
higher-order rewrite system which adds simply typed $\beta$-reduction has
the Church-Rosser property too. This result is relevant to parallel
implementations of functional programming languages.
We also show that provability in the higher-order equational proof
system obtained by adding the simply typed $\beta$ and $\eta$ axioms
to some many-sorted algebraic proof system is effectively reducible to
provability in that algebraic proof system. This effective reduction also
establishes transformations between higher-order and algebraic equational
proofs, transformations which can be useful in automated deduction.
∂11-May-88 2032 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu no Formfeed this week
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 May 88 20:32:12 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA19374; Wed, 11 May 88 20:02:13 PDT
Date: Wed, 11 May 88 20:02:13 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805120302.AA19374@polya.stanford.edu>
To: feed
Subject: no Formfeed this week
... seeing as we had one last week. We'll meet next week, as usual.
I think we've been aced out of 252, though -- so we'll probably be
meeting in 301. Stay tuned!
Matt
∂11-May-88 2056 justeson@polya.stanford.edu job situation resolved
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 May 88 20:56:37 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA22284; Wed, 11 May 88 20:56:48 PDT
Date: Wed, 11 May 88 20:56:48 PDT
From: John Justeson <justeson@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805120356.AA22284@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: job situation resolved
I've accepted the postdoc at Watson, and they've accepted my acceptance
(i.e., I passed the drug screening). So you needn't respond to any more
letter requests.
Thanks for the help,
John
∂11-May-88 2059 tah@linz.stanford.edu Logic-of-Programs Seminar
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 May 88 20:58:48 PDT
Received: from linz.Stanford.EDU by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA22315; Wed, 11 May 88 20:57:38 PDT
Received: by linz.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA11394; Wed, 11 May 88 20:54:46 PDT
Message-Id: <8805120354.AA11394@linz.stanford.edu>
To: lop@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: luca%src.dec.com@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Logic-of-Programs Seminar
*************************************
* LOGIC OF PROGRAMS [LOP] Seminar *
*************************************
Date: 11 May 88 20:54:43 PDT (Wed)
From: Tom Henzinger <tah@linz.stanford.edu>
Fridays 11:30-12:30, MJH 301
May 13: Dr. Val Breazu-Tannen (Univ. of Pennsylvania),
"Some Comparative Anatomy of Type Disciplines"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOME COMPARATIVE ANATOMY OF TYPE DISCIPLINES
Val Breazu-Tannen
University of Pennsylvania
The type disciplines living in the "forest of typed lambda calculi"
find themselves in natural containment relationships. We regard a
richer type discipline as introducing a new programming language
feature, for example, explicit polymorphism in the case of the
Girard-Reynolds calculus. How do these new features interact with the
ones expressible in a less complex type discipline?
This question can be formalized through results about the
relationships (such as conservative extension) between equational
theories. We survey several results of this kind and we discuss the
relative merits of semantic vs. syntactic methods in obtaining them.
∂11-May-88 2352 @Score.Stanford.EDU:cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Re: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 May 88 23:52:11 PDT
Received: from Pescadero by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Wed 11 May 88 23:51:43-PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA05786; Wed, 11 May 88 23:49:12 PDT
Date: Wed, 11 May 88 23:49:12 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805120649.AA05786@Pescadero>
To: facil@score.stanford.edu, tom@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
In-Reply-To: <8805102050.AA15087@polya.stanford.edu> from Tom Dienstbier
<tom@polya> on Tue, 10 May 88 13:50:01 PDT
Anoop's message strongly reminds me of a message I got from a postdoc of
mine two years ago who fooled with the machine. I think turkey is
the right word. I vote to do nothing with it until someone needs for the
floor space or someone needs some landfill, or some deranged person decides
to provide the money to fix its problems, whichever occurs first.
Maybe we could donate it to KSL - sorry Tom.
∂12-May-88 0028 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Re: Theory Comp
Received: from Pescadero (PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 May 88 00:28:22 PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA06034; Thu, 12 May 88 00:24:32 PDT
Date: Thu, 12 May 88 00:24:32 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805120724.AA06034@Pescadero>
To: binford@anaconda.stanford.edu, burns@polya.stanford.edu,
cheriton@ra.stanford.edu, goldberg@score.stanford.edu,
jcm@polya.stanford.edu, jcm@ra.stanford.edu, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
kar@polya.stanford.edu, mayr@score.stanford.edu,
nayak@polya.stanford.edu, plambeck@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Theory Comp
In-Reply-To: <8805120058.AA20114@ra.stanford.edu> from jcm@ra (John
Mitchell) on Wed, 11 May 88 17:58:25 PDT
Sounds like a good idea. However, being too long isnt too bad unless
it fails to clearly distinguish the "fails" from the "passes", the
only purpose of the exam.
∂12-May-88 0855 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu sabbatical
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 May 88 08:54:56 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA28581; Thu, 12 May 88 08:50:24 PDT
Date: Thu, 12 May 88 08:50:24 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8805121550.AA28581@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu
Cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, perlis@mimsy.umd.edu, val@sail.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Don Perlis's message of Tue, 10 May 88 18:58:48 EDT <8805102258.AA03272@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu>
Subject: sabbatical
Don,
I believe John McCarthy is away for 2 or 3 weeks and thus might not be
answering e-mail. I merely wanted to let you (and the other
addressees know) that as far as the CS Dept as a whole is concerned,
we would be glad to have you visit provided you are invited by some
specific faculty member (such as John) who would be able to provide
all financial support and workstation/computer support. The Dept.
does have funds to provide partial support for occasional visiting
professors who are eager to take on the usual teaching load while here
(roughly, teaching one course each quarter). When the Dept. as a whole
invites a visiting professor it is done on the recommendation of a
committee who suggests a candidate or two from among those who apply.
If you decide that you would like to be considered by that committee, then
you should send me your vita, etc. plus suggestions about what you might
like to teach that quarter (beyond a research seminar). Otherwise (or in
addition) I'll leave the matter to conversations that you might be
having with John McCarthy.
Regards,
Nils
∂12-May-88 1110 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil quarterly reports
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 May 88 11:10:07 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA24833; Thu, 12 May 88 13:57:40 EDT
Posted-Date: Thu 12 May 88 13:41:19-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA06234; Thu, 12 May 88 13:41:20 EDT
Date: Thu 12 May 88 13:41:19-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: quarterly reports
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <579462079.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(216)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
We apologize for the delay. The report format description
will be forthcoming. The deadline will be correspondingly
extended.
Bill
-------
∂12-May-88 1114 GROSSMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 May 88 11:14:01 PDT
Date: Thu 12 May 88 11:12:25-PDT
From: Stu Grossman <GROSSMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: [ag@pepper.stanford.edu: ]
To: cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU
cc: facil@Score.Stanford.EDU, tom@Polya.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <8805120649.AA05786@Pescadero>
Message-ID: <12397775059.31.GROSSMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I (half jokingly) recommend that we donate it to LOTS/AIR. All the machine
needs is a lot of TLC and really cheap programming labor. There are many
people in that community who would do almost anything for more computes.
Even if they had to deal with AXIS (the brain damaged Unix clone that Ncube
calls an operating system)!
-------
∂12-May-88 1434 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Quarterly Reports
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 May 88 14:34:15 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA25354; Thu, 12 May 88 17:30:04 EDT
Posted-Date: Thu 12 May 88 17:13:38-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA06376; Thu, 12 May 88 17:13:40 EDT
Date: Thu 12 May 88 17:13:38-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Quarterly Reports
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil, squires@vax.darpa.mil, pullen@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <579474818.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(216)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Here is the format we would like to use for quarterly reports.
Please try to send us your reports for the quarter that ended
30 March by the end of this month. We apologize for the delay
in getting this to you. The report for the current quarter
will be due on 15 August. Please send the reports to Nicole
Fields at Darpa by netmail (nfields@vax.darpa.mil). Thanks,
Bill
-------------------------------------
Institution:
Project Title:
Principal Investigators:
Phone No.:
Project PI Net Address:
Technical Information
a. Recent accomplishments and major events:
b. Immediate technical objectives and challenges:
c. New opportunities:
d. Major personnel changes:
e. Major recent publications:
Financial Information (Dollar amounts can be in $K)
a. ARPA Order number, agent, and contract number:
b. Basic contract dollar amount:
c. Dollar amounts and purposes of options, if any:
d. Start and end dates for task/contract (Mention no-cost extension):
e. Total spending authority received to date (Note the date):
f. Total spent to date (Note the date to which it applies):
g. Approximate monthly expenditure rate:
h. Any major non-salary expenses planned within this increment of funds
(and any other deviations expected from the item above):
i. Date next increment of funds or other government action (specify)
is needed:
Please send a separate report for each separately funded effort.
Thanks,
Bill Scherlis
-------------------------------------
∂12-May-88 1639 edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.edu [boesch@vax.darpa.mil: Re: Lucid Qlisp quarterly report ]
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 May 88 16:39:33 PDT
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Thu, 12 May 88 16:26:00 PDT
Received: from bhopal.lucid.com by edsel id AA09000g; Thu, 12 May 88 16:27:42 PDT
Received: by bhopal id AA23402g; Thu, 12 May 88 16:30:45 PDT
Date: Thu, 12 May 88 16:30:45 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805122330.AA23402@bhopal.lucid.com>
To: clt@sail.stanford.edu, igs@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, edsel!rpg@labrea.stanford.edu
Subject: [boesch@vax.darpa.mil: Re: Lucid Qlisp quarterly report ]
Carolyn/Igor - I just got back from vacation and found the following message
from Brian Boesch in my mail file. I presume that the proposal for
the continuing Qlisp work that he is referring to is the one you guys
were going to be sending in concerning the Stanford work?
Ron
From: boesch@vax.darpa.mil
Posted-Date: Fri, 06 May 88 16:04:03 EDT
To: Ron Goldman <edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Lucid Qlisp quarterly report
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 04 May 88 15:21:41 -0700.
<8805042221.AA25431@bhopal.lucid.com>
Date: Fri, 06 May 88 16:04:03 EDT
Mark told me that you have sent me a proposal for the continuing QLISP
work. I appear to have never gotten that proposal.
Can you please send me another copy.
Thanks
Brian
∂13-May-88 0215 andy@carcoar.Stanford.EDU "That's not funny, and we're throwing you out of law school"
Received: from carcoar.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 May 88 02:15:39 PDT
Received: by carcoar.Stanford.EDU (5.51/inc-1.01)
id AA09139; Fri, 13 May 88 02:16:21 PDT
Date: Fri, 13 May 88 02:16:21 PDT
From: Andy Freeman <andy@carcoar.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8805130916.AA09139@carcoar.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: "That's not funny, and we're throwing you out of law school"
I believe you posted an article about three months ago on a new
policy at a law school (SUNY?) that basically said that certain
positions were too important to be the subject of humor. I think
that feminism and various races were to be immune from humor, on
penalty of expulsion.
Did you post such an article? Do you have a copy you will mail
to me?
thanks,
-andy
∂13-May-88 1051 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
BETWEEN CIRCUMSCRIPTION AND AUTOEPISTEMIC LOGIC
Vladimir Lifschitz
Stanford University
Friday, May 13, 3:15pm
MJH 301
We introduce a modification of circumscription which is in many ways
similar to autoepistemic logic, although it does not use modal operators.
Traditional ``minimizing'' circumscription can be viewed as a special case
of the new ``introspective'' version. At the same time, introspective
circumscription allows us to represent the forms of nonmonotonic reasoning
that correspond to the use of nonnormal defaults.
∂13-May-88 1231 harnad@Princeton.EDU
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 May 88 12:20:36 PDT
Received: from mind.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+/1.62)
id AA17898; Fri, 13 May 88 15:15:40 EDT
Date: Fri, 13 May 88 15:15:40 EDT
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU
Received: by mind.Princeton.EDU (4.12/1.52)
id AA04602; Fri, 13 May 88 14:56:17 edt
Message-Id: <8805131856.AA04602@mind.Princeton.EDU>
To: lesgold@PT.CS.CMU.EDU, uicsl!dejong@a.cs.uiuc.edu, anderson@a.psy.cmu.edu,
a510del1@awiimc11.BITNET, aarons%uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk,
adelson@media-lab.mit.edu, anderson@browncog.BITNET,
andrewsj@vassar.BITNET, apaivio@vaxr.uwo.cdn, ba101@phx.cam.ac.uk,
barsalou@gatech.edu, barto@anger.tcp.cs.umass.edu,
barwise@csli.stanford.edu, biosadm3@uconnvm.BITNET,
bitur003@tufts.BITNET, block@cogito.mit.edu, bob@mind.Princeton.EDU,
pauls@boulder.colorado.edu, brian@psych.stanford.edu,
briansmith.pa@xerox.com, hendler@brillig.umd.edu,
touretzky@c.cs.cmu.edu, catania%umbc.decnet@umbc2.umd.edu,
cfields@nmsu.edu, changeux@pasteur.BITNET, chomsky@cogito.mit.edu,
langley@CIP.ICS.uci.edu, steve@cogito.mit.edu,
searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu, feldman@cs.rochester.edu,
ur-cvsvax!rmc1@cs.rochester.edu, jaf@cunyvms1.BITNET,
cynader@vision.ubc.cdn, dana@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU,
david_buss@um.cc.umich.edu, djers@tucc.tucc.edu, dodwell@qucdn.BITNET,
drjl@phx.cam.ac.uk, e-donchi%psych22@uiucvmd.BITNET,
eimas@browncog.BITNET, fbjuaks@euclid.ucl.ac.uk,
fbjubjm@euclid.ucl.ac.uk, gallistel@cis.upenn.edu, gary@cs.ucsd.edu,
ghh@mind.Princeton.EDU, glynch@uci.BITNET, hahn_k@dmrhrz11.BITNET,
hayes.pa@xerox.com, hinton@ai.toronto.edu, hkn@spar-20.spar.slb.com,
holyoak@cs.ucla.edu, houston@vax.oxford.ac.uk, ihoward@yorkvm1.BITNET,
j-hirsch%uiuspsy@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu, j.morton@euclid.ucl.ac.uk,
j_schull@hvrford.BITNET, jbderegowski@aberdeen.ac.uk,
jfeldman@icsia7.berkeley.edu, john@csli.stanford.edu,
kirsh%oz.ai.mit.edu@xx.lcs.mit.edu, lakoff@cogsci.berkeley.edu,
lappinjs@vuctrvax.BITNET, lea@exeter.ac.uk, lindac@psych.stanford.edu,
livingst@vassar.BITNET, m-coles@h.psych.uiuc.edu,
mack%ubc.CSNET@relay.cs.net, marken@aerospace.aero.org,
minsky@mc.lcs.mit.edu, mcnamara@m.bris.ac.uk, med_bjst@jhuvms.BITNET,
merikle@watdcs.BITNET, mmvy%cornella.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA,
movshon@CMCL2.NYU.EDU, adam@mtund, newell@a.psy.cmu.edu,
ojb1@phx.cam.ac.uk, partee@cs.umass.edu, pat@imsss.stanford.edu,
philjl@mrc-apu.cam.uk.ac, phlpwb@gsuvm1.BITNET,
poggio%oz.ai.mit.edu@xx.lcs.mit.edu, ppgb@phx.cam.ac.uk,
ps45%sdcc12@ucsd.edu, ps_coltheart@mqccvaxa.mq.oz,
pschurchland@ucsd.edu, psy160@ucscc.UCSC.EDU, psy9a3c@bostonu.BITNET,
psy9a3n@bostonu.BITNET, gluck@psych.stanford.edu,
psych36@ucscd.UCSC.EDU, um.cc@mind.Princeton.EDU
.umich.edu!ren_phd, vax.oxford.ac.uk!reynolds,
vassar.bitnet!ristau, vaxr.uwo.cdn!rollman, sail.stanford.edu!jmc,
sdcsva
x.ucsd.edu!ir205%sdcc6, sdcsvax.ucsd.edu!rik,
sekuler@nuacc.bitnet, smk@wjh12.harvard.edu, snowcat@hugse1.bitnet,
sperling@nyu.edu, steklis@cancer.rutgers.edu, sterobj@yalevm.bitnet,
stich%sdics@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu, stryker%phyb.ucsf.edu,
stryker@vax.oxford.ac.uk, t052020@uhccmv.bitnet,
td.cc.cmu.edu!glymour, terrace@cunixc.columbia.edu,
ts0340@ohstmvsa.ircc.ohio-state.edu, tsotsos@ai.toronto.edu,
uap001@ddohrz11.bitnet, ucjtsmm@euclid.ucl.ac.uk,
uidmf002@dbiuni11.bitnet, userlece@ualtamts.bitnet,
uttal@humu.nosc.mil, waltz@godot.think.com, wnjkoen@accumv.uucp,
wood@psych.stanford.edu, wrl206%uunet.uu.net@csco.anu.oz,
ymum20%uk.ac.UMIST.CENTRAL-SERVICES.PRIME-A@ac.uk,
ytchien@note.nsf.gov, zenon@deepthot.uwo.cdn
Subject: 3 BBS Abstracts
Below are the abstracts of three forthcoming target articles to appear in
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS). If you wish to serve as a
commentator or to nominate commentators, please send email to:
harnad@mind.princeton.edu or
write to BBS, 20 Nassau Street, #240, Princeton NJ 08540 [tel: 609-921-7771].
Please specify which article(s) you are responding about.
I. Psychophysics II. Human Mate Selection III. Sociobiology/Selfishness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Keywords: psychophysics, sensory physiology, vision, audition, visual
modeling, scaling, philosophy of perception
Reconciling Fechner and Stevens:
Toward a Unified Psychophysical Theory
Lester E. Krueger
Human Performance Laboratory
Ohio State University
Columbus OH 43210-1285
Email: 340@ohstmvsa.ircc.ohio-state.edu or
krueger-l@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu.
How does subjective magnitude, S, increase as physical magnitude or
intensity, I, increases? Direct ratings (magnitude scales; partition
or category scales) can be fitted by the power function, S = aI**b, in
which S equals I raised to a power or exponent, b, and multiplied by a
measure constant, a. The exponent is typically about twice as large
for the magnitude scale (Stevens) as the corresponding partition or
category scale, but the higher exponent may be explained by the over
expansive way people use numbers in making magnitude estimations. The
partition or category scale and the adjusted (for the use of number)
magnitude scale for a given modality or condition generally agree with
the neurelectric scale and the summated just noticeable difference
(jnd) scale. An undue reliance on Weber's law blinded Fechner to the
fact that the true psychophysical scale is approximately a power
function. Fechner and Stevens erred equally about the true
psychophysical power function, whose exponent lies half way between
that of Fechner (i.e., an exponent approaching zero) and that of Stevens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Keywords: sex differences, sociobiology, reproductive strategy,
parental investment, evolution, sexual selection, mate preferences
Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences:
Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Countries
David Buss
Psychology Department
Unversity of Michigan
Email: david_buss@um.cc.umich.edu
Contemporary mate preferences among humans can provide important clues
to the reproductive history of our species. Little is known about which
characteristics people value in prospective mates. Five predictions
were made about sex differences in human mate preferences based on
factors such as parental investment and sexual selection, knowledge
about reproductive capacity, and the uncertainty of paternity versus
maternity. The predictions concerned how each sex values earning capacity,
ambition-industriousness, youth, physical attractiveness, and chastity.
These were tested in questionnaires given to 37 independent samples drawn
from 33 countries located on six continents and five islands. For a
subset it was also possible to compare some of the questionnaire
performance with actual demographic statistics. Females were found to
value cues about resource acquisition in potential mates more highly
than males, whereas cues about reproductive capacity are valued more by
males. These cross-cultural sex differences may reflect different
evolutionary selection pressures on human males and females; they
are among the most robust cross-cultural evidence of contemporary
sex differences in reproductive strategy. The discussion focusses on
proximate mechanisms underlying mate preferences and consequences
for human intrasexual competition as well as the methodological
limitations of this study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Keywords: human evolution, selfishness, game theory, rational
choice, social cognition, sociobiology, "selfish genes"
Selfishness Examined:
Cooperation in the Absence of Egoistic Incentives
Linnda R. Caporael
Dept. of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Robyn M. Dawes
Department of Decision and Social Sciences
Carnegie-Mellon University
John M. Orbell
Department of Political Science
University of Oregon
Alphons J. C. van de Kragt
Department of Public Policy
University of Manitoba
Social Dilemmas result when the individual pursuit of self-interest
leads to suboptimal collective outcomes. "Economic man" and "selfish
gene" theories predict that such dilemmas are unsolvable without
appeals to egoistic incentives. The prediction was NOT supported in a
series of noniterative, single-choice, public-good-provision games.
These experimental results are consistent with the evolutionary social
cognitivist position that cognitive/affective mechanisms underlying
human behavior were shaped in the evolutionary past by selective
pressures within small groups, and that these mechanisms are extended to
new problem-solving domains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stevan Harnad ARPANET: harnad@mind.princeton.edu or
harnad%princeton.mind.edu@princeton.edu
CSNET: harnad%mind.princeton.edu@relay.cs.net
BITNET: harnad%mind.princeton.edu@pucc.bitnet
UUCP: princeton!mind!harnad
PHONE: 609 921 7771
∂15-May-88 1449 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:mcall@gvax.cs.cornell.edu requests
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 May 88 14:49:48 PDT
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Sun 15 May 88 14:50:09-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (CHAOS 3131) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 15 May 88 17:33:27 EDT
Received: from cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (TCP 1200600140) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 15 May 88 17:31:50 EDT
Received: from gvax.cs.cornell.edu by cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (5.54/4.30)
id AA03817; Sun, 15 May 88 17:29:49 EDT
Date: Sun, 15 May 88 17:29:43 EDT
From: mcall@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (David McAllester)
Message-Id: <8805152129.AA08490@gvax.cs.cornell.edu>
Received: by gvax.cs.cornell.edu (5.54/4.30)
id AA08490; Sun, 15 May 88 17:29:43 EDT
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: requests
Administrative messages about this list, such as messages to add
particular people, can now be sent to theorem-provers-request@mc.lcs.mit.edu
∂16-May-88 0500 J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Vietnam
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 May 88 05:00:36 PDT
Date: Mon 16 May 88 04:56:04-PDT
From: Joe Brenner <J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Vietnam
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12398755124.206.J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
This is in response to your posting concerning Viet Nam
on SU-ETC. If you feel like it should've gone to there,
feel free to forward it (didn't seem to be much point if you
were going to be out of town).
You say that "everyone had to do their part" to lose the
Viet Nam war, and you go on to list the various manifestations
of incompetence and apathy surrounding the war. Doesn't this list
imply something about the futility of attempting to fight a war
that no one cares about? The "self-interest" you
refer to in opposition to the war movement only strikes me as
right and proper. The government was forcing people to risk
their lives in a country far away for a cause only distantly
related to their own lives. What exactly is the point of
"blaiming" the victory of the north on the anti-war movement?
It might be more to the point to blame it on the politicians
of the time for doing such a poor selling job for the cause,
and trying to fight a war without fuss or muss (e.g. without
actually declaring war).
The drift of the anti-war movement toward communism may be simply
explained by the tendency of people to over-simplify, and see
all conflicts as two-sided. The enemy of my enemy is my freind.
I see similar things happening with the liberal/conservative split
all the time. What do you do if you don't want to join either club?
-- Joe Brenner
-------
∂16-May-88 1206 haley@polya.stanford.edu Teaching, life and all that
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 May 88 12:06:34 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA08629; Mon, 16 May 88 12:06:49 PDT
Date: Mon, 16 May 88 12:06:49 PDT
From: Paul V. Haley <haley@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805161906.AA08629@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Teaching, life and all that
Well it sounds like a nice trip!
Class is going rather well.
Requiring some work quickly trimmed attendance from 20 to 10!
But those that remain seem sincerely interested.
Next week will be my last visit to (almost always, except today) sunny Stanford.
This has been great!
I don't know that I'd want to commute from Pittsburgh again, though.
Looks bad for my having a Tuesday available for a faculty lunch.
If I could take a raincheck for some future visit, that would be great.
One departing favor that I would ask is that I retain this account on Polya
for E-mail communication with my more academic AI compatriots.
Is this permissible?
Thanks for this opportunity.
If there's ever anything I can help you with, it would be an honor.
Paul
∂16-May-88 1356 CLT Qlisp
To: RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, edsel!arg@LABREA.Stanford.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
I have talked to Pullen and Boesch about the next 18months of Qlisp.
Here are the main points.
There is a BAA for parallel computing with deadline of 29-May.
Pullen thinks it would be a good idea for us to try for some
of that money. Boesch sent me a copy of the BAA. I don't
know how serious they are about the suggested format, but
it looks formidable. I'll forward it to you if you like.
Anyway it seems to me that the first priority is to produce
a budget and text that is acceptable to Boesch and Pullen.
I had a long talk with Boesch this morning about the
outline and budget we sent in February.
He made some general suggestions for text - esp for the
Stanford part. The main feedback was re budget.
We asked for
Stanford 1,676 323
Lucid 1,684,100
Total 3,360,423
2.23meg /year
Boesch suggests splitting it into basic tasks and options (1 or more)
with
basic tasks (Stanford + Lucid) = 1.5/year (2.25/18mo)
optional tasks = .5/year (.75/18mo)
We can meet the 1.5 figure by each reducing by .67 for basic tasks.
We should meet or talk on the phone about how to proceed.
There are some time constraints.
John is away and will return on Friday. He will also be away May 26-31
Igor is away and will return next week.
I am leaving Thursday noon and will return May 31.
John and Igor are currently unreachable by phon unless they happen to call.
I will be reachable by phone until 24-may.
Pullen is on travel til 20-May.
Boesch claims he will be around for the next couple weeks.
∂16-May-88 1638 tah@polya.stanford.edu LOP
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 May 88 16:38:05 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA22830; Mon, 16 May 88 16:35:33 PDT
Date: Mon, 16 May 88 16:35:33 PDT
From: Thomas Henzinger <tah@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805162335.AA22830@polya.stanford.edu>
To: lop
Subject: LOP
There will be no more LOP seminars this quarter.
∂17-May-88 0342 @RELAY.CS.NET:masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp pocket computer with LISP
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 May 88 03:42:17 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa27827; 17 May 88 6:35 EDT
Received: from ntt.jp by RELAY.CS.NET id aa03219; 17 May 88 6:31 EDT
Received: from ntt-sh.NTT.jp (nttta) by ntt.jp (3.2/NTT6.2cs) with TCP; Tue, 17 May 88 18:24:23 JST
Received: by ntt-sh.NTT.jp (3.2/NTTcs01) with TCP; Tue, 17 May 88 18:26:52 JST
Received: by MECL.NTT.jp (3.2/NTTcs01) with TCP; Tue, 17 May 88 18:26:27 JST
Date: Tue, 17 May 88 18:26:27 JST
From: Masahiko Sato <masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp>
Message-Id: <8805170926.AA22603@MECL.NTT.jp>
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: pocket computer with LISP
Today I saw an article on a Japanese newspaper which may be of
interest to you.
The article roughly says as follows.
Casio Computer announced the first pocket computer that can run LISP.
The price is 39800 yen ($300) and will be sold from May 27. Major
specifications are as follows.
CPU CMOS 8bit
Memory ROM 67KB RAM 32 KB or 64 KB
Display 32 charcters x 4 lines
Size 18.6cm x 8.3cm x 1.5cm
Weight 249gram
I will send further reports if I could have a chance to play with it.
Masahiko Sato
∂17-May-88 1719 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
MIRACLES IN FORMAL THEORIES OF ACTION
Vladimir Lifschitz
Arkady Rabinov
Stanford University
Friday, May 20, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Most work on reasoning about action is based on the implicit assumption
that there are no events happening in the world concurrently with the
actions that are being carried out. We discuss the possibility of relaxing
this important assumption and treating it as a default principle -- when
it is inconsistent with the given facts, we will admit the possibility of
unknown events, "miracles", that, along with the given actions, have
contributed to the properties of the new situation.
The formalism of Lifschitz's paper "Formal Theories of Action" does not
treat "miracles" properly. A modification of that approach will be
presented that corrects this problem.
∂18-May-88 1232 CLT vardi
On what basis did you agree to pay for Ilan Vardi's SAIL account?
Why wasn't I told?
∂18-May-88 1249 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu FormFeed in 301 tomorrow
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 May 88 12:49:40 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA05933; Wed, 18 May 88 10:15:56 PDT
Date: Wed, 18 May 88 10:15:56 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805181715.AA05933@polya.stanford.edu>
To: feed
Subject: FormFeed in 301 tomorrow
At noon, as usual. I know that Arkady has some stuff he'd like to
talk about, and I've been looking at some stuff involving prolog
subgoals with free variables. Anyone else?
Matt
∂18-May-88 1354 CLT susie
would like you to call
∂18-May-88 2302 CLT itinerary
19-may to 24-may
H.K. Arnold
2921 N.W. Fairfax Terrace
Portland Oregon 97210
503-228-1065
24-may to 25-may
D.E. Kotowski
102 West Road North
Tacoma WA 98406
206-759-5582
We will take the ferry from Anacortes to Friday Harbor
on the 26th. Since one can't make reservations I don't
know when we will arrive. We have cottages booked in my
name at the Roche Harbor Resort (206) 378-2155.
See you there!
∂18-May-88 2320 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu The next stage
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 May 88 23:20:36 PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA00990; Wed, 18 May 88 23:16:55 PDT
Date: Wed, 18 May 88 23:16:55 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805190616.AA00990@Pescadero>
To: comp@Pescadero.stanford.edu
Subject: The next stage
Hi team:
Here's the plan for the next stage.
1) You should receive the comp sections do were involved with the day after
it is completed. People for the Appl. who havent let me know how to
get the exam to them - please do so.
2) The people who made up the questions are expected to makr them. I am not
expecting double marking as has been done at times in the past.
Please send me the marks by sometime Monday at the least, ideally before.
I will tabulate and try to come up with a suggested pass/failure
picture. Then,...
3) We plan to meet on Wed. noon (May 25th) to make final decisions.
Again, if I can get the marks early, we can make this meeting shorter.
(I'll announce the room later this week.)
4) We are expected to make up solutions for the comp. Please generate
solutions and provide to Phyllis. I think it is best to make up
the solutions in the same time as you mark the exam.
5) Please send me any suggested changes to the reading list so we can munge
it for the next comp committee.
Please let me know of any problems with this plan.
David C.
∂19-May-88 0425 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM algebra 2.9
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 May 88 04:24:54 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 294632; Thu 19-May-88 07:24:24 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 62760; Thu 19-May-88 04:22:24 PDT
Date: Thu, 19 May 88 04:21 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: algebra 2.9
To: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19880518070242.5.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19880519112127.9.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Character-Type-Mappings: (1 0 (NIL 0) (:DEVICE-FONT FONTS:SHIP :NORMAL) "SHIP")
Fonts: CPTFONT, SHIP
bcc: "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Here's a simpler function, of 2n-2 variables, which appears to be identically
0 for the same antisymmetric H as D1283:
N - 2
/===\
! !
N ! ! H(X , Y )
==== ! ! K J
\ J = 1
(D1356) > ---------------
/ N
==== /===\
K = 1 ! !
! ! H(X , X )
! ! K J
J = 1
J ≠ K
Date: Wed, 18 May 88 00:02 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
The following function of 2n variables x[1],...,x[n],y[1],...,y[n],
N K - 1
==== /===\ H(X , Y ) H(X , X )
\ ! ! 1 J J N
(D1283) > ( ! ! ---------------------------) H(X , Y )
/ ! ! H(X , X ) H(Y , X ) K K
==== J = 1 1 J + 1 J + 1 N
K = 1
(n≥2) is identically 0 for surprisingly many antisymmetric functions H(x,y).
(C1284) D1283,N = 3,H = LAMBDA([X,Y],X-Y),SUM,PRODUCT,FACTOR;
(D1284) 0
(C1285) D1283,N = 4,H = LAMBDA([X,Y],(X-Y)*(A+B*X*Y)),SUM,PRODUCT,FACTOR;
(D1285) 0
But
(C1286) D1283,N = 3,H = LAMBDA([X,Y],(X-Y)*(1+X↑2*Y↑2)),SUM,PRODUCT,FACTOR;
2 2
(Y - X ) (X Y + 1) (Y - X ) (Y - X ) (X - X ) (X - X )
1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 2
(D1286) - -------------------------------------------------------------
2 2 2 2
(X X + 1) (Y X + 1)
1 2 2 3
Some other H that work (∀n) are 1/x - 1/y, (x-y)*(a+x+y), and x/y-y/x. What is the
most general such H? (If you have a Macsyma, it is really quite entertaining to
try a few H. If you mess with SQRTs, try ROOTSCONTRACT before concluding ≠0.)
Answer: ε1f(x)*g(y)-g(x)*f(y).ε0 I don't really have a proof.
∂19-May-88 0817 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Prospective Student
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 May 88 08:16:57 PDT
Date: Thu 19 May 88 08:16:27-PDT
From: Sharon Hemenway <HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Prospective Student
To: ullman@Score.Stanford.EDU, binford@Coyote.Stanford.EDU,
jlh@sonoma.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, ejm@Sierra.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12399578035.18.HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Although it is usually our policy not to arrange visits for
prospective applicants, one student caught me in a particularly
"generous" moment last week and I agreed to help him contact a few
faculty members to see if you might have a few free moments to speak
with him on the 24th or 25th (next Tuesday/Wednesday). His name is
Jason Ni and he is currently at MIT. I believe he might also be
trying to reach you himself so pardon me if this is a duplicate
request.
In any case, if you could meet with him sometime on the 24th or 25th,
please send me a preferred time. Many thanks --
Sharon
-------
∂19-May-88 0906 ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu formfeed meets today!
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 May 88 09:05:56 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA06735; Thu, 19 May 88 09:05:49 PDT
Date: Thu, 19 May 88 09:05:49 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805191605.AA06735@polya.stanford.edu>
To: feed
Subject: formfeed meets today!
noon in room 301. I may be late -- please don't hesitate to start without
me!
Matt
∂19-May-88 1037 CLT qlisp proposal
To: RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.ed,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
The data I have collected is in Q88.PRO[Q,CLT]
It includes the original text and budgets set to Boesch in Feb 88
a copy of the parallel architecture BAA, and notes for
revised text, budget, and general strategy.
We should try to get something to Boesch (not he wants it called
Draft or White Paper, not proposal) by Monday or Tuesday at the latest.
My itinerary is as follows.
19-may to 24-may
H.K. Arnold
2921 N.W. Fairfax Terrace
Portland Oregon 97210
503-228-1065
24-may to 25-may
D.E. Kotowski
102 West Road North
Tacoma WA 98406
206-759-5582
26-may to 31-may
Roche Harbor Resort
Roche Harbor
San Juan Islands
(206) 378-2155
∂19-May-88 1041 CLT qlisp proposal
To: RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, edsel!arg@LABREA.STANFORD.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
The data I have collected is in Q88.PRO[Q,CLT]
It includes the original text and budgets set to Boesch in Feb 88
a copy of the parallel architecture BAA, and notes for
revised text, budget, and general strategy.
We should try to get something to Boesch (not he wants it called
Draft or White Paper, not proposal) by Monday or Tuesday at the latest.
My itinerary is as follows.
19-may to 24-may
H.K. Arnold
2921 N.W. Fairfax Terrace
Portland Oregon 97210
503-228-1065
24-may to 25-may
D.E. Kotowski
102 West Road North
Tacoma WA 98406
206-759-5582
26-may to 31-may
Roche Harbor Resort
Roche Harbor
San Juan Islands
(206) 378-2155
∂19-May-88 1718 PP248641%TECMTYVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu BITNET mail follows
Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 May 88 17:18:28 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Thu, 19 May 88 17:20:06 PDT
From: PP248641%TECMTYVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 19 May 88 17:16:43 PDT
Date: 19 May 88 16:48 EDT
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: BITNET mail follows
Date: 19 May 1988, 16:48:23 EDT
From: PP248641 at TECMTYVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
DEAR PROFESSOR:
WE SENT YOU A LETTER TO INVITE YOU AS A GUEST LECTURER OF THE FIRST
ISAI-KBS TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 24-28 TH IN MONTERREY, MEXICO.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED YOUR ANSWER. THEREFORE, WOULD
YOU BE SO KIND TO LET US KNOW IF YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO COME ? THANKING
YOU IN ADVANCE WE REMAIN SINCERELY YOURS.
CONFERENCE COMITTEE. PROF. R. GUILLEN.
∂19-May-88 1720 @Score.Stanford.EDU:PP248641%TECMTYVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu BITNET mail follows
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 May 88 17:20:48 PDT
Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 19 May 88 17:18:37-PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Thu, 19 May 88 17:20:13 PDT
From: PP248641%TECMTYVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 19 May 88 17:16:49 PDT
Date: 19 May 88 16:49 EDT
To: JMC@score.stanford.edu
Subject: BITNET mail follows
Date: 19 May 1988, 16:49:10 EDT
From: PP248641 at TECMTYVM
To: JMC at SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
DEAR PROFESSOR:
WE SENT YOU A LETTER TO INVITE YOU AS A GUEST LECTURER OF THE FIRST
ISAI-KBS TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 24-28 TH IN MONTERREY, MEXICO.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED YOUR ANSWER. THEREFORE, WOULD
YOU BE SO KIND TO LET US KNOW IF YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO COME ? THANKING
YOU IN ADVANCE WE REMAIN SINCERELY YOURS.
CONFERENCE COMITTEE. PROF. R. GUILLEN.
∂20-May-88 0814 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Input
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 May 88 08:14:30 PDT
Date: Fri 20 May 88 10:03:04-EDT
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: Input
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: knemeyer@A.ISI.EDU, goodman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu
Message-ID: <12399826820.19.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
John,
As we move toward a complete draft of your report Sy and I seek to get
as much input as we can. We would very much appreciate comments and enrich-
ment from you on the software draft Ousterhout had earlier prepared, the
transcripts (such as they were), and issues and conclusions that should
be called out. Material would be especially useful over the next week.
Thanks for your help.
Marjory
-------
∂20-May-88 0817 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU cart before the horse
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 May 88 08:17:00 PDT
Date: Fri 20 May 88 11:15:26-EDT
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: cart before the horse
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: knemeyer@A.ISI.EDU
Message-ID: <12399839994.29.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
John,
I was a bit premature with my previous message. I want to call your
attention to the JTECH material you did or will receive, which emphasizes
AI activitiy in Japan. We would greatly appreciate your response to that
material and suggestions for how to build in content for our report.
Marjory
-------
∂20-May-88 1140 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
MIRACLES IN FORMAL THEORIES OF ACTION
Vladimir Lifschitz
Arkady Rabinov
Stanford University
Friday, May 20, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Most work on reasoning about action is based on the implicit assumption
that there are no events happening in the world concurrently with the
actions that are being carried out. We discuss the possibility of relaxing
this important assumption and treating it as a default principle -- when
it is inconsistent with the given facts, we will admit the possibility of
unknown events, "miracles", that, along with the given actions, have
contributed to the properties of the new situation.
The formalism of Lifschitz's paper "Formal Theories of Action" does not
treat "miracles" properly. A modification of that approach will be
presented that corrects this problem.
∂21-May-88 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 will return from a trip to France, Germany and the Soviet Union
on May 21.
∂21-May-88 1133 JMC
replace message on answering machine.
∂22-May-88 1522 phipps@polya.stanford.edu Database section graded
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 May 88 15:22:35 PDT
Received: by Pescadero from Polya.Stanford.EDU (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA07154; Sun, 22 May 88 15:19:41 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA18804; Sun, 22 May 88 15:22:13 PDT
Message-Id: <8805222222.AA18804@polya.stanford.edu>
To: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu>
Cc: comp@Pescadero.stanford.edu, phipps@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Database section graded
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 06 Apr 88 17:30:53 -0700.
<8804070030.AA06311@Pescadero>
Date: Sun, 22 May 88 15:22:11 PDT
From: phipps@polya.stanford.edu
It's finished and we are working on the solution set.
∂22-May-88 2131 RPG Call
I finally became free, but since you're not logged in, I take it you're
asleep and won't disturb you. I worked a bit on the proposal today, but
it is not in great shape.
∂23-May-88 0008 JSW Meeting
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, ullman@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
We should have a meeting of my thesis committee to discuss my progress
before Black Friday, which is on Thursday, June 2. Is there a time
this week that everyone can come? I'm sorry for the short notice.
∂23-May-88 1110 @RITTER.AI.SRI.COM:Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM Thesis Proposal
Received: from RITTER.AI.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 May 88 11:08:06 PDT
Received: from XITLCATL.AI.SRI.COM by RITTER.AI.SRI.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 12881; Mon 23-May-88 11:07:21 PDT
Date: Mon, 23 May 88 11:08 PDT
From: Leslie Kaelbling <Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM>
Subject: Thesis Proposal
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <880523110838.2.PACK@XITLCATL.AI.SRI.COM>
John,
I left a copy of my thesis proposal in your box. If you approve, I'd
like to meet you sometime this week to have you sign my G81. I'm busy
early Thursday afternoon and late Friday afternoon--other than that I
can come by any time. (Only the first 5 pages of the proposal are
important--the rest is background).
- Leslie
∂23-May-88 1207 JSW Re: Meeting
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, ullman@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
How about Tuesday at 1:30 p.m.?
∂23-May-88 1248 perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu papers
Received: from gyre.umd.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 May 88 12:48:43 PDT
Received: from yoohoo.cs.umd.edu by gyre.umd.edu (5.58/4.7)
id AA07712; Mon, 23 May 88 15:48:44 EDT
Received: by yoohoo.cs.umd.edu (5.54/3.14)
id AA07629; Mon, 23 May 88 15:49:56 EDT
Date: Mon, 23 May 88 15:49:56 EDT
From: perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu (Don Perlis)
Return-Path: <perlis@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8805231949.AA07629@yoohoo.cs.umd.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: papers
Cc: perlis@mimsy.umd.edu
John, my secretary will soon send you copies of two papers:
Reasoning Situated in Time (part I)
and
Autocircumscription (revised)
The first is by Jennifer Elgot-Drapkin and myself, and carries much further
earlier work we had reported on in conferences. I think it bears some
relation to the ideas you sketched in earlier email, about a mental
situation calculus. Also, since we prepared this draft, Jennifer has worked
out in detail a real-time solution to the 3 wise men problem (using the
step-logic approach of our paper).
The second paper is a revised version of one I sent you a month or so ago,
and is to appear in the AIJ. I think it has a number of further aspects
worth exploring.
Both of these topics, among others, are ones I would like to pursue in the
coming academic year while on sabbatical. As I said in an earlier message,
I would be delighted to spend a quarter at Stanford, if that can be worked
out.
-Don
P.S. I heard last week that my tenure has been approved! Thanks for
your support.
∂23-May-88 1326 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, morris@INTELLICORP.ARPA
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
STABLE CLOSURES, DEFEASIBLE LOGIC
AND CONTRADICTION TOLERANT REASONING
Paul Morris
IntelliCorp
Friday, May 27, 3:15pm
MJH 301
A solution to the Yale shooting problem has been previously proposed that
uses so-called non-normal defaults. With this approach there is only one
extension -- the sensible one. One disadvantage, however, is that the
representation does not respond well to new conflicting information:
instead of making appropriate revisions, the extension collapses.
In this talk we propose a way out of this difficulty by defining a new
formal counterpart to the intuitive notion of a reasonable set of beliefs.
The new formalization coincides with the previous one when there are no
conflicts. Thus, it can avoid the Yale shooting problem by the use of
non-normal defaults. However, when fresh conflicting information is
added, the new approach produces a revised interpretation which agrees
well with intuition, and is similar to that obtained by dependency
directed backtracking in a truth maintenance system.
We also consider in this talk the relationship of this new system for
belief revision to relevance logic. This motivates the development of
a new formalism for default reasoning called Defeasible Logic, whose
behavior is similar to Autoepistemic Logic, but whose notation and
semantics may be more intuitive.
∂23-May-88 1350 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Rumor
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 May 88 13:50:46 PDT
Date: Mon 23 May 88 13:50:32-PDT
From: Ramin Zabih <RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Rumor
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12400687429.49.RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Usually reliable sources claim that the S-1 project has been cancelled.
Ramin
-------
∂23-May-88 1427 MPS phone
Susan called and wants you to call her.
641-7990
Pat
∂23-May-88 2125 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Grading, meeting, solutions, etc.
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 May 88 21:25:08 PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA25395; Mon, 23 May 88 21:22:12 PDT
Date: Mon, 23 May 88 21:22:12 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805240422.AA25395@Pescadero>
To: comp@Pescadero.stanford.edu
Subject: Grading, meeting, solutions, etc.
1) Meeting will be Wed. at noon in Chairman's conference room in MJH.
2) Please get me your grades as soon as possible. I would like to compile
them before the meeting so we can make it short as possible.
3) We need to prepare solutions. Please try to do this as part of the
grading or very soon so we can get this stuff out of the way.
4) Please give some thought to possible changes to the reading list.
We should do it now for the next comp., while the wounds are still fresh.
Thanks.
David C.
∂24-May-88 0646 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU re: Input
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 06:46:43 PDT
Date: Tue 24 May 88 09:45:00-EDT
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: re: Input
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon 23 May 88 15:15:00-EDT
Message-ID: <12400872106.27.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Sy's number is 602/621-2684; mine is 202/334-2605.
-------
∂24-May-88 0700 GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu RE: phone number
Received: from mis.arizona.edu (misvax.mis.arizona.edu) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 07:00:02 PDT
Received: by mis.arizona.edu id <20800394111@mis.arizona.edu> ;
Tue, 24 May 88 06:58:12 MST
Date: Tue, 24 May 88 06:55:31 MST
From: GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu
Subject: RE: phone number
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
X-VMS-Mail-To: EXOS%"John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>"
Message-ID: <880524065531.20800394111@mis.arizona.edu>
I'd be glad to hear from you.
I should be at the following phone number all day today: (602) 299-5785.
We are interested in all information in advanced indigenous Soviet
capabilities, and -- especially -- the role played by tech transfer
from the West. Another issue of great importance is the effectiveness
of various forms of export control.
∂24-May-88 0747 coraki!pratt@sun.com Reading list
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 07:47:28 PDT
Received: by Pescadero from SUN.COM (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA29016; Tue, 24 May 88 07:44:32 PDT
Received: from sun.Sun.COM by Sun.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA08497; Tue, 24 May 88 07:46:04 PDT
Received: from coraki.UUCP by sun.Sun.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA09722; Tue, 24 May 88 07:48:48 PDT
Received: by (4.0/SMI-4.0Beta)
id AA06673; Tue, 24 May 88 07:45:24 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 88 07:45:24 PDT
From: coraki!pratt@sun.com (Vaughan Pratt)
Message-Id: <8805241445.AA06673@>
To: comp@Pescadero.stanford.edu
Subject: Reading list
Reading list changes
1. Hardware.
Under the current list hardware knowledge is scattered in obscure places
in Hammacher. There should be a concentrated source of hardware info.
Appendix A (? I don't have it in front of me) of Hammacher is one
reasonable possibility.
2. Graphics.
While graphics is an important CS subject, interest and support for it
in our department may be too thin to warrant its inclusion. The only
faculty available for graphics are Guibas and myself. Leo tends to be
away a lot and I'll be on leave next year. There is practically no
graduate student interest; David Salesin is away, Gidi Avrahami has
work experience in graphics, one or two other students have expressed
interest, and that seems to be it.
While I'd like personally to see graphics continue in the comp, I do
think we need to look closely at its appropriateness. Any feedback
from recent comp-takers as to what to do about graphics would be good.
-v
∂24-May-88 0859 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Comp food for thought
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 08:59:20 PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA29271; Tue, 24 May 88 08:56:26 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 88 08:56:26 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805241556.AA29271@Pescadero>
To: comp@Pescadero.stanford.edu
Subject: Comp food for thought
BTW, we plan to supply food for the comp meeting.
∂24-May-88 1019 @Score.Stanford.EDU:tom@polya.stanford.edu N-CUBE
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 10:14:56 PDT
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 24 May 88 10:14:18-PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA27784; Tue, 24 May 88 10:14:37 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 88 10:14:37 PDT
From: Tom Dienstbier <tom@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805241714.AA27784@polya.stanford.edu>
To: facil@score.stanford.edu
Subject: N-CUBE
FYI
I have just received a notice from N-CUBE stating if we want to have
software maint. with up dates it will cost $4K per year.
I am not sure where we left off on this,, should I be looking for a new
home for this device, now that Anoop has declined in taking it to CIS?
tomd
∂24-May-88 1021 RPG First Draft
it's in baa.tex[arp,rpg] and baa.dvi[arp,rpg]. You will probably want to
spool it off because the Lisp code is unreadable in the tex source.
-rpg-
∂24-May-88 1059 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.stanford.edu N-CUBE
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 10:59:10 PDT
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 24 May 88 10:57:30-PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA00211; Tue, 24 May 88 10:57:47 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 88 10:57:47 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805241757.AA00211@polya.stanford.edu>
To: tom@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: facil@score.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Tom Dienstbier's message of Tue, 24 May 88 10:14:37 PDT <8805241714.AA27784@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: N-CUBE
I think we reached a consensus that we should turn it off and reduce
our potential expense. There are a couple of groups who might want it
but not in CSD.
-Jim
∂24-May-88 1114 Mailer Re: conservative humor, installment 2
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 11:14:33 PDT
Date: Tue 24 May 88 11:12:59-PDT
From: Steven Bjork <BJORK@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: conservative humor, installment 2
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 24 May 88 08:15:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12400920893.13.BJORK@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Yow! I think The Time is Now for a "Heart of Darkness" tshirt with
appropriate symbolism such as Hoover tower, etc. It would be desirable
to have Ralph Steadman as designer, given his realistic views on such
things...
--Steve
-------
∂24-May-88 1133 RPG New Version
...now available.
-rpg-
∂24-May-88 1200 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: N-CUBE
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 12:00:43 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 24 May 88 11:59:58-PDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 88 11:57:43 PDT
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: N-CUBE
To: tom@polya.stanford.edu, facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
cc: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <8805241714.AA27784@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <12400929035.51.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Jim/Tom, there wasn't any disagreement within the Facilities Committee about
discontinuing NCUBE efforts but was there ever a "last call" message to the
faculty about shutting it down and disposing of it? I think that is
appropriate.
Tom R.
-------
∂24-May-88 1231 RPG Proposal
That's right, but the BAA thing is for ``innovative, non-evolutionary''
research. Therefore, BAA is asking for stuff we weren't planning to
do. I am meeting with Betty in 30 minutes about the Qlisp funding
situation, so possily you could join us in her office?
-rpg-
∂24-May-88 1403 BJORK@Score.Stanford.EDU Steadman
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 14:03:07 PDT
Date: Tue 24 May 88 14:02:54-PDT
From: Steven Bjork <BJORK@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Steadman
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue 24 May 88 11:51:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12400951825.13.BJORK@Score.Stanford.EDU>
He's a caricaturist known for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (with
Hunter S. Thompson), as well as his own Scar Strangled Banger (on this
wonderful place called America). A.k.a. "poison pen" artist.
--Steve
-------
∂24-May-88 1417 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.stanford.edu N-CUBE
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 14:17:14 PDT
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 24 May 88 14:15:39-PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA10429; Tue, 24 May 88 14:15:53 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 88 14:15:53 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8805242115.AA10429@polya.stanford.edu>
To: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Cc: tom@polya.stanford.edu, facil@Score.Stanford.EDU,
Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: TC Rindfleisch's message of Tue, 24 May 88 11:57:43 PDT <12400929035.51.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: N-CUBE
Tom,
No, we haven't sent out a message like that as yet. I will compose and
send one if everyone agrees.
-Jim
∂24-May-88 1435 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu Meeting with Nils
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 14:34:56 PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA24073; Tue, 24 May 88 14:35:32 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 88 14:35:32 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8805242135.AA24073@athena.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.stanford.edu
Cc: nilsson@TENAYA.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 24 May 88 1426 PDT <8805242124.AA07115@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Subject: Meeting with Nils
John,
FYI, Nils is out of town but will be back tomorrow (wed). I don't
know what his schedule is.
George
∂24-May-88 1511 chandler@polya.stanford.edu
Received: from polya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 15:01:40 PDT
Received: by polya.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2) id AA13102; Tue, 24 May 88 15:01:55 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 1988 15:01:53 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.stanford.edu>
Cc: nilsson@tenaya.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of 24 May 88 1426 PDT
Message-Id: <CMM.0.86.580514513.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
For your info, Nils' calendar is really booked tomorrow afternoon.
He has meetings from noon through 5:00.
∂24-May-88 1646 RPG Qlisp/BAA
To: JSW, JMC
We do *not* have to do any more than propose Qlisp - no new stuff required.
-rpg-
∂24-May-88 1854 @Score.Stanford.EDU:binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU N-CUBE
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 18:54:16 PDT
Received: from Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 24 May 88 18:53:42-PDT
Received: by Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA00801; Tue, 24 May 88 18:50:12 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 88 18:50:12 PDT
From: binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu (Tom Binford)
Message-Id: <8805250150.AA00801@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu>
To: tom@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: facil@score.stanford.edu
Subject: N-CUBE
Tom
In absence of interest, I suggest that we dispose of it.
Tom
∂24-May-88 2018 PAF Re: Conservative Humor
I chuckled at the bit from the Spectator, but I'm afraid that it couldn't
compete with Homer's knee - jerk response for hilarity. :-)
-=paulf
∂24-May-88 2020 PAF SAIL
Some first impressions:
I've had lots of fun picking up on WAITS. SAIL has kind of an "earthy"
feeling to it; something like an old house. Carting the pdp-10 away will
be somewhat akin to removing an oak that's very well rooted.
Some specific stuff:
WAITS terminal service ~= X windows (or whatever the standard of the week is)
"E" suffers from the "chicken-egg" problem, since you need it to read the docs.
Is there a version of LISP on SAIL that has bit manipulation? My favorite
benchmark (32 bit RISC simulator written in FRANZ) requires it...
As far as new hardware, how about one of the larger VAX 8800 multiprocessors,
with some workstations?
-=paulf
∂24-May-88 2106 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Improvement of world
Received: from glacier.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 21:06:05 PDT
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu; Tue, 24 May 88 21:06:14 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 88 21:06:14 PDT
From: John B. Nagle <jbn@glacier.stanford.edu>
Subject: Improvement of world
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
> There are three ways of improving the world.
> (1) to kill somebody
> (2) to forbid something
> (3) to invent something new.
Boy, I wish I could make definitive statements like that.
John Nagle
∂24-May-88 2200 harnad@Princeton.EDU Language Learnability: BBS Call for Commentators
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 May 88 22:00:36 PDT
Received: from mind.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/1.63)
id AA22612; Wed, 25 May 88 00:52:45 EDT
Date: Wed, 25 May 88 00:52:45 EDT
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU
Message-Id: <8805250452.AA22612@Princeton.EDU>
To: connectionists@CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Language Learnability: BBS Call for Commentators
Below is the abstract of a forthcoming target article to appear in
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), an international journal of "open
peer commentary" in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences, published
by Cambridge University Press. For information on how to serve as a
commentator or to nominate qualified professionals in these fields as
commentators, please send email to: harnad@mind.princeton.edu
or write to: BBS, 20 Nassau Street, #240, Princeton NJ 08542
[tel: 609-921-7771]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Chomsky, heredity/environment, poverty-of-the-stimulus, development]
The Child's Trigger Experience: "Degree-0" Learnability
David Lightfoot
Linguistics Department
University of Maryland
A selective model of human language capacities holds that people come
to know more than they experience. The discrepancy between experience
and eventual capacity is bridged by genetically provided information.
Hence any hypothesis about the linguistic genotype (or "Universal
Grammar," UG) has consequences for what experience is needed and what
form people's mature capacities (or "grammars") will take. This BBS
target article discusses the "trigger experience," i.e., the experience
that actually affects a child's linguistic development. It is argued
that this must be a subset of a child's total linguistic experience
and hence that much of what a child hears has no consequence for the
form of the eventual grammar. UG filters experience and provides an
upper bound on what constitutes the triggering experience. This filtering
effect can often be seen in the way linguistic capacity can change between
generations. Children only need access to robust structures of minimal
("degree-0") complexity. Everything can be learned from simple, unembedded
"domains" (a grammatical concept involved in defining an expression's
logical form). Children do not need access to more complex structures.
∂25-May-88 0015 Mailer re: conservative humor, installment 2
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 May 88 00:15:54 PDT
Date: Wed, 25 May 88 00:16:11 PDT
From: Homer Chin <CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: conservative humor, installment 2
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Tue, 24 May 88 16:44:00 PDT
Message-ID: <12401063469.24.CHIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Yes, there is no denying that there are those that find the American
Spectator passage that JMC quoted (that called the Stanford faculty
"bovine Intelligensia," who "scholarly peruse comic books and sex
manuals," and Stanford students "morons") extremely amusing. But my
feeling is that this is a dangerous elitist attitude that
unfortunately seems to be prevalent in a vocal minority in our
community. The danger is that whole groups of people are caricatured
in a maligning and denigrating way. Reading that paragraph I can
picture Stanford professors with bovine faces eagerly perusing comic
books and sex manuals, turning the pages with their hooves, teaching a
mass of Stanford students, who are depicted as sheep-like morons.
Perhaps JMC conjured up a picture of this sort in his mind and found
it amusing; but this type of denigrating ridicule reminds me very much
of the depiction of Jews by the Nazis as thieving money-hungry wolves,
with fangs dripping the blood of the "German people," and the Star of
David emblazoned across their backs.
To label whole groups of people in a broad denigrating manner may be
the stuff conservative humor is made of, but frankly I find it
frightening that scientifically talented people such as JMC find it
amusing.
As far as Doonesbury goes, what Doonesbury seems to do is to highlight
certain statements and attitudes, pointing out the (perhaps amusing to
some) inconsistencies. Such things as the administration calling the
Contras "Freedom fighters," the MX missile "the Peacekeeper," and the
wholesale murder of civilian populations "pacification campaigns,"
would be funny, except for the fact that people in high places take
these terms seriously. Confiscating whole yachts after finding a
half-smoked joint in it, yet soliciting the Medellin Cocaine Cartel
for ten million dollars to supply the Contras; turning a blind eye to
Noreiga's drug smuggling and yet at the same time running a campaign
to "Just Say No" (as in "Just say No...riega"); calling for Noreiga to
leave the country for a year except with a stipulation that he can
return for "holidays," seem ludicrous were it not for the fact that
they are, indeed, the policy of this administration.
JMCs suggestion that I "compose a code of ethics for political
humorists defining what is ok" is misguided. I am not here to police
but to inform. The usefulness of the "American Spectator" is that it
is a reminder to us that there are people that find a resonance with
its opinions and attitudes, and that we need to be vigilant to the
danger that this may represent to a free and thinking society.
-------
∂25-May-88 0413 yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no Your travel arrangement to China.
Received: from tor.nta.no by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 May 88 04:08:41 PDT
Posted-Date: 25 May 88 12:48 +0100
Received: by tor.nta.no (5.54/3.21)
id AA00273; Wed, 25 May 88 12:54:29 +0200
Date: 25 May 88 12:48 +0100
From: Jianhua Yang <yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <261*yang@vax.runit.unit.uninett>
Subject: Your travel arrangement to China.
INVITED SPEAKER TO THE IFIP CONFERENCE IN CHINA, JULY 1988.
Dear Prof. John McCarthy,
May I ask you how you are planning to arrange your
travel to China and back to the states? May I ask you
for the estimated cost figures for your travel to/from China
which will be covered by the conference budget? I have
to look at the conference budget for the last time, I hope.
Thanks for your help!
Sincerely yours
Jianhua Yang.
∂25-May-88 0709 MEERSMAN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Arrangements for your visit to China.
Received: from lindy.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 May 88 07:09:01 PDT
Received: by lindy.stanford.edu; Wed, 25 May 88 07:10:58 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 25 May 88 07:05:47 PDT
Date: Wed, 25 May 88 13:15 N
From: <MEERSMAN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: Arrangements for your visit to China.
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
X-Original-To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Dear Prof. McCarthy,
Very soon now Prof. Solvberg will contact you about the travel and
accomodation arrgts. to be made for you at the occasion of your keynote
speech at the IFIP conference "The role of AI in Databases" (Guangzhou,
PR. China, July 4-8).
I hope that in the mean time you were able to arrange visa, etc.
May I also remind you that I still expect the text of your paper from you for
the proceedings, and furthermore it would be nice to have at least an abstract
for the local proceedings. Can I look forward to these? pls. use e-mail if
you can.
Looking forward to meet you in Guangzhou.
Kind regards,
Robert Meersman
∂25-May-88 1044 @RITTER.AI.SRI.COM:Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM Thesis committee
Received: from RITTER.AI.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 May 88 10:44:09 PDT
Received: from XITLCATL.AI.SRI.COM by RITTER.AI.SRI.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 13011; Wed 25-May-88 10:43:07 PDT
Date: Wed, 25 May 88 10:44 PDT
From: Leslie Kaelbling <Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM>
Subject: Thesis committee
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <880525104434.5.PACK@XITLCATL.AI.SRI.COM>
I was going to have my committee consist of you, Vaughan Pratt and Stan
Rosenschein, but Vaughan is going on leave next year, so I need to find
another academic council member. Can you recommend someone,
particularly with expertise in probabilistic algorithms? I'm trying to
get my committee assembled before black friday (next thursday).
Thanks,
Leslie
∂25-May-88 1055 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Qlisp
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 May 88 10:55:15 PDT
Date: Wed 25 May 88 10:54:50-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Qlisp
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU, RPG@Sail.Stanford.EDU, CLT@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: BScott@Score.Stanford.EDU, Bergman@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12401179731.17.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I just talked with John Pucci, and will request a no-cost extension of the
Qlisp task through 7/31. He told me there would be no problem with this, but
that we may not have the signed extension by May 31, the current end date.
Here is the financial status of this task as of 4/30:
Balance available in the Task $123,615.36
Less Outstanding Commitment to Lucid 93,839.45
-----------
Balance Remaining as of May 1 for Task 8 $ 29,775.91
April expenses, exclusive of Lucid, totaled $45,443.31, so there
are not sufficient funds remaining to cover May expense for Qlisp.
The $199,924 requested for a three-month extension of Qlisp will be written
as a separate Task, and as I told Dick yesterday, there are no Lucid funds
in this extension request. So as of now, the end of the Lucid subcontract
will be upon payment of the $93,8939.45 mentioned above, by July 31.
More general information: John Pucci also told me that the Secretary of
Defense has just frozen all contract funds until June 30, but he is not
sure when they will actually be released for distribution. He said he will
know more by the end of next week, so I'll call him then and see if a definite
release date has been set.
Betty
-------
∂25-May-88 1104 bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA Re: AIList Digest V7 #6 [JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU: free will discussion ]
Received: from mitre-bedford.ARPA by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 May 88 11:04:34 PDT
Date: Wed, 25 May 88 14:04:59 EDT
From: bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Kort)
Full-Name: Kort
Message-Id: <8805251804.AA09755@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.Edu
Subject: Re: AIList Digest V7 #6 [JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU: free will discussion ]
Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest
In-Reply-To: <8805241911.AA19163@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU>
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Mass.
Professor McCarthy,
If memory serves, you posted a reference to an article on AI and
free will published in the late 60's. After much digging, our
library sent me a book, _Machine Intelligence 1_, edited by Collins
and Michie, which was supposed to contain your article. However,
this book turns out not to contain your article. Can you refresh
me on the reference again. Thanks.
--Barry Kort
∂25-May-88 1145 wolf@polya.stanford.edu Re: The next stage
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 May 88 11:45:29 PDT
Received: by Pescadero from Polya.Stanford.EDU (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA12462; Wed, 25 May 88 11:41:13 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA18960; Wed, 25 May 88 11:43:45 PDT
Message-Id: <8805251843.AA18960@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu>
Cc: comp@Pescadero.stanford.edu, wolf@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: The next stage
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 18 May 88 23:16:55 -0700.
<8805190616.AA00990@Pescadero>
Date: Wed, 25 May 88 11:43:43 PDT
From: wolf@polya.stanford.edu
I must have missed the followup message to this.
We have a meeting today at noon?
Where?
Michael
∂25-May-88 1600 GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu RE: phone number
Received: from mis.arizona.edu (misvax.mis.arizona.edu) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 May 88 15:59:54 PDT
Received: by mis.arizona.edu id <21000320101@mis.arizona.edu> ;
Wed, 25 May 88 15:58:09 MST
Date: Wed, 25 May 88 15:57:10 MST
From: GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu
Subject: RE: phone number
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
X-VMS-Mail-To: EXOS%"John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>"
Message-ID: <880525155710.21000320101@mis.arizona.edu>
John:
I tried to call you at both of the numbers in your last message, but
got no answer. Please feel free to call me evenings at 602-299-5785.
∂25-May-88 2155 JSW Biography for Carolyn
Do you know if Carolyn has a biographical writeup stored online?
∂25-May-88 2227 JSW Bios
Thanks for the pointer. I have biographical information now on you,
Carolyn, Dick, Ron, myself and Kelly. Dan has given me some info but
it is not in suitable form yet. Arkady is on vacation and Igor has
still not showed up.
But it occurs to me that maybe this is too much -- should everyone's
bio be included or should it stop at a certain level?
Also in Carolyn's file there is no prose describing her background and
interests, which I have for everyone else. Can we get this somehow?
∂26-May-88 0746 bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA Prof. McCarthy's Article on Free Will
Received: from mitre-bedford.ARPA by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 May 88 07:45:58 PDT
Date: Thu, 26 May 88 10:46:33 EDT
From: bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Kort)
Full-Name: Kort
Message-Id: <8805261446.AA11827@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
To: mps@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Prof. McCarthy's Article on Free Will
Cc: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Please send me a copy of Professor's McCarthy's article on Free Will
which appeared in Machine Intelligence 4.
Thanks kindly.
Barry Kort
M/S K318
MITRE Corp.
Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
∂26-May-88 0813 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:lcp%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK reports on Isabelle
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 May 88 08:13:19 PDT
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 26 May 88 08:13:04-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (CHAOS 3131) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 26 May 88 11:09:46 EDT
Received: from NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK (TCP 20012204403) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 26 May 88 11:10:50 EDT
Received: from computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk by NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
via Janet with NIFTP id aa06972; 26 May 88 15:53 BST
Received: from dunlin.cl.cam.ac.uk by gnnt.Cl.Cam.AC.UK id aa04171;
26 May 88 15:48 BST
Received: by uk.ac.cam.cl.dunlin (1.1/SMI-3.0DEV3)
id AA14289; Thu, 26 May 88 14:48:25 GMT
Date: Thu, 26 May 88 14:48:25 GMT
From: lcp%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
Message-Id: <8805261448.AA14289@uk.ac.cam.cl.dunlin>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: reports on Isabelle
Two new reports on Isabelle are available. They can be requested from me
or from the Computing Service Bookshop at the address below.
--Lawrence C Paulson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
Pembroke Street
Cambridge CB2 3QG
England
REPORT 113: The Foundation of a Generic Theorem Prover
ABSTRACT:
Isabelle is an interactive theorem prover that supports a variety of logics.
It represents rules as propositions (not as functions) and builds proofs by
combining rules. These operations constitute a meta-logic (or `logical
framework') in which the object-logics are formalized. Isabelle is now based
on higher-order logic -- a precise and well-understood foundation.
Examples illustrate use of this meta-logic to formalize logics and proofs.
Axioms for first-order logic are shown sound and complete. Backwards proof is
formalized by meta-reasoning about object-level entailment.
Higher-order logic has several practical advantages over other meta-logics.
Many proof techniques are known, such as Huet's higher-order unification
algorithm.
REPORT 133: A Preliminary User's Manual for Isabelle
ABSTRACT:
The theorem prover Isabelle and several of its object-logics are described.
Where other papers have been concerned with theory, the emphasis here is
completely practical: the operations, commands, data structures, and
organization of Isabelle. This information could benefit both users of
Isabelle and implementors of other systems.
∂26-May-88 0900 physicsl@sierra.STANFORD.EDU BOOK ON HOLD
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 May 88 09:00:46 PDT
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 26 May 88 08:56:42 PDT
Date: Thu, 26 May 1988 8:56:41 PDT
From: "Henry E. Lowood" <physicsl@sierra>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: BOOK ON HOLD
To: J. McCarthy
Fr: Physics Library
The following book will be held for you at the Physics Library through 6/2/88:
QC173.65.S74 1987 Stephenson, G.: Special relativity for physicists
∂26-May-88 0924 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU no meeting today!
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 May 88 09:24:10 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA05344; Thu, 26 May 88 09:24:08 PDT
Date: Thu, 26 May 88 09:24:08 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8805261624.AA05344@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed
Subject: no meeting today!
Matt
∂26-May-88 0930 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:lcp%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK reports on Isabelle (correction)
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 May 88 09:30:40 PDT
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 26 May 88 09:25:11-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (CHAOS 3131) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 26 May 88 12:22:17 EDT
Received: from NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK (TCP 20012204403) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 26 May 88 12:22:19 EDT
Received: from computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk by NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
via Janet with NIFTP id aa07573; 26 May 88 16:49 BST
Received: from dunlin.cl.cam.ac.uk by gnnt.Cl.Cam.AC.UK id aa04521;
26 May 88 16:47 BST
Received: by uk.ac.cam.cl.dunlin (1.1/SMI-3.0DEV3)
id AA14394; Thu, 26 May 88 15:47:21 GMT
Date: Thu, 26 May 88 15:47:21 GMT
From: lcp%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
Message-Id: <8805261547.AA14394@uk.ac.cam.cl.dunlin>
To: theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: reports on Isabelle (correction)
My apologies, REPORT 113 is the first version of the paper and is obsolete.
The current version is REPORT 130.
L C Paulson
∂26-May-88 1717 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: absence
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 May 88 17:17:39 PDT
Received: from localhost.ARPA by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.12/25-eef) id AA05666; Thu, 26 May 88 17:17:06 pdt
Message-Id: <8805270017.AA05666@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: absence
In-Reply-To: Your message of 22 May 88 07:04:00 -0700.
<8805221405.AA03153@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 26 May 88 17:17:04 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
1) I was expecting to be back a few days earlier than I actually was,
(I was driving cross-country, and it took longer than expected,
this is also why I was not to be found, unlike all my other trips)
2) I was off by a couple of weeks on the expected time of the darpa
crisis, which is no excuse, of course.
3) This is the last East Coast trip for a long while.
In any event, many apologies.
See you when you get back
Igor
∂27-May-88 0847 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
STABLE CLOSURES, DEFEASIBLE LOGIC
AND CONTRADICTION TOLERANT REASONING
Paul Morris
IntelliCorp
Friday, May 27, 3:15pm
MJH 301
A solution to the Yale shooting problem has been previously proposed that
uses so-called non-normal defaults. With this approach there is only one
extension -- the sensible one. One disadvantage, however, is that the
representation does not respond well to new conflicting information:
instead of making appropriate revisions, the extension collapses.
In this talk we propose a way out of this difficulty by defining a new
formal counterpart to the intuitive notion of a reasonable set of beliefs.
The new formalization coincides with the previous one when there are no
conflicts. Thus, it can avoid the Yale shooting problem by the use of
non-normal defaults. However, when fresh conflicting information is
added, the new approach produces a revised interpretation which agrees
well with intuition, and is similar to that obtained by dependency
directed backtracking in a truth maintenance system.
We also consider in this talk the relationship of this new system for
belief revision to relevance logic. This motivates the development of
a new formalism for default reasoning called Defeasible Logic, whose
behavior is similar to Autoepistemic Logic, but whose notation and
semantics may be more intuitive.
∂27-May-88 1005 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu some comments re technology chapters
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 May 88 10:04:13 PDT
Date: Fri, 27 May 88 09:41 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: some comments re technology chapters
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, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS
Some comments on the draft material for the hardware chapter
(sections 2 and 6). Plus several more general comments that apply
to all our technology chapters.
The outline for the whole chapter is fine.
What's here for sections 2 and 6 seems pretty good. I'll limit
myself to a couple of minor points. The titles of section 2.3
(Mass Storage Technologies) and 6.0 (Mass Data Storage) sound
almost the same, although they cover different material. Perhaps
the title of 2.3 could be changed a little to something like
"memory component technologies"? I guess I was also a little
surprised to see no discussion of bistable optical devices
under possible breakthrough technologies for logic components.
Has it been pretty much determined that the future of optical
components is limited to the memory area? If so, we should say
so.
I'm more worried about what's not here. This applies mainly to
the topics of international players and protectability. We seem
pretty minimal here. There is coverage of the major leading edge
R&D and production players, but shouldn't we also say more about
the prospectively much larger set of Western and Far Eastern
players who are not at the leading edge, but still have enough
technological capability to be of considerable value to the
Soviets? This seems fundamental to our whole concern with
"commoditization." In the same vein, shouldn't we distinguish,
under protectability, between international dispersion that stays
within the CoCom countries (essentially NATO and Japan) and that
which has passed beyond CoCom? Under the latter, from a national
security standpoint, might there be differences between what we
can do with countries, like South Korea, who are seriously
dependent on the US for their own military security and those that
are not? Or are international technological and business trends
such that the US is hopelessly losing leverage everywhere?
These chapters also mention export controls as a handicap to the
competitiveness of US companies in the international arena. We
can't simply say this. If we believe this, it is very important
that we say it convincingly; otherwise we're going to get dumped
on. Similarly, if we believe that there should be no controls on
the publication of theoretical material, we should say so in a
convincing manner, not as some sort of obvious "given." There
have been past attempts to control academic or theoretical work
in some areas our study covers.
These questions are clearly of more general concern than for
just the hardware chapter.
It is important that the authors of all our technology chapters
get complete drafts to Marjorie very soon. She will have to do a
respectable amount of synthesizing and editing before they can be
distributed to the full membership in mid-June. We are also
struggling with the first drafts of the three issues, Soviet and
conclusions etc. chapters, so she is heavily overloaded.
In your drafts, if you have questions or have holes, please note
these explicitly. One of the things we'd like to try to do at our
July meeting is make a collective resolving pass over the
questions and holes.
∂27-May-88 1413 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 May 88 14:12:55 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA10336; Fri, 27 May 88 14:09:53 PDT
Date: Fri, 27 May 88 14:09:53 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8805272109.AA10336@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 24 May 88 1426 PDT <8805242124.AA07115@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Sorry, Just reading my mail now. Maybe we can talk at the retreat?
-Nils
∂27-May-88 1413 Qlisp-mailer This is not about Fibonacci!
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 May 88 14:12:52 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.12/25-eef) id AA07832; Fri, 27 May 88 14:12:16 pdt
Date: Fri, 27 May 88 14:12:16 pdt
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8805272112.AA07832@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: This is not about Fibonacci!
Since not much has been posted to Qlisp lately, I thought I'd post
some results on parallel versions of RPG's Tak benchmarks. These
are all AND-Parallel programs.
Tak's computation tree has alot of very small branches with very
little work done in most of the branches. It seems classifiable as a
"small grained" parallelism problem. With 4 processors, we get a
speed-up of 2.6, and with 7 processors, 3.2. This is not a very
satisfactory speed-up curve. For Takr, the bench mark with 100
different copies of the tak function, the speed-ups are 2.74//4
3.53//7. In some sense, the granularity of this problem is slightly
more than TAK's.
The Takl benchmark is a larger grained problem than TAK. The amount
of work done in this benchmark is significant (alot of cdring down
lists in SHORTER-P). The serial problem takes exactly 2 seconds to
run, roughly 4 times as long as TAK. There is decent speed-up of mas
(the takl function), 3.4//4 and 5.1//7.
With all of these benchmarks, there is alot of spawning, causing alot of
allocation of memory. If we use Lucid's CONDITION-MEMORY function, the
parallel speed-ups tend to increase by at least 15%.
************ Code *******************************
;;; Think of the #? reader macro as expanding into a Qlet, with a dynymaic
;;; spawning predicate. Or think of it as a version of PCALL.
(defun tak (x y z)
(declare (fixnum x y z))
(if (not (< y x))
z
#?(tak (tak (1- x) y z)
(tak (1- y) z x)
(tak (1- z) x y))))
;;; 100 distinct copies of tak, for testing cache.
;;; NOTE: It took about 15 minutes to compile the TAKR.QLISP file.
(defun tak99 (x y z)
(declare (fixnum x y z))
(cond ((not (< y x)) z)
(t #?(tak0 (tak0 (1- x) y z)
(tak0 (1- y) z x)
(tak0 (1- z) x y)))))
;;; This version is really a test of how fast CDR is. On the
;;; Alliant, CAR and CDR are relatively fast.
(defun mas (x y z)
(if (not (shorterp y x))
z
#?(mas (mas (cdr x) y z)
(mas (cdr y) z x)
(mas (cdr z) x y))))
******************** Experiments **********************
Each experimental run consists of ten trials. The CPU time (in
milliseconds), SYS time, and number of Spawns for that trial are
printed out. At the end of the ten trials, the minimum, mean, and
standard deviation of these three quantities appears. The #P:k means
that the experiment was run on k processors.
None of these experiments used the CONDITION-MEMORY function. If we
did use it, alot of the rough spots in these experiments (large
variance in running time and number of spawns) would disappear.
The SYS time zero in most of the trials. I don't exactly know what it
includes.
************************* 4 Processors ***************
> (cpu (tak 18 12 6))
CPU: 195 SYS: 0 Spawns: 985
CPU: 210 SYS: 0 Spawns: 865
CPU: 180 SYS: 0 Spawns: 805
CPU: 214 SYS: 16 Spawns: 1006
CPU: 226 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1189
CPU: 209 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1273
CPU: 189 SYS: 0 Spawns: 823
CPU: 189 SYS: 0 Spawns: 982
CPU: 204 SYS: 16 Spawns: 952
CPU: 207 SYS: 16 Spawns: 856
#P:4 (TAK 18 12 6)
CPU (min mean stddev): 180 202.3 13.2
SYS (min mean stddev): 0 4.8 7.3
Spawn (min mean stddev): 805 973.6 146.5
Adding (TAK 18 12 6) to experiments database.
NIL
> (cpu (tak0 18 12 6))
CPU: 275 SYS: 39 Spawns: 1210
CPU: 246 SYS: 18 Spawns: 925
CPU: 221 SYS: 0 Spawns: 985
CPU: 233 SYS: 0 Spawns: 835
CPU: 209 SYS: 0 Spawns: 634
CPU: 286 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1648
CPU: 229 SYS: 47 Spawns: 985
CPU: 211 SYS: 0 Spawns: 739
CPU: 218 SYS: 0 Spawns: 805
CPU: 275 SYS: 32 Spawns: 1447
#P:4 (TAK0 18 12 6)
CPU (min mean stddev): 209 240.3 27.2
SYS (min mean stddev): 0 13.6 18.0
Spawn (min mean stddev): 634 1021.3 305.4
Adding (TAK0 18 12 6) to experiments database.
NIL
> (cpu (mas 18l 12l 6l))
CPU: 592 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1324
CPU: 567 SYS: 0 Spawns: 958
CPU: 598 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1297
CPU: 559 SYS: 0 Spawns: 886
CPU: 612 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1726
CPU: 570 SYS: 0 Spawns: 766
CPU: 622 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1732
CPU: 557 SYS: 0 Spawns: 865
CPU: 567 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1024
CPU: 617 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1672
#P:4 (MAS 18L 12L 6L)
CPU (min mean stddev): 557 586.1 23.8
SYS (min mean stddev): 0 0.0 0.0
Spawn (min mean stddev): 766 1225.0 359.1
Adding (MAS 18L 12L 6L) to experiments database.
NIL
************************* 7 Processors **********************
> (setf *number-of-processors* 7)
7
> (cpu (mas 18l 12l 6l))
CPU: 410 SYS: 6 Spawns: 2314
CPU: 439 SYS: 13 Spawns: 3133
CPU: 390 SYS: 2 Spawns: 1894
CPU: 375 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1810
CPU: 385 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1960
CPU: 367 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1786
CPU: 354 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1468
CPU: 417 SYS: 0 Spawns: 2779
CPU: 385 SYS: 0 Spawns: 2149
CPU: 371 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1621
#P:7 (MAS 18L 12L 6L)
CPU (min mean stddev): 354 389.3 24.5
SYS (min mean stddev): 0 2.1 4.1
Spawn (min mean stddev): 1468 2091.4 494.9
NIL
> (cpu (tak 18 12 6))
CPU: 191 SYS: 0 Spawns: 2230
CPU: 161 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1780
CPU: 186 SYS: 0 Spawns: 2272
CPU: 176 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1948
CPU: 173 SYS: 0 Spawns: 2152
CPU: 147 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1318
CPU: 171 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1978
CPU: 154 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1447
CPU: 155 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1633
CPU: 151 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1369
#P:7 (TAK 18 12 6)
CPU (min mean stddev): 147 166.5 14.4
SYS (min mean stddev): 0 0.0 0.0
Spawn (min mean stddev): 1318 1812.7 339.8
NIL
> (cpu (tak0 18 12 6))
CPU: 176 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1522
CPU: 180 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1465
CPU: 179 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1498
CPU: 218 SYS: 0 Spawns: 2662
CPU: 178 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1666
CPU: 153 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1063
CPU: 183 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1753
CPU: 246 SYS: 17 Spawns: 2830
CPU: 183 SYS: 0 Spawns: 1738
CPU: 173 SYS: 4 Spawns: 1393
#P:7 (TAK0 18 12 6)
CPU (min mean stddev): 153 186.9 24.8
SYS (min mean stddev): 0 2.1 5.1
Spawn (min mean stddev): 1063 1759.0 529.2
NIL
>
******************************************************
The serial times of the three versions of tak.
> (time (tak 18 12 6))
Elapsed real time = 540 milliseconds
User cpu time = 532 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 532 milliseconds
7
> (time (tak0 18 12 6))
Elapsed real time = 670 milliseconds
User cpu time = 659 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 659 milliseconds
7
> (time (mas 18l 12l 6l))
Elapsed real time = 2000 milliseconds
User cpu time = 2000 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 2000 milliseconds
(7 6 5 4 3 2 1)D
∂27-May-88 1509 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu We should start thinking about a title
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 May 88 15:09:37 PDT
Date: Fri, 27 May 88 14:50 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: We should start thinking about a title
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, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS
for our report.
An earlier report that covered a broader sweep used the following title
that struck me as "solid" :
Balancing the National Interest: U.S. National Security Export Controls
and Global Economic Competition.
Any suggestions for us?
∂30-May-88 2039 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU [Jonathan A Rees <JAR@ML.AI.MIT.EDU>: pocket lisp machine]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 May 88 20:39:44 PDT
Date: Mon 30 May 88 20:39:21-PDT
From: Ramin Zabih <RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [Jonathan A Rees <JAR@ML.AI.MIT.EDU>: pocket lisp machine]
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12402596860.17.RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I thought this might interest you...
Ramin
---------------
Return-Path: <@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU:JAR@ML.AI.MIT.EDU>
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 24 May 88 19:21:25-PDT
Received: from zurich (TCP 2206400260) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 24 May 88 22:21:59 EDT
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU (ai.ai.mit.edu) by ZURICH.AI.MIT.EDU; Tue, 24 May 88 22:19:08 edt
Received: from ML.AI.MIT.EDU (CHAOS 3133) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 24 May 88 22:19:02 EDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 88 22:18:45 EDT
From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@ML.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: pocket lisp machine
To: switzerland@ZURICH.AI.MIT.EDU, macaroni@YALE.ARPA
Message-Id: <6939.880524.JAR@ML.AI.MIT.EDU>
[I saw the following announcement at DEC.]
CASIO (in Japan) has announced a new calculater which runs Lisp.
AI-1000
RAM 32KB (Max. 64KB)
Disp. 32 cols * 4 lines
188mm * 83mm * 15mm, 249g
(7.4" * 3.3" * 0.6")
39,800yen ($320.00 ??)
ROM card for Prolog will be available in July.
TDK!
DEC-Japan Project Hatena
-------
∂31-May-88 1015 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com workshop
Received: from siemens ([129.73.7.1]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 May 88 10:15:26 PDT
Received: by siemens (5.54/1.15)
id AA21342; Tue, 31 May 88 12:16:26 EDT
From: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank)
Date: Tue, 31 May 88 18:18:44 -0200
Message-Id: <8805311618.AA23789@ztivax.uucp>
Received: by ztivax.uucp; Tue, 31 May 88 18:18:44 -0200
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: workshop
Cc: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com
Dear John:
I↑ve told Joerg Siekmann from Kaiserslautern University that you might be
interested in visiting them before the Grassau-Workshop (Friday before).
They↑ll contact you concerning the IF and the HOW↑s.
Please let me know before the workshop if you need any other than
"standard" reservations (aarival Sunday, 12th June, departure Thursday,
16th June) and whether you↑ll make use of our bus transfer or come directly
to the workshop site.
See you soon,
Michael Reinfrank
∂31-May-88 1339 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU quarterly report
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 May 88 13:39:11 PDT
Received: from localhost.ARPA by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (4.12/25-eef) id AA09455; Tue, 31 May 88 13:38:06 pdt
Message-Id: <8805312038.AA09455@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: nfields@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
clt@sail, jmc@sail, rpg@sail
Subject: quarterly report
Date: Tue, 31 May 88 13:37:58 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Institution:
Stanford University, Department of Computer Science
Project Title:
Qlisp for Parallel Processors
Principal Investigators:
John McCarthy - official PI
Carolyn Talcott (PI mailbox)
Igor Rivin
Dick Gabriel (Lucid)
Ron Goldman (Lucid)
Phone No.:
415-723-0936 (Talcott)
Project PI Net Address:
clt@sail.stanford.edu
Technical Information
a. Recent accomplishments and major events:
Our Alliant FX/8 system is now up to seven processors (from four)
which helped uncover several performance problems (many of which have
been fixed). The language implementation has gone on apace. The deep
binding strategy for special variables has now been implemented. Many
efficiency improvements have been made. A new "global" declaration
makes global variable references considerably faster.
Considerable effort has taken place in the applications area of
computer algebra. Several representations for polynomials have been
investigated with a view to the suitability to parallelism. The Risch
algorithm for indefinite integration has been largely implemented as a
sequential Lisp program, in preparation for development under Qlisp.
This algorithm has traditionally been considered the test of a
computer algebra system.
b. Immediate technical objectives and challenges:
The main challenges in the implementation area at this point are the
implementation of non-local exits via CATCH and THROW and the
implementation of futures (and hence the 'EAGER form of QLET).
On the applications side, we will continue the computer algebra work,
and will investigate the amount of parallelism one can extract using
QLISP constructs.
c. New opportunities:
d. Major personnel changes:
None
e. Major recent publications:
Arkady Rabinov
Programming in QLISP -- Case Study (Stanford CSD tech report)
Joseph Weening
A Parallel Lisp Simulator (Stanford CSD tech report)
R. Gabriel and R. Goldman
Preliminary Results with the Initial Implementation of Qlisp
(1988 Lisp and Functional Programming Conference)
Financial Information (Dollar amounts can be in $K)
a. ARPA Order number, agent, and contract number:
Darpa order number: ????
Contracting agency: SPAWAR
Contract number: N00039-84-C-0211
Task Number: 8
b. Basic contract dollar amount:
$1,912,324
c. Dollar amounts and purposes of options, if any:
None
d. Start and end dates for task/contract (Mention no-cost extension):
7/15/86-1/15/88 with (no-cost extension through 5/31/88)
e. Total spending authority received to date (Note the date):
$1,912,324 (3/31/88)
f. Total spent to date (Note the date to which it applies):
$1,658,369 (3/31/88)
g. Approximate monthly expenditure rate:
$86K
h. Any major non-salary expenses planned within this increment of funds
(and any other deviations expected from the item above):
Travel to Lisp conference in July (4 people)
i. Date next increment of funds or other government action (specify)
is needed:
Action on proposal for continued Qlisp research is needed as soon
as possible. A $200K increment in the current funding was requested
an approved (given the Stanford umbrella extension). This funding
was supposed to cover the period Apr 88 -- Jun 88.
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂31-May-88 1446 @RITTER.AI.SRI.COM:Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM G81
Received: from RITTER.AI.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 May 88 14:46:40 PDT
Received: from XITLCATL.AI.SRI.COM by RITTER.AI.SRI.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 13244; Tue 31-May-88 14:45:42 PDT
Date: Tue, 31 May 88 14:47 PDT
From: Leslie Kaelbling <Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM>
Subject: G81
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <880531144708.9.PACK@XITLCATL.AI.SRI.COM>
Could I come see you late tomorrow afternoon about my thesis proposal
and G81?
- Leslie
∂31-May-88 1637 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU: Re: Shall we eliminate the NCUBE?]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 May 88 16:36:18 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 31 May 88 16:23:35-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA22492; Tue, 31 May 88 16:24:03 PDT
Date: Tue, 31 May 88 16:24:03 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8805312324.AA22492@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
Subject: [WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU: Re: Shall we eliminate the NCUBE?]
Return-Path: <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 25 May 88 19:16:14 PDT
>From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Shall we eliminate the NCUBE?
To: ball@polya.Stanford.EDU
Cc: Faculty@score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <8805252020.AA23558@polya.Stanford.EDU>
I believe we admitted some stuidents with hypercube experience.
If they are coming we should hold the decision.
Gio
-------
∂31-May-88 1638 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [MAYR@Score.Stanford.EDU: NCube]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 May 88 16:37:59 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 31 May 88 16:24:39-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA22556; Tue, 31 May 88 16:25:02 PDT
Date: Tue, 31 May 88 16:25:02 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8805312325.AA22556@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
Subject: [MAYR@Score.Stanford.EDU: NCube]
Return-Path: <MAYR@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue 31 May 88 15:08:16-PDT
>From: Ernst W. Mayr <MAYR@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: NCube
To: ball@Score.Stanford.EDU
Since a few of my students are using the Ncube for their programming project
and research work, I am interested that it remains available, at least thru
September. I am willing to share in any reasonable costs arising out of this.
-ernst
-------
∂31-May-88 1639 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU NCUBE Interest
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 May 88 16:39:51 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 31 May 88 16:27:22-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA22730; Tue, 31 May 88 16:27:47 PDT
Date: Tue, 31 May 88 16:27:47 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8805312327.AA22730@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
Subject: NCUBE Interest
I sent a couple of the positive responses I had from faculty members
regarding the NCUBE. It appears that we should hang on to it until
September. We will not spend any money on it.
-Jim
∂31-May-88 1701 IRVINE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU NAE reference letter
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 May 88 17:01:33 PDT
Date: Tue, 31 May 88 17:01:28 PDT
From: Sue Irvine <Irvine@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: NAE reference letter
To: allen.newell@c.cs.cmu.edu, McCarthy@sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: Irvine@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12402819339.61.IRVINE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Professor Feigenbaum has nominated Bruce Buchanan for membership in the NAE.
He would like to know if you would be willing to write a reference letter
for him. If you are willing to do so, I will send you the form immediately
so that it will reach NAE by June 24.
Thank you,
Sue Irvine
-------
∂31-May-88 1717 @Score.Stanford.EDU:wheaton@athena.stanford.edu NCUBE Interest
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 May 88 17:17:48 PDT
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 31 May 88 17:13:07-PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA00330; Tue, 31 May 88 17:13:08 PDT
Date: Tue, 31 May 88 17:13:08 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8806010013.AA00330@athena.stanford.edu>
To: ball@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: Facil@Score.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Jim Ball's message of Tue, 31 May 88 16:27:47 PDT <8805312327.AA22730@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: NCUBE Interest
Looks as though Ernst just volunteered to spend some money.
GW
∂31-May-88 1741 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM I wont be able to make it..
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 May 88 17:41:25 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 31 MAY 88 17:36:32 PDT
Date: 31 May 88 17:36 PDT
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: I wont be able to make it..
To: unido!ztivax!reinfra@seismo.CSS.GOV
cc: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM, reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com, deKleer.pa@Xerox.COM,
JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <880531-173632-4148@Xerox>
Michael,
I regret that I wont be able to attend the NMR workshop. I apologise most
sincerely for letting you know this so late in the arrangements. My reason is
connected with health.
As you may know, I have, for several years now, been prone to seizures (
stemming from a childhood head injury ). These are controlled quite adequately
by regular medication and normally do not interfere with my life in any
important way, but they tend to come in cycles and are triggered by lack of
sleep and increased stress. I was slightly worried about the workshop ( my
earlier plans to travel in Italy were abandoned some time ago, so I would be
arriving directly with an 8-hour jetlag ), but had decided that all would be
OK. However, just recently I suffered an unusually severe seizure and was today
advised that it would be wise to refrain from any complicated travelling for at
least a month. ( The seizures take the form of making me temporarily aphasic,
so that I am - quite uncharacteristically - unable to speak or understand what
is said to me. While this is not in itself very awkward ( unless one is, as I
was last week, giving a lecture at the time ) I am anxious to avoid them as far
as I can, as their longterm effects are somewhat unpredictable. )
I am sure that the workshop will be a great success without me, in any case,
and if there is any way in which I can help from over here, please let me know.
And again, I am really very sorry to have to disturb your arrangements and
disappoint you so late in the day.
With thanks and apologies
Pat Hayes
∂31-May-88 1821 PAT@CCRMA-F4
Received: from CCRMA-F4 by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with PUP; 31-May-88 18:20 PDT
Date: 31 May 88 1816 PDT
From: Patte Wood <PAT%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
To: "@MAR.DIS[1,PAT]"%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
∂12-Jan-88 0909 CC Re: support letter
∂12-Jan-88 0857 DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU Re: support letter
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by CCRMA with PUP; 12-Jan-88 08:57 PST
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jan 88 08:52:54 PST
Received: ID <DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Tue 12 Jan 88 11:52:55-EST
Date: Tue 12 Jan 88 11:52:50-EST
From: Roger.Dannenberg@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: support letter
To: CC%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: mvm%ccrma-f4@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "Chris Chafe <CC%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon 11 Jan 88 15:22:00-EST
Message-ID: <12366041149.28.DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Letter of Support
(I'm not sure of the right format for this, so feel free
to add addresses or a title or whatever, and forge a
signature if you need one.)
The interface between humans and computers places an extreme limitation on
more widespread computer use. It is true that the computer has already
become ubiquitous as a component in appliances and automobiles; however,
these applications involve either trivial interfaces or no direct human
interface at all. With the present state of
interface technology, the potential
benefits of advanced computer use are realized only through extensive
training and practice. This is impractical for many situations. In
particular, the average citizen derives very little from the enormous
potential of computer databases, communication, and information processing.
Human speech is a highly-desirable channel of communication but at present
not always a very practical one. There is much room for improvement, and
more natural sounding computer-generated speech,
as well as techniques for producing and
controlling subtle speech inflections would greatly improve matters.
The Acoustics Science and Technology Center is strategically placed to
solve this significant component of the human computer interface problem.
In addition, the proposed new approach is likely to shed some light on the
speech understanding problem, another area in which improvements could
yield huge benefits.
This is an inherently interdisciplinary study, and
the Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA) provides
an ideal environment for the proposed research. CCRMA is well known as
a home to both leading researchers and first-rate composers. The interaction
brought about by high-quality shared facilities, an open environment, and
a strong sense of community enables CCRMA to accomplish tasks
that would be impossible in another setting.
Speech synthesis is one these tasks that requires a very wide range
of expertise. Hardware and systems expertise is needed to provide
adequate computation power. Sophisticated digital signal processing
techniques are needed to construct appropriate models of the human
speech apparatus. Expertise in computer language design
and real-time control is needed to provide high-level control of
the vocal tract model. Psycho-acoustics is needed to understand the
implications of the listener's auditory apparatus for speech synthesis.
It is no wonder high-quality speech synthesis has not already been
perfected.
It appears that an interdisciplinary center is the best approach to
the study of speech synthesis and related topics. Given the
productive environment at CCRMA and the individual achievements of
the participants, the Acoustics Science and Technology Center has
an excellent chance of making significant contributions to the
state of the art in speech synthesis and understanding. The
potential benefits of this research are considerable:
among them is making computers more
available and more useful to a wider segment of the public.
-------
∂12-Jan-88 0909 CC current and pending support
∂12-Jan-88 0859 DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU current and pending support
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by CCRMA with PUP; 12-Jan-88 08:59 PST
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jan 88 08:54:22 PST
Received: ID <DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Tue 12 Jan 88 11:54:21-EST
Date: Tue 12 Jan 88 11:54:16-EST
From: Roger.Dannenberg@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: current and pending support
To: cc%ccrma-f4@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: mvm%ccrma-f4@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12366041410.28.DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Current and Pending Support for Roger Dannenberg
Current
Title: Information Processing Research
Principal Investigator: A. Newell, S. Fahlman, and A. Spector
Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Grant #:F33615-87-C-1499 (Arpa Order #4976, Amendment 19)
Duration: 7-15-87 to 7-14-90
Amount: $18,840,767
Support: 50% CY
Title: Sensor Frame Graphic Manipulator
Principal Investigator: P. McAvinney and S. Shepherd
Agency: Western Pennsylvania Advanced Technology Center,
Ben Franklin Partnership Challenge Grant Program
Duration: 9-1-87 to 8-31-88
Amount: $125,000
Support: 10% CY
Pending
Title: The Automatic Recognition of Gestures
Principal Investigator: R. Dannenberg
Agency: National Science Foundation
Duration: 7-1-88 to 6-30-89
Amount Requested: $112,520
Support: 25% CY
-------
Current support: NSF Grant BNS 83-20284
$ll0,722 for 9-1-87 to 8-31-88 (or $64,001 in direct costs)
∂12-Jan-88 1505 MVM
My research is currently supported by a 5-year research grant from the
National Science Foundation through the Foundation's Program in
Memory and Cognitive Processes: Grant No. BNS 85-11685, titled
"Mental Representations and Psychological Laws." The amount of the
support provided by this grant for the current (third) year
(September 1, 1987 to August 31, 1988) is $156,000. The amounts
budgeted for the remaining fourth and fifth years are, respectively,
$167,000 and $178,000.
(Comment: The work supported by the above mentioned NSF grant is
focused on a law of generalization and on principles for the
representation of transformations of rigid objects in
three-dimensional space and, hence, has little overlap with the
acoustical work proposed for the ASTC.)
At present, I have no other sources of support of proposals pending.
∂04-Jan-88 1111 DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU bio
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by CCRMA with PUP; 04-Jan-88 11:11 PST
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 88 11:10:36 PST
Received: ID <DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Mon 4 Jan 88 14:02:19-EST
Date: Mon 4 Jan 88 14:02:13-EST
From: Roger.Dannenberg@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: bio
To: pat@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12363967551.25.DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Patte,
Here's my bio. The reference to the forthcoming book ed. by
Matthews and Pierce is wrong. Could you send me the book title and
any other info that should be in the reference? There is a hard copy
of this in the mail, and a postscript file will be in the next email.
Happy new year and thanks,
Roger
----------------
@device(postscript)
@heading(Roger B. Dannenberg)
Dr. Dannenberg is a Research Computer Scientist in the Carnegie
Mellon Computer Science Department and Associate Director of
the Center for Art and Technology, also at Carnegie Mellon University.
He recently spent four months as Visiting Fellow at NeXT, Inc. (1987).
Dr. Dannenberg
received a Ph.D. in Computer Science
from Carnegie Mellon in 1982 after graduating summa
cum laude with a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from
Rice University (1977) and an M.S. in Computer Engineering
from Case-Western Reserve University
(1979). He received
fellowships from the National Science Foundation and the Hertz
Foundation, and is a member of Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Xi, and Phi Beta Kappa.
As a member of the Spice Project at Carnegie Mellon, Dr. Dannenberg helped
to design and develop an advanced distributed personal computing
environment. His thesis addresses the problems of resource sharing in a
network of personal computers.
Since 1983, his research interests have widened to include programming
language design and implementation, user interface design, real-time
control, and the application of computer science techniques to the
generation, control, and composition of music. He is known for the
development of real-time pattern matching algorithms used in computer
systems that accompany musicians in live performances. These systems
analyse acoustic input signals to derive a symbolic representation,
follow a musical score in real-time, and produce visual and musical
outputs that are sychronized with the input.
Dr. Dannenberg's current work includes the design and implementation of
Arctic, a very high-level, functional language for real-time control. He is
also working on the problems of interactive manipulation, display, and
printing of complex information structures.
@blankspace(0.5 inches)
@subheading(Publications:)
@begin(text, leftmargin +0.5 inches, indent -.5 inches)
Dannenberg and Ernst, "Formal Program Verification Using Symbolic
Execution", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-8, (Jan
1982), pp. 43-52.
Dannenberg, "AMPL: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of A
Multiprocessing Language", CMU Tech Report CMU-CS-82-116, 1982.
Dannenberg, "Resource Sharing In A Network Of Personal Computers", CMU, 1982
(Ph.D. Thesis).
Dannenberg, "Arctic: A Functional Language for Real-Time Control",
@i(Conference Record of the 1984 ACM Symposium on LISP and Functional
Programming), (August 1984), pp. 96-103.
Dannenberg, "An On-Line Algorithm for Real-Time Accompaniment",
@i(Proceedings of the 1984 International Computer Music Conference),
Computer Music Association, (June 1985), 193-198.
Dannenberg and Rubine, "Arctic: A Functional Language for Real-Time
Control", IEEE Software, (January 1986), pp. 70-71.
Buxton, Dannenberg, and Vercoe, "The Computer as Accompanist", @i(CHI '86
Conference Proceedings) (April 1986), ACM/SIGCHI, pp. 41-43.
Dannenberg, McAvinney, and Rubine, "Arctic: A Functional Approach to
Real-Time Control", @i(Computer Music Journal), 10(4) (Winter 1986),
pp. 67-78.
Dannenberg, "Real-Time Scheduling and Accompaniment", in @i(Computer Music),
edited by Max Mathews and John Pierce, MIT Press (to appear).
Dannenberg and Mont-Reynaud, "Following an Improvisation in Real Time",
@i(Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference),
Computer Music Association, (August 1987).
@end(text)
-------
∂01-Jan-88 1005 JOS
To: PAT
CC: CC
Hi Patte,
Max asked me to submit a bio and my ten most appropriate publications
to the NSF proposal. I assume you still have my bio, but I can resend
it if you don't. Below is my pruned publication list:
J. O. Smith and J. B. Allen, Variable Bandwidth Adaptive Delta
Modulation, Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 719-737,
May-June 1981.
J. O. Smith and J. B. Angell,
A Constant Peak-Gain Digital Resonator Tuned by a Single Coefficient,
Computer Music Journal, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 36-40, 1982.
J. O. Smith,
Techniques for Digital Filter Design and System Identification
with Application to the Violin,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Elec. Eng. Dept., Stanford University, June
1983.
J. O. Smith,
Audio Digital Filter Design,
Proc. 1983 Int. Conf. Computer Music,
Rochester NY, Computer Music Assoc., 1983.
D. Jaffe and J. O. Smith,
Extensions of the Karplus-Strong Plucked String Algorithm,
Computer Music Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 56-69, 1983.
J. O. Smith,
Synthesis of Bowed Strings,
In Proc. 1982 Int. Computer Music Conf.,
T. Blum and J. Strawn, eds.,
Computer Music Assoc., San Francisco, 1983.,
J. O. Smith,
A New Approach to Digital Reverberation using Closed Waveguide Networks,
Proc. 1985 Int. Computer Music Conf.,
Vancouver Canada, Computer Music Assoc., 1985. Also contained in
Music Dept. Tech. Rep. STAN-M-39, Stanford University, May 1987.
J. O. Smith,
Music Applications of Digital Waveguides,
CCRMA Tech. Rep. STAN-M-39,
Dept. of Music, Stanford University, May 1987.
J. O. Smith,
Efficient Simulation of the Reed-Bore and Bow-String Mechanisms,
Proc. 1986 Int. Computer Music Conf., The Hague.
Also contained in STAN-M-39.
J. O. Smith,
Waveguide Filter Tutorial,
Proc. 1987 Int. Computer Music Conf., Champaign-Urbana Ill.
∂01-Jun-88 0001 JMC
Hopper award for Hillis, need two recommendations
∂01-Jun-88 0001 JMC
Simmons?
∂01-Jun-88 0938 PAT@CCRMA-F4
Received: from CCRMA-F4 by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with PUP; 01-Jun-88 09:38 PDT
Date: 01 Jun 88 0932 PDT
From: Patte Wood <PAT%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
To: "@MAR.DIS[1,PAT]"%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
∂12-Jan-88 0909 CC Re: support letter
∂12-Jan-88 0857 DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU Re: support letter
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by CCRMA with PUP; 12-Jan-88 08:57 PST
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jan 88 08:52:54 PST
Received: ID <DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Tue 12 Jan 88 11:52:55-EST
Date: Tue 12 Jan 88 11:52:50-EST
From: Roger.Dannenberg@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: support letter
To: CC%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: mvm%ccrma-f4@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "Chris Chafe <CC%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Mon 11 Jan 88 15:22:00-EST
Message-ID: <12366041149.28.DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Letter of Support
(I'm not sure of the right format for this, so feel free
to add addresses or a title or whatever, and forge a
signature if you need one.)
The interface between humans and computers places an extreme limitation on
more widespread computer use. It is true that the computer has already
become ubiquitous as a component in appliances and automobiles; however,
these applications involve either trivial interfaces or no direct human
interface at all. With the present state of
interface technology, the potential
benefits of advanced computer use are realized only through extensive
training and practice. This is impractical for many situations. In
particular, the average citizen derives very little from the enormous
potential of computer databases, communication, and information processing.
Human speech is a highly-desirable channel of communication but at present
not always a very practical one. There is much room for improvement, and
more natural sounding computer-generated speech,
as well as techniques for producing and
controlling subtle speech inflections would greatly improve matters.
The Acoustics Science and Technology Center is strategically placed to
solve this significant component of the human computer interface problem.
In addition, the proposed new approach is likely to shed some light on the
speech understanding problem, another area in which improvements could
yield huge benefits.
This is an inherently interdisciplinary study, and
the Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA) provides
an ideal environment for the proposed research. CCRMA is well known as
a home to both leading researchers and first-rate composers. The interaction
brought about by high-quality shared facilities, an open environment, and
a strong sense of community enables CCRMA to accomplish tasks
that would be impossible in another setting.
Speech synthesis is one these tasks that requires a very wide range
of expertise. Hardware and systems expertise is needed to provide
adequate computation power. Sophisticated digital signal processing
techniques are needed to construct appropriate models of the human
speech apparatus. Expertise in computer language design
and real-time control is needed to provide high-level control of
the vocal tract model. Psycho-acoustics is needed to understand the
implications of the listener's auditory apparatus for speech synthesis.
It is no wonder high-quality speech synthesis has not already been
perfected.
It appears that an interdisciplinary center is the best approach to
the study of speech synthesis and related topics. Given the
productive environment at CCRMA and the individual achievements of
the participants, the Acoustics Science and Technology Center has
an excellent chance of making significant contributions to the
state of the art in speech synthesis and understanding. The
potential benefits of this research are considerable:
among them is making computers more
available and more useful to a wider segment of the public.
-------
∂12-Jan-88 0909 CC current and pending support
∂12-Jan-88 0859 DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU current and pending support
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by CCRMA with PUP; 12-Jan-88 08:59 PST
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jan 88 08:54:22 PST
Received: ID <DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Tue 12 Jan 88 11:54:21-EST
Date: Tue 12 Jan 88 11:54:16-EST
From: Roger.Dannenberg@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: current and pending support
To: cc%ccrma-f4@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: mvm%ccrma-f4@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12366041410.28.DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Current and Pending Support for Roger Dannenberg
Current
Title: Information Processing Research
Principal Investigator: A. Newell, S. Fahlman, and A. Spector
Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Grant #:F33615-87-C-1499 (Arpa Order #4976, Amendment 19)
Duration: 7-15-87 to 7-14-90
Amount: $18,840,767
Support: 50% CY
Title: Sensor Frame Graphic Manipulator
Principal Investigator: P. McAvinney and S. Shepherd
Agency: Western Pennsylvania Advanced Technology Center,
Ben Franklin Partnership Challenge Grant Program
Duration: 9-1-87 to 8-31-88
Amount: $125,000
Support: 10% CY
Pending
Title: The Automatic Recognition of Gestures
Principal Investigator: R. Dannenberg
Agency: National Science Foundation
Duration: 7-1-88 to 6-30-89
Amount Requested: $112,520
Support: 25% CY
-------
Current support: NSF Grant BNS 83-20284
$ll0,722 for 9-1-87 to 8-31-88 (or $64,001 in direct costs)
∂12-Jan-88 1505 MVM
My research is currently supported by a 5-year research grant from the
National Science Foundation through the Foundation's Program in
Memory and Cognitive Processes: Grant No. BNS 85-11685, titled
"Mental Representations and Psychological Laws." The amount of the
support provided by this grant for the current (third) year
(September 1, 1987 to August 31, 1988) is $156,000. The amounts
budgeted for the remaining fourth and fifth years are, respectively,
$167,000 and $178,000.
(Comment: The work supported by the above mentioned NSF grant is
focused on a law of generalization and on principles for the
representation of transformations of rigid objects in
three-dimensional space and, hence, has little overlap with the
acoustical work proposed for the ASTC.)
At present, I have no other sources of support of proposals pending.
∂04-Jan-88 1111 DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU bio
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by CCRMA with PUP; 04-Jan-88 11:11 PST
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 88 11:10:36 PST
Received: ID <DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Mon 4 Jan 88 14:02:19-EST
Date: Mon 4 Jan 88 14:02:13-EST
From: Roger.Dannenberg@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: bio
To: pat@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12363967551.25.DANNENBERG@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Patte,
Here's my bio. The reference to the forthcoming book ed. by
Matthews and Pierce is wrong. Could you send me the book title and
any other info that should be in the reference? There is a hard copy
of this in the mail, and a postscript file will be in the next email.
Happy new year and thanks,
Roger
----------------
@device(postscript)
@heading(Roger B. Dannenberg)
Dr. Dannenberg is a Research Computer Scientist in the Carnegie
Mellon Computer Science Department and Associate Director of
the Center for Art and Technology, also at Carnegie Mellon University.
He recently spent four months as Visiting Fellow at NeXT, Inc. (1987).
Dr. Dannenberg
received a Ph.D. in Computer Science
from Carnegie Mellon in 1982 after graduating summa
cum laude with a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from
Rice University (1977) and an M.S. in Computer Engineering
from Case-Western Reserve University
(1979). He received
fellowships from the National Science Foundation and the Hertz
Foundation, and is a member of Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Xi, and Phi Beta Kappa.
As a member of the Spice Project at Carnegie Mellon, Dr. Dannenberg helped
to design and develop an advanced distributed personal computing
environment. His thesis addresses the problems of resource sharing in a
network of personal computers.
Since 1983, his research interests have widened to include programming
language design and implementation, user interface design, real-time
control, and the application of computer science techniques to the
generation, control, and composition of music. He is known for the
development of real-time pattern matching algorithms used in computer
systems that accompany musicians in live performances. These systems
analyse acoustic input signals to derive a symbolic representation,
follow a musical score in real-time, and produce visual and musical
outputs that are sychronized with the input.
Dr. Dannenberg's current work includes the design and implementation of
Arctic, a very high-level, functional language for real-time control. He is
also working on the problems of interactive manipulation, display, and
printing of complex information structures.
@blankspace(0.5 inches)
@subheading(Publications:)
@begin(text, leftmargin +0.5 inches, indent -.5 inches)
Dannenberg and Ernst, "Formal Program Verification Using Symbolic
Execution", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-8, (Jan
1982), pp. 43-52.
Dannenberg, "AMPL: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of A
Multiprocessing Language", CMU Tech Report CMU-CS-82-116, 1982.
Dannenberg, "Resource Sharing In A Network Of Personal Computers", CMU, 1982
(Ph.D. Thesis).
Dannenberg, "Arctic: A Functional Language for Real-Time Control",
@i(Conference Record of the 1984 ACM Symposium on LISP and Functional
Programming), (August 1984), pp. 96-103.
Dannenberg, "An On-Line Algorithm for Real-Time Accompaniment",
@i(Proceedings of the 1984 International Computer Music Conference),
Computer Music Association, (June 1985), 193-198.
Dannenberg and Rubine, "Arctic: A Functional Language for Real-Time
Control", IEEE Software, (January 1986), pp. 70-71.
Buxton, Dannenberg, and Vercoe, "The Computer as Accompanist", @i(CHI '86
Conference Proceedings) (April 1986), ACM/SIGCHI, pp. 41-43.
Dannenberg, McAvinney, and Rubine, "Arctic: A Functional Approach to
Real-Time Control", @i(Computer Music Journal), 10(4) (Winter 1986),
pp. 67-78.
Dannenberg, "Real-Time Scheduling and Accompaniment", in @i(Computer Music),
edited by Max Mathews and John Pierce, MIT Press (to appear).
Dannenberg and Mont-Reynaud, "Following an Improvisation in Real Time",
@i(Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference),
Computer Music Association, (August 1987).
@end(text)
-------
∂01-Jan-88 1005 JOS
To: PAT
CC: CC
Hi Patte,
Max asked me to submit a bio and my ten most appropriate publications
to the NSF proposal. I assume you still have my bio, but I can resend
it if you don't. Below is my pruned publication list:
J. O. Smith and J. B. Allen, Variable Bandwidth Adaptive Delta
Modulation, Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 719-737,
May-June 1981.
J. O. Smith and J. B. Angell,
A Constant Peak-Gain Digital Resonator Tuned by a Single Coefficient,
Computer Music Journal, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 36-40, 1982.
J. O. Smith,
Techniques for Digital Filter Design and System Identification
with Application to the Violin,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Elec. Eng. Dept., Stanford University, June
1983.
J. O. Smith,
Audio Digital Filter Design,
Proc. 1983 Int. Conf. Computer Music,
Rochester NY, Computer Music Assoc., 1983.
D. Jaffe and J. O. Smith,
Extensions of the Karplus-Strong Plucked String Algorithm,
Computer Music Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 56-69, 1983.
J. O. Smith,
Synthesis of Bowed Strings,
In Proc. 1982 Int. Computer Music Conf.,
T. Blum and J. Strawn, eds.,
Computer Music Assoc., San Francisco, 1983.,
J. O. Smith,
A New Approach to Digital Reverberation using Closed Waveguide Networks,
Proc. 1985 Int. Computer Music Conf.,
Vancouver Canada, Computer Music Assoc., 1985. Also contained in
Music Dept. Tech. Rep. STAN-M-39, Stanford University, May 1987.
J. O. Smith,
Music Applications of Digital Waveguides,
CCRMA Tech. Rep. STAN-M-39,
Dept. of Music, Stanford University, May 1987.
J. O. Smith,
Efficient Simulation of the Reed-Bore and Bow-String Mechanisms,
Proc. 1986 Int. Computer Music Conf., The Hague.
Also contained in STAN-M-39.
J. O. Smith,
Waveguide Filter Tutorial,
Proc. 1987 Int. Computer Music Conf., Champaign-Urbana Ill.
∂01-Jun-88 0941 PAT@CCRMA-F4
Received: from CCRMA-F4 by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with PUP; 01-Jun-88 09:40 PDT
Date: 01 Jun 88 0935 PDT
From: Patte Wood <PAT%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
To: "@MAR.DIS[1,PAT]"%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
marathon runs no more
Marathon, venerable SAIL cat, who outlived the DC Power Building, died of
complications from old age last week (we estimate her age to have been
approximately 19 years old). After the demise of the DC Power
Laboratory Building, she lived for awhile at the Knoll. The last year of
her life were spent in pampered luxury at the home of Lois and Tovar.
[this is the message you should have received instead of what you got
about a proposal.....sorry, I don't exactly know what happened. Please
ignore my previous message......patte]
∂01-Jun-88 1124 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
PARTIAL PROGRAMS
Michael Genesereth
Yung-jen Hsu
Logic Group, Stanford University
Friday, June 3, 3:15pm
MJH 301
A partial program is an arbitrary set of constraints on the potential actions
of a machine. The advantage of having a language for writing partial programs
is ease of incremental program development. In traditional programming
languages, arbitrary decisions must often be made in writing runnable programs.
In order to change these decisions, it is necessary to rewrite the programs.
A partial programming language allows one to write programs without making
arbitrary decisions and thereby facilitates the implementation of subsequent
design refinements. We will present a theory of partial programs and discuss
some of their properties in this talk.
∂01-Jun-88 1321 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU formfeed meets tomorrow ...
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jun 88 13:21:12 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA07943; Wed, 1 Jun 88 13:20:58 PDT
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 88 13:20:58 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806012020.AA07943@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed
Subject: formfeed meets tomorrow ...
in MJH 252 again, as "usual". See you at noon!
Matt
∂01-Jun-88 1456 RPG Joe Weening
To: ullman@Score.Stanford.EDU
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I am willing to go to Black Friday tomorrow to take care of joe.
However, I'm not sure we ever decided what were the allowable options.
If Joe were able to complete his thesis by the end of summer quarter,
I would prefer that option, but given his performance over the last
year under deadlines similar to that which he would have during the
summer, I am not happy with the probable outcome. Extending his
candidacy beyond 1 quarter seems impossible.
Allowing him to take a leave of absence seems like a good way to let
him fall through the cracks, especially if he stays in the Qlisp group
at Stanford, where he would be officially disallowed from working on
his thesis by the rules. One possibility is for him to become Honors Coop,
in which situation he would probably not have so many deadline problems
with respect to the department and would allow him to work on his thesis.
Perhaps we should try to meet with Joe before the Black Friday meeting
(which is at 2:30) to resolve what to do?
-rpg-
∂01-Jun-88 1605 RPG Meeting
To: ullman@Score.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I will not be able to answer mail for a few hours. Schedule any meetings
you wish tomorrow and simply let me know when and I'll be there. I am
free all day.
-rpg-
∂01-Jun-88 1702 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Lunch
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jun 88 17:02:32 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Wed, 1 Jun 88 17:03:29 PDT
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 1 Jun 88 17:02:23 PDT
Date: 1 Jun 88 17:00 PST
To: JMC@SAIL
Subject: Lunch
Date: 1 June 1988, 16:59:07 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott (415)-926-2469 ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD
Subject: Lunch
Dear John,
Unfortunately, I am busy on Friday. How about next Monday.
Greetings,
Elliott
∂01-Jun-88 1710 OKUNO@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU availability of QLISP implementation
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jun 88 17:10:38 PDT
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 88 17:10:22 PDT
From: Hiroshi "Gitchang" Okuno <Okuno@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: availability of QLISP implementation
To: rpg@sail.Stanford.EDU, arg@sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU, clt@sail.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Knowledge Systems Laboratory, CSD, Stanford University
Group: Heuristic Programming Project
Project: Advanced Architectures Project
Address: 701 Welch Road, Building C, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1703
Phone: +1 (415)725-4854
Message-ID: <12403083102.50.OKUNO@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Dick and Ron,
I'm sorry to say that I'm leaving Stanford to go back to Japan on the
seventh of July, particularly because I have not finished in measuring
the performance of OPS5/QLISP and ATMS/QLISP yet. I also have several
research plans which will extend my research at Stanford:
(1) More aggressive speculative execution of RHS in the OPS5 system,
(2) Compiling OPS5 programs to QLISP programs,
(3) Parallel execution of other applications in QLISP such as
Natural Language Processing (parsing) and
Boyer Moore's Theorem Prover
(4) Reflexiveness of QLISP (say, 3-QLISP)
As you know, QLISP implementation is a key in these research plans and
it would take much longer to do research without a QLISP
implementation. Fortunately, I found that one of NTT Labs has two
ALLIANT FX/8 and they allowed me to use CPU cycles and small disk
spaces. (Main jobs on these machines are learning of neural network
in speech recoginition.) Therefore, I'd like to ask you the
availability of QLISP implementation to me or to NTT Labs. Of course,
QLISP will be used only for research purpose and not for commercial
one.
Regards,
- Gitchang -
-------
∂01-Jun-88 1735 @RELAY.CS.NET:bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca re: Delphes
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jun 88 17:34:53 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa03941; 1 Jun 88 20:22 EDT
Received: from ubc by RELAY.CS.NET id ab08742; 1 Jun 88 20:11 EDT
Received: by ean.ubc.ca id AA01564; Wed, 1 Jun 88 16:51:46 pdt
Date: 1 Jun 88 16:51 -0700
From: Wolfgang Bibel <bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <8805220249.AA21035@ean.ubc.ca>
Message-Id: <1072*bibel@vision.ubc.cdn>
Subject: re: Delphes
John,
Thank you very much for your concern with my whereabouts. UBC is good
(but not - yet? - outstanding) and I did establish an excellent
relationship with the people here. But so far I feel it is not quite
the challenge I expected. It's a pity that the most natural solution (a
continuation of the build-up of my group in Munich) seems to be blocked
by the stubborness of some people there. Nevertheless I appreciate your
support very much.
There was another chance that failed, and you might be interested to
know. The German AI-center, proposed to be associated with your name,
made its choice between a Mr. Barth and myself as a director. Barth is
a manager who has nothing to do with AI, and yet was selected.
Delphi was beautiful (except from the AI point of view).
With my very best regards,
Wolfgang
∂01-Jun-88 1804 Qlisp-mailer meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jun 88 18:04:40 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05616; Wed, 1 Jun 88 18:04:01 PDT
Message-Id: <8806020104.AA05616@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: meeting
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 88 18:04:00 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
I was unable to get mail out in time to have a meeting this wednesday,
NEXT wednesday we will have one at noon in MJH 301. On the agenda will
be the state of the world.
CU
Igor
∂01-Jun-88 1913 ME Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 1 June 1988
Previous Balance 4.00
Monthly Interest at 1.0% 0.04
Current Charges 4.00 (bicycle lockers)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 8.04
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 4/11/88.
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-Jun-88 2257 RPG
∂01-Jun-88 2254 JMC with or without Joe
I have nothing in mind to discuss without him, though I'm
willing if you do. It occurs to me that we have more to discuss
than Joe, so how about having lunch at the Faculty Club - say
at one pm? Otherwise two pm.
I'll have to try to move some stuff around with my schedule, but
let's assume I can do it. See you just before 1 at your office?
∂02-Jun-88 0749 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU re: JPL Paper
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 07:49:00 PDT
Received: ID <THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Thu 2 Jun 88 10:49:34-EDT
Date: Thu 2 Jun 88 10:49:30-EDT
From: Rich.Thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: re: JPL Paper
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Message-ID: <12403243145.6.THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
This is a belated reply to your request for a summary of
Hector's paper.
If you need more information, Hector would probably be happy to
send you a copy, electronic or hard
See you in Grassau.
--Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: "Logic and the complexity of reasoning"
Theme: It seems unlikely that logic can be at the root of
normal, everyday thinking. But the problems of AI force us to
a less idealized view of logic, taking relative complexity of
reasoning tasks into account.
Outline:
1. Computational systems
2. Resource bounds
3. Turing machine complexity
4. Two objections [that complex tasks are not plausible for
any reasoning architecture]
5. Knowledge-based systems
6. Logic and reasoning
7. Vivid knowledge
8. Representing universals
9. Subsumable disjunction
10. Limited inference
11. Case elimination
12. Odds and ends
13. Puzzle mode
14. Conclusion
Text of Section 14
To conclude, let me simply list the main points without further comment:
Contrary perhaps to common folklore, logic does have a significant role to
play in computational approaches to the study of cognition, but it must be
tempered by concerns of computational complexity. Cognitive models, in
general, need to be physically realistic, computational or not. But this
physical realism need not be studied solely at the level of mechanism (symbol,
or hardware); it can be approached at the level of computational tasks. The
thesis is that when inputs cannot be bounded in size, a computational task
outside of \P\ is intractable. Knowledge representation and reasoning can be
thought of as the investigation of computationally tractable and semantically
coherent manipulations of large collections of sentence-like symbolic
structures. Classical logic is the base camp for such an investigation, but
there are large, unexplored areas nearby. And finally, settling in these
areas is perhaps the only rational way a creature has of dealing with a
complex informational environment.
But what does all this prove? No a whole lot yet, I should say. But like a
lot of research in artificial intelligence, it does at least suggest that
there is room in cognitive science for the serious study of how we {\it
differ} from the other animals. And that, these days, is something.
-------
∂02-Jun-88 0853 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 08:52:58 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 2 Jun 88 08:51:08-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA17095; Thu, 2 Jun 88 08:51:27 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 08:51:27 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806021551.AA17095@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
Subject: [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
Return-Path: <jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 08:12:09 PDT
>From: James Wilson <jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU>
To: ball@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]
Didn't know if this would be of interest to you (or if we could even do this).
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 09:12:46 EDT
>From: worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV (Pat Worley)
To: jwilson@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: NCUBE
Do you know what "getting rid of the NCUBE" means? (And who I should
contact to find out?) I'm currently working for Oak Ridge National Lab.,
and we are planning on buying a small NCUBE. If the price is not too
steep (and the boards are not too outdated), we would be willing to
take the University's NCUBE off CSD-CF's hands.
- Pat Worley
worley@polya
or
worley@msr.epm.ornl.gov
∂02-Jun-88 0927 @Score.Stanford.EDU:wheaton@athena.stanford.edu [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 09:27:37 PDT
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 2 Jun 88 09:26:10-PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA02214; Thu, 2 Jun 88 09:26:18 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 09:26:18 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8806021626.AA02214@athena.stanford.edu>
To: ball@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: Facil@Score.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Jim Ball's message of Thu, 2 Jun 88 08:51:27 PDT <8806021551.AA17095@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
The offer to "take" ncube sounds interesting. How does this fit with
the request to keep it until Sept.?
GW
∂02-Jun-88 0934 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU formfeed today!
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 09:34:40 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA18588; Thu, 2 Jun 88 09:34:31 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 09:34:31 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806021634.AA18588@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed
Subject: formfeed today!
Don't forget -- noon, in MJH 252. I suspect that we'll be talking about
the Yale shooting problem; various of us seem to have been thinking about
it.
Matt
∂02-Jun-88 0944 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 09:44:03 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 2 Jun 88 09:42:35-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA19029; Thu, 2 Jun 88 09:42:49 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 09:42:49 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806021642.AA19029@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu
Cc: Facil@Score.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: George Wheaton's message of Thu, 2 Jun 88 09:26:18 PDT <8806021626.AA02214@athena.stanford.edu>
Subject: [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
I'm not sure how, or even if we can designate where the NCUBE goes outside
the universty. If someone on the committee knows about how this process
works, please speak up. Do we have to turn it over to the salvage people?
Can we deal directly with outside agencies?
I think we can start a process now that results in getting rid of the NCUBE
at the end of September, if the receiver will wait until then.
-Jin
∂02-Jun-88 1000 @Score.Stanford.EDU:tom@polya.Stanford.EDU [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 10:00:29 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 2 Jun 88 09:59:53-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA19914; Thu, 2 Jun 88 10:00:01 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 10:00:01 PDT
From: Tom Dienstbier <tom@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806021700.AA19914@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu
Cc: ball@polya.stanford.edu, Facil@Score.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: George Wheaton's message of Thu, 2 Jun 88 09:26:18 PDT <8806021626.AA02214@athena.stanford.edu>
Subject: [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
I think that the complications are that some students were admitted that
might have/ required some NCUBE cycles( Geo Viederholds message sometime
back). I like the idea though that someone is willing to pay/buy it.
I can't believe that this is getting so complicated. Ernst Mayr still
has some students using it also. On the other hand that if there are
students who require it for their research then there should be funds
available to operate it the way it should be operated.
tomd
∂02-Jun-88 1005 GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU N Cube
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 10:05:50 PDT
Date: Thu 2 Jun 88 10:02:15-PDT
From: Lynn Gotelli <GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: N Cube
To: ball@Polya.Stanford.EDU, wheaton@athena.Stanford.EDU
cc: gotelli@Score.Stanford.EDU, facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12403267312.14.GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I have checked with Eunice Johnson, Stanford University Property
Administrator and we do not have to go through Surplus Sales
if we give the NCube away but if we sell it then yes we must
go through Surplus Sales. Lynn
-------
∂02-Jun-88 1014 @Score.Stanford.EDU:wheaton@athena.stanford.edu [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 10:14:16 PDT
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 2 Jun 88 10:11:49-PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA02298; Thu, 2 Jun 88 10:11:53 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 10:11:53 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8806021711.AA02298@athena.stanford.edu>
To: tom@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: ball@polya.stanford.edu, Facil@Score.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Tom Dienstbier's message of Thu, 2 Jun 88 10:00:01 PDT <8806021700.AA19914@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
Won't economics decide whether or not to trash it? If no one is
willing to pay the real cost of keeping a "special" machine, maybe it
should go. ??
GW
∂02-Jun-88 1034 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 10:34:28 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 2 Jun 88 10:33:24-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA21897; Thu, 2 Jun 88 10:33:36 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 10:33:36 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806021733.AA21897@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu
Cc: tom@polya.stanford.edu, Facil@Score.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: George Wheaton's message of Thu, 2 Jun 88 10:11:53 PDT <8806021711.AA02298@athena.stanford.edu>
Subject: [jwilson@jaguar.Stanford.EDU: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]]
George,
This is a perfect example of the kind of situations CSD-CF is constantly
placed in. If the NCUBE is put under CSD-CF the costs will have to reflect
the CSD-CF overhead. As it is we are still spending a great deal of time
on the NCUBE question and the other CSD-CF users are getting to pay for
it through usage rates on the other systems, which they then complain
about. If we suggest putting the NCUBE in the CSD-CF cost center everyone
votes no because the usage rates will be too high.
In the end the department pays the excess expenses of CSD-CF.
∂02-Jun-88 1211 @Score.Stanford.EDU:binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU NCUBE
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 12:11:38 PDT
Received: from Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 2 Jun 88 12:11:16-PDT
Received: by Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA05444; Thu, 2 Jun 88 11:47:11 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 11:47:11 PDT
From: binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU (Tom Binford)
Message-Id: <8806021847.AA05444@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu>
To: ball@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: Facil@score.stanford.edu
Subject: NCUBE
If it works out, I support going ahead.
∂02-Jun-88 1341 lyn1@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: the attraction of crime
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 13:41:16 PDT
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 2 Jun 88 13:44:00 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1988 13:43:59 PDT
Sender: Lyn Bowman <lyn1@sierra>
From: Lyn Bowman <lyn1@sierra>
To: jmc@sail
Cc: su-etc@sierra.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: re: the attraction of crime
I bet dollars to donuts that legalization of drugs and prostitution
would wipe out the vast majority of the crime associated with the
underclass, and simultaneously contribute to the prosperity of the
country as a whole by expanding the national taxbase.
∂02-Jun-88 1712 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 17:12:16 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08528; Thu, 2 Jun 88 17:11:31 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 17:11:31 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806030011.AA08528@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: meeting
Cc: clt@sail, rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
1:30pm tomorrow seems agreeable to the rest of us. If it's OK with you too,
why don't me convene at your office then...
∂02-Jun-88 1738 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: SPO Advisory Committee
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 17:35:40 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 17:35:44 PDT
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 Thu, 2 Jun 88 09:01:00 PDT
Message-ID: <12403349864.56.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
John, without trying to defend unduly a part of the bureaucracy that costs me a
great deal of time personally, I don't believe SPO is in an expansionist mood.
Rather, they are honestly trying to optimize the services they perform for the
research community with the resources they have. In the past couple of years,
experiments have been done on reducing SPO staffing and observing the
consequences in reduced responsiveness to handling proposals, negotiations,
etc. The current staffing is based on backing off to reduce the screams that
came from researchers as a result.
The indirect cost business does have positive feedback to SPO workload through:
higher IDC => less real $/contract => more contracts/PI to get the same work
done => higher contract load for SPO.
Re university policies on sponsored research, IDC, etc., your complaint is with
the Provost's Office and the Committee on Research, not SPO.
Tom R.
-------
∂02-Jun-88 1751 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: NCUBE
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 17:51:29 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 2 Jun 88 17:50:47-PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 17:49:20 PDT
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: NCUBE
To: ball@polya.Stanford.EDU, Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
cc: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <8806021551.AA17095@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12403352342.56.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Jim et al., my feelings about the recent flurry of NCube issues are as follows.
The machine is a special computer that serves a small (almost empty) set of CS
faculty. For any other similar special machine (e.g., Lisp machines, Alliant,
...), the sponsoring faculty member or group comes up with the funds to support
the machine. The department does not subsidize such efforts, either through
having to increase CSD-CF rates or covering CSD-CF overruns. I believe the
NCube should be run on a similar basis. If Ernst and Gio want to support the
machine, they should do this independently of the general cost center --
possibly under special payment to CSD-CF for allocated staff time which should
*reduce* the other cost center rates.
I read Gio's earlier message as saying "some students with NCube experience
were coming next fall...", hence we can get some free systems support for the
machine, not that we were obligated to support the machine for these students.
The "we" who would support the machine, if that really was the meaning, has to
be some identified faculty sponsor with money.
From what I've heard, I would vote for selling the machine to Oak Ridge if a
deal can be worked out.
Tom R.
-------
∂02-Jun-88 1833 @RITTER.AI.SRI.COM:Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM re: Thesis Proposal
Received: from RITTER.AI.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 18:33:15 PDT
Received: from XITLCATL.AI.SRI.COM by RITTER.AI.SRI.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 13389; Thu 2-Jun-88 18:32:06 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 18:33 PDT
From: Leslie Kaelbling <Kaelbling@AI.SRI.COM>
Subject: re: Thesis Proposal
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: The message of 2 Jun 88 16:06 PDT from John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <880602183333.6.PACK@XITLCATL.AI.SRI.COM>
Okay, I'll be there at 2:30.
- L
∂02-Jun-88 1836 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu I am once again trying to solicit input
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 18:35:36 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 17:59 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: I am once again trying to solicit input
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, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS
along the lines of issues and conclusions. I'll try to prime the pump this
time with 2 specific requests relating to definitions:
We need operational (from and export control perspective) definitions
for "commodity" and "supercomputer." If these 2 words are going to
be important in deciding what kinds of computer products and technology
are to be or not to be controlled, then we have to tell the US Government
what these words mean. Note: foreign availability should be a factor in the
definition.
∂02-Jun-88 1847 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
PARTIAL PROGRAMS
Michael Genesereth
Yung-jen Hsu
Logic Group, Stanford University
Friday, June 3, 3:15pm
MJH 301
A partial program is an arbitrary set of constraints on the potential actions
of a machine. The advantage of having a language for writing partial programs
is ease of incremental program development. In traditional programming
languages, arbitrary decisions must often be made in writing runnable programs.
In order to change these decisions, it is necessary to rewrite the programs.
A partial programming language allows one to write programs without making
arbitrary decisions and thereby facilitates the implementation of subsequent
design refinements. We will present a theory of partial programs and discuss
some of their properties in this talk.
∂02-Jun-88 2325 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU The dam busters
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 23:25:23 PDT
Date: Thu 2 Jun 88 23:25:18-PDT
From: Ilan Vardi <ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: The dam busters
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: ilan@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12403413501.9.ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Hi I just saw the 1954 movie ``The Dam busters'' for the (n+1)'st
time. It's about the air raid on the Ruhr dam using bouncing bombs.
Have you seen it or read the book(s)? I thought that it gave one
of the best characterizations of scientific research in movies.
-------
∂02-Jun-88 2352 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU re: The dam busters
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jun 88 23:52:12 PDT
Date: Thu 2 Jun 88 23:52:07-PDT
From: Ilan Vardi <ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: The dam busters
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: ilan@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>" of Thu 2 Jun 88 23:26:00-PDT
Message-ID: <12403418385.9.ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I rented it from ``Video Express'' in Mountain View. It stars
Michael Redgrave as Barnes Wallis who designed planes for the RAF,
and came up with this plan of using rotating bombs that would
bounce along the water so as to destroy the dams. The problem with
blowing up a dam is that unless the bomb is right on the dam, the
water between the bomb and the dam will act as a buffer for the
explosion. Bouncing the bomb slows them down so they end up resting
against the dam, and then they are blown up when they get to 30 ft
under water. The planes had to fly at 240 mph and at 60 ft above
the water and release the bomb 300 yards from the target. A number
of new techniques had to be used, including a method for estimating
the 60 ft flying height and for judging the distance from the dam.
One of the pilots figured out the method for judging altitude
after seeing a cabaret show, it used two spotlights from the plane that
met when the plane was 60 ft above the water.
Apparently the idea of using bouncing bombs was inspired by Nelson
who used it some sea battle.
-------
∂03-Jun-88 0108 LES re: Civil Liberties 52: Police Misconduct
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Jun-88 00:50-PT.]
> 1. Suggest repeating "police misconduct" instead of "police crimes". Much
> misconduct is not a crime but still should be reported.
Good point. I've fixed that.
> 2. Suggest simplifying language. Some of the legal language can be
> replaced by ordinary language without changing the meaning.
In putting this together I borrowed heavily from material that had been
written by lawyers. I confess that I may be losing my ability to
distinguish between lawyer talk and ordinary language. I would appreciate
pointers to any particularly obnoxious or obscure passages.
> 3. Some misconduct can be reported to higher police authority rather
> than via a lawyer.
True. This was point #1 in the Courses of Action section. It will be
developed further in the next posting.
∂03-Jun-88 0906 @Score.Stanford.EDU:wheaton@athena.stanford.edu NCUBE
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jun 88 09:06:17 PDT
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 3 Jun 88 08:59:21-PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA03442; Fri, 3 Jun 88 08:59:27 PDT
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 88 08:59:27 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8806031559.AA03442@athena.stanford.edu>
To: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.stanford.edu
Cc: ball@polya.stanford.edu, Facil@Score.stanford.edu,
Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: TC Rindfleisch's message of Thu, 2 Jun 88 17:49:20 PDT <12403352342.56.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: NCUBE
Tom,
After reading all the msgs and talking to Jim, I fully concur with
your assessment of and recommendations for the NCube. Originally, I
had thought that it was under CSD-CF's wing - obviously, I was
mistaken. If there are not enough "sponsors" to support it, the dep't
shouldn't have to pick up the cost, except in exceptional
circumstances.
GW
∂03-Jun-88 0951 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [tah@linz.Stanford.EDU: NCUBE]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jun 88 09:50:56 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 3 Jun 88 09:50:05-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA09007; Fri, 3 Jun 88 09:50:27 PDT
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 88 09:50:27 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806031650.AA09007@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
Subject: [tah@linz.Stanford.EDU: NCUBE]
Return-Path: <tah@linz.Stanford.EDU>
To: ball@polya.Stanford.EDU
Cc: tah@linz.Stanford.EDU
Date: 03 Jun 88 09:43:09 PDT (Fri)
>From: Tom Henzinger <tah@linz.Stanford.EDU>
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <martin@polya.stanford.edu>
Received: from linz.stanford.edu by jeeves.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA25517; Fri, 3 Jun 88 09:33:12 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by linz.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA03076; Fri, 3 Jun 88 09:32:59 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA08194; Fri, 3 Jun 88 09:33:16 PDT
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 88 09:33:16 PDT
>From: Martin C. Rinard <martin@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8806031633.AA08194@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: tah@linz.stanford.edu
Subject: NCUBE
We should keep the NCUBE because it is the only multiprocessor
of its type that CS students can use. It would be a real shame
to get rid of it - I for one may very well use it in the future.
Martin
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂03-Jun-88 0959 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jun 88 09:59:35 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 3 Jun 88 09:58:41-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.2) id AA09312; Fri, 3 Jun 88 09:59:01 PDT
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 88 09:59:01 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806031659.AA09312@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
Subject: [worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV: Re: NCUBE]
Return-Path: <worley@puwsun.epm.ornl.gov>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 88 12:55:12 EDT
>From: worley@puwsun.EPM.ORNL.GOV (Pat Worley)
To: ball@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: NCUBE
Cc: mth@msr.EPM.ORNL.GOV, worley@msr.EPM.ORNL.GOV
At first glance, it looks like we are interested in taking the NCUBE
off your hands. Can you give us some more details?
- which version of the node processor does it use? (what clock frequency?)
- how much memory comes with each node? (128K or 512K)
- does it have the most recent version of the operating system?
- how much does maintenance currently cost you?
We'll also need to contact NCUBE to see what support they'll provide
for a used system. At some point we'll need to start negotiating to
agree upon an acceptable purchase price. Is it clear who to talk to
about this at your end? Also, are there any timing considerations
involved in your disposing of the NCUBE? That is, must it be out before
a certain date, or must it remain until a given date?
Thanks for the info, and for the quick reply to the original message.
- Pat Worley
worley@msr.epm.ornl.gov
or
worley@polya.stanford.edu
P.S.- Should we continue bothering you about this, or is there someone
else we should be talking to?
∂03-Jun-88 1148 LES Ulloa
He did call, and Mike Ulloa was real. You may recall that Ulloa was an
administrative assistant that I made the mistake of hiring but had the
good sense to get rid of. He tried to give you a bottle of Scotch at
Christmas, as I recall, to curry favor. You callously rejected it.
∂03-Jun-88 1421 LES computer charges
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Jun-88 14:02-PT.]
I have reduced them to $0 for last month and, if I work fast enough, for
this month as well -- trading work for computer time.
∂03-Jun-88 1501 JMC
nonmon seminar
∂03-Jun-88 1709 JSW Disk usage
Here is a summary of what is in your files, by number of blocks:
[LET,JMC] 8557 45%
[JNK,JMC] 2984 16%
1975-84 2979 16%
1984-88 1562 8%
Other 2747 15%
Total: 18829
∂03-Jun-88 1742 LES Umbrella contract
To: binford@COYOTE.Stanford.EDU, cheriton@PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU,
Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, Feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
Genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU, ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
latombe@COYOTE.Stanford.EDU, DCL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
ZM@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
I thought that I had escaped having to help put together the new DARPA
umbrella proposal, but I seem to be stuck with it and we need to do it
fast. I would appreciate getting whatever you want included in this
proposal no later than Thursday, June 9. TeX format is the current
standard, but almost anything is acceptable.
In ancient history I received draft proposals from the following:
Nilsson, including a budget sketch
McCarthy, via VAL
Luckham
Latombe (one paragraph)
If anyone would like to get back their earlier submissions, please send me
a message. In any case, we need proposals from the missing projects and
budgets from everyone. Betty and I can help if you like.
Les Earnest
∂03-Jun-88 2140 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Alliant maintenance
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jun 88 21:40:26 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02140; Fri, 3 Jun 88 21:39:37 PDT
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 88 21:39:37 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806040439.AA02140@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, clt@sail, rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Alliant maintenance
I've done some calculations regarding the Alliant service plan, and
it's not clear we can save much by going to University maintenance.
For the current "cooperative" maintenance plan, they have given us a
quote of $3471/month ($41652/year). If we add another disk and memory
board, it rises to $3757/month ($45084/year).
The Univerity plan would require two people from Stanford to attend a
one-week training course, at $1750 per person. We would also have to
figure in the travel expenses and the salaries of those people for the
week (assuming they are CSD-CF people). The maintenance charge is
$1334/month ($16008/year) for a system with 5 to 8 CEs, regardless of
the amount of memory or peripherals. So my rough calculation shows
the following cost for the first year:
Charge for maintenance plan: $16000
Training course (2 x 1750) 3500
Travel expenses (2 x 1250) 2500
Salaries during training period 2500 (est.)
------
$24500
To be competitive with the current plan, CSD-CF would have to charge
us no more than $15-20K per year for the portion of whatever staff
members are assigned to do the maintenance. Also, there is the
intangible cost of the increased downtime if the local person can't
fix the machine, since the required response time by Alliant is much
less than under the current plan.
∂04-Jun-88 0938 CLT Alliant maintenance
To: JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
IGS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
The ``University plan'' also has the (non-trivial) risk that whoever
gets sent for training will disappear at some point.
∂05-Jun-88 1108 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu fyi. my response also coming. We would also like some suggestions as
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jun 88 11:08:13 PDT
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 88 09:06 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: fyi. my response also coming. We would also like some suggestions as
to criteria for determining foreign availability.
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, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS
From: EDU%"THORNJ@MAX.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU" 3-JUN-1988 13:07
To: GOODMAN
Subj: RE: I am once again trying to solicit input
Received: From MAX(POSTMAST) by MRVAX with RSCS id 6555
for GOODMAN@MRVAX; Fri, 3 Jun 88 13:06 MST
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 88 12:13 PDT
From: THORNJ@MAX.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU
Subject: RE: I am once again trying to solicit input
To: GOODMAN@ARIZMIS
X-VMS-To: IN%"GOODMAN@ARIZMIS"
Commodity:innovations characterized by weak appropriability; i.e. the innovator
is unable to restrict access to the basic features of the innovation through
legal or technological means resulting in widespread actual or potential avai
lability.
∂05-Jun-88 1958 @RELAY.CS.NET:masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp pocket computer with LISP
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jun 88 19:58:26 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ac29742; 5 Jun 88 22:07 EDT
Received: from ntt.jp by RELAY.CS.NET id ac10907; 5 Jun 88 21:55 EDT
Received: from ntt-sh.ntt.jp (nttta) by ntt.jp (3.2/NTT6.2cs) with TCP; Mon, 6 Jun 88 10:45:26 JST
Received: by ntt-sh.ntt.jp (3.2/ntt-sh-01) with TCP; Mon, 6 Jun 88 10:47:23 JST
Received: by MECL.NTT.jp (3.2/NTTcs01) with TCP; Mon, 6 Jun 88 10:47:35 JST
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 10:47:35 JST
From: Masahiko Sato <masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp>
Message-Id: <8806060147.AA03676@MECL.NTT.jp>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 21 May 88 1959 PDT <8805220355.AA13990@ntt.jp>
Subject: pocket computer with LISP
>>Do you suppose Casio would be willing to send me one?
I have contacted a Casio sales person and got a positive reply. You
will get one through Casio's subsidiary in the US. I gave them your
address. They also wish to have your telephone number, so will you
tell me your phone number? (I have one, but I'm not sure if it is up
to date.)
According to the sales person, the developing group of the computer is
very pleased to hear that you are interested in the computer.
The computer was scheduled to be put on the market at the end of May,
but the schedule has been delayed and it is now expeced to appear on
the market at the end of this month.
Another thing is that they now have only Japanese manual.
Please just wait for a while...
Masahiko Sato
∂06-Jun-88 0800 JMC
books to discuss with Elliott
∂06-Jun-88 0830 JMC
more atenolol
∂06-Jun-88 0956 mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA Free will
Received: from CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jun 88 09:56:32 PDT
Received: by CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU; Mon, 6 Jun 88 12:51:43 EDT
From: Drew McDermott <mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA>
Full-Name: Drew McDermott
Message-Id: <8806061651.AA14614@CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 12:51:37 EDT
Subject: Free will
To: ailist-request@ai.ai.mit.edu, JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I am pretty tired of the discussion of free will, and agree
wholeheartedly that it should be flushed from the main AI bulletin
boards.
However, if there is demand, particularly from you, John, I will
trudge on in some other forum. By the way, I forgot to save your most
recent remarks on the subject when they whizzed by on ailist, so perhaps
you could send me a copy.
-- Drew
-------
∂06-Jun-88 1102 mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA Free will
Received: from CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jun 88 11:02:19 PDT
Received: by CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU; Mon, 6 Jun 88 13:55:00 EDT
From: Drew McDermott <mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA>
Full-Name: Drew McDermott
Message-Id: <8806061755.AA15751@CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 13:54:53 EDT
Subject: Free will
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Drew, did this one flash by you? I didn't see it appear in the digest.
I think it did appear, but I lost track of it. Thanks for resending.
The following propositions are elaborated in
{\bf McCarthy, John and P.J. Hayes (1969)}: ``Some Philosophical Problems from
the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence'', in D. Michie (ed), {\it Machine
Intelligence 4}, American Elsevier, New York, NY.
I would be grateful for discussion of them - especially technical discussion.
1. For AI, the key question concerning free will is "What view should
we program a robot to have of its own free will?". I believe my
proposal for this also sheds light on what view we humans should take
of our own free will.
2. We have a problem, because if we put the wrong assertions in our
database of common sense knowledge, a logic-based robot without a
random element might conclude that since it is a deterministic robot,
it doesn't make sense for it to consider alternatives. It might reason:
"Since I'm a robot, what I will do is absolutely determined, so any
consideration of whether one course of action or another would
violate (for example) Asimov's suggestion that robots shouldn't
harm human beings is pointless".
As far as I can tell, we agree almost completely. Free will is the
capacity to make decisions, plus an attitude toward oneself.
3. Actually (McCarthy and Hayes 1969) considered an even more
deterministic system than a robot in the world - namely a system
of interconnected finite automata and asked the question: "When
should we say that in a given initial situation, automaton 1
can put automaton 7 in state 3 by time 10?"
4. The proposed answer makes this a definite question about
another automaton system, namely a system in which automaton
1 is removed from the original system, and its output lines
are replaced by external inputs to the revised system. We
then say that automaton 1 can put automaton 7 in state 3
by time 10 provided there is a sequence of signals on the
external inputs to the revised system that will do it.
5. I claim this is how we want the robot to reason. We should program it
to decide what it can do, i.e. the variety of results it can achieve, by
reasoning that doesn't involve its internal structure but only its place
in the world. Its program should then decide what to do based on
what will best achieve the goals we have also put in its database.
6. I claim that my own reasoning about what I can do proceeds similarly.
I model the world as a system of interacting parts of which
I am one. However, when deciding what to do, I use a model in
which my outputs are external inputs to the system.
7. This model says that I am free to do those things that suitable
outputs will do in the revised system. I recommend
that any "impressionable students" in the audience take the same
view of their own free will. In fact, I'll claim they already do;
unless mistaken philosophical considerations have given them
theories inferior to the most naive common sense.
8. The above treats "physical ability". An elaboration involving
knowledge, i.e. that distinguishes my physical ability to dial
your phone number from my epistemological ability that requires
knowing the number, is discussed in the paper.
These views are compatible with Dennett's and maybe Minsky's.
In my view, McDermott's discussion would be simplified if he
incorporated discussion of the revised automaton system.
I am not sure it would be much simplified. The more I think about it,
the more I think my formulation is just a paraphrase of yours. To say
that a decision maker must flag itself as exempt from causality is
virtually the same as saying that it must think of its outputs as
decoupled from its inputs.
In general, however, I don't like the picture of the world as a set of
interacting automata, at least as spelled out in your 1969 paper. The
model is too discrete for a lot of phenomena. Also, I'm not sure you
intended this interpretation, but it sounds as if there is a sense in
which you would say that a thermostat "can" turn the furnace off when
the room gets cold. No one would be tempted to mentally decouple a
thermostat from its surroundings, but a robot with free will can't help
but decouple itself from its surroundings. -- Drew
-------
∂06-Jun-88 1428 VAL Nonmonotonic and commonsense reasoning seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
There will be no more meetings until further notice.
- Vladimir
∂06-Jun-88 2000 JMC
clothes for pickup
∂06-Jun-88 2115 siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de Failed mail (msg.aa21130)
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jun 88 21:15:14 PDT
Received: from germany.csnet by RELAY.CS.NET id ab19648; 7 Jun 88 0:04 EDT
Received: from uklirb by iraun1.ira.uka.de id aa10612; 6 Jun 88 22:33 MET DST
Received: from ira.uka.de by uklirb.uucp id aa11487; 5 Jun 88 6:09 MET DST
Received: from relay.cs.net by iraun1.ira.uka.de id al08750;
5 Jun 88 5:57 MET DST
Received: from relay.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ae04020; 4 Jun 88 23:40 EDT
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 88 23:42:18 EDT
From: RELAY Mail System (MMDF) <mmdf@RELAY.CS.NET>
Sender: mmdf@RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: Failed mail (msg.aa21130)
To: siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de
Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 22:26:26 MET DST
Resent-From: siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de
Resent-To: jmc%sail.stanford.edu@ira.uka.de
Your message could not be delivered to
'jmc.@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (host: sail.stanford.edu) (queue: smtpmx)' for the following
reason: ' I don't know anybody named jmc.'
Your message follows:
Received: from germany.csnet by RELAY.CS.NET id aa21130; 4 Jun 88 23:34 EDT
Received: from uklirb by iraun1.ira.uka.de id aa07991; 4 Jun 88 22:32 MET DST
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 88 22:32:48 MET DST
From: Joerg Siekmann <siekmann%uklirb.uucp@ira.uka.de>
To: jmc.%sail.stanford.edu@ira.uka.de
Subject: visit
Dear John,
Michael Reinfrank phoned yesterday,that you are coming again
next friday to gemany and that you are potentially interested in a
visit?
Unfortunately we had to cancel your last talk :would you be willing to
come this time? As we had to take off all posters and announcements I
hate to advertise your visit this time unless you have given your
personal ok.
As I am off to Paris tomorrow and only back by tuesday I shall leave a
messge with the secretary to call you for an ok (or no).
Thanks a lot anyway for your interest and all the best
Joerg Siekmann
∂06-Jun-88 2135 LES re: dialnet
[In reply to message rcvd 06-Jun-88 21:21-PT.]
Any idea who has the Dialnet trademark now? How did you hear about it?
"Social impact?" What a curious reason.
∂07-Jun-88 0900 JMC
call payless pharm
∂07-Jun-88 1031 mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA re: Free will
Received: from CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Jun 88 10:31:06 PDT
Received: by CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU; Tue, 7 Jun 88 13:28:24 EDT
From: Drew McDermott <mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA>
Full-Name: Drew McDermott
Message-Id: <8806071728.AA06171@CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 88 13:28:18 EDT
Subject: re: Free will
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, 06 Jun 88 1155 PDT
What do you think of the idea of taking on Gilbert Cockton? et al
in a moderated discussion of free will?
I am not wild about the idea. For one thing, it's not clear to me that
he wants to talk about free will. He wants to talk about the value of
AI, a quite different topic.
For another, while I see the free-will problem as settled, I think it
opens onto a large set of quite unsettled problems, such as, What is
consciousness? What are sensations? Are the value systems of
decision makers more than whims? Could a sufficiently intelligent
agent infer constraints on its behavior (moral laws) purely from
the fact that it is an intelligent agent? (Kant's problem)
Here I agree with Cockton that AI has little to say about these questions,
although I think the possibility of the success of AI makes answers to
them more urgent.
Well, what the hell. If you get a discussion started, I'm in.
-- Drew
-------
∂07-Jun-88 1321 weening@labrea.stanford.edu Files on Labrea
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Jun 88 13:21:28 PDT
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Tue, 7 Jun 88 13:21:52 PDT
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 88 13:21:52 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@labrea.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@labrea.stanford.edu
Subject: Files on Labrea
The Labrea account name is "jmc", password "sailfiles". There is a
subdirectory for each of your directories on SAIL. Files have been
copied into the following directories:
w76 w77 w78 w79 w80 w81 w82 w83
s76 s77 s78 s79 s80 s81 s82 s83
e76 e77 e78 e79 e80 e81 e82 e83
f75 f76 f77 f78 f79 f80 f81 f82 f83
They have the same name as the SAIL files (except converted to
lowercase), and were all copied in ASCII mode. You should be able to
retrieve single files with a 1-line FTP command on SAIL, e.g.,
.ftp final.ans[f83,jmc]←{labrea/jmc}f83/final.ans
or
.al f83,jmc
.ftp ←{labrea/jmc}f83/final.ans
or use normal FTP commands to get multiple files, listings, etc.
∂07-Jun-88 1322 weening@labrea.stanford.edu Labrea
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Jun 88 13:22:36 PDT
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Tue, 7 Jun 88 13:22:59 PDT
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 88 13:22:59 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@labrea.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@labrea.stanford.edu
Subject: Labrea
Two other notes: mail to jmc@labrea forwards to jmc@sail, and all the
files currently are publically readable but not writable.
∂07-Jun-88 1535 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU your sterilization example
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Jun 88 15:35:51 PDT
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.59/1.1)
id AA16858; Tue, 7 Jun 88 15:38:16 PDT
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 88 15:38:16 PDT
From: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8806072238.AA16858@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: your sterilization example
Did you ever actually publish it somewhere? McCarty refers to a talk
you gave rather than to a publication. I could refer to his axioms for
the problem but if you published it I should refer to the original.
McCarty's axioms permit the deduction of dead(dish1), where dish1
is the particular dish we know to be heated. That's an example of an
axiomatization being not quite faithful to reality!
∂07-Jun-88 1557 VAL Gelfond's address
UI00%UTEP.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
∂07-Jun-88 1608 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Seminars will be resumed in the fall -- or earlier, if sufficiently many
participants are around during the summer.
- Vladimir
∂08-Jun-88 0144 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Proposal on Janet Murdoch
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Jun 88 01:44:13 PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA05244; Tue, 7 Jun 88 23:41:05 PDT
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 88 23:41:05 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8806080641.AA05244@Pescadero>
To: comp@Pescadero.stanford.edu
Subject: Proposal on Janet Murdoch
We are being asked to consider the following proposal to allow Janet Murdoch
to continue in the Ph.D. program. Please let me know if you have any
objections to John Mitchell's proposal by June 15th. Otherwise, I will
regard it as approved by the comp. committee. If there are objections,
I will schedule a meeting to come to some resolution.
From jcm@ra Tue Jun 7 16:18:32 1988
Received: by Pescadero from ra.Stanford.EDU (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA03800; Tue, 7 Jun 88 16:18:25 PDT
Received: by ra.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA01292; Tue, 7 Jun 88 16:20:34 PDT
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 88 16:20:34 PDT
From: jcm@ra (John Mitchell)
Message-Id: <8806072320.AA01292@ra.stanford.edu>
To: cheriton
Subject: Janet Murdock
Cc: hemenway@score
Status: R
Janet is a second-year PhD student who did not pass the theory
comp. Her overall score was 89, and our cut-off was between
89 and 99. By all other criteria, she seems to be a very
promising PhD student. She spent last year doing research with
Sandy Pentland, who recently left SRI to teach at MIT.
His statement about her is extremely positive, suggesting
high research potential. (Part of statement included below.)
She also did a good job of TA-ing 161 (data structures)
for me for two quarters this year. Janet came to Stanford
with a Master's in chemical engineering, and little CS
background. She took the comp's one-at-a-time (essentially;
I do not have her scores), passing all but theory.
The Black Friday committee discussed Janet's case last week and
voted to sent the decision back to the comp committee.
The consensus of the Black Friday meeting seemed to be that
Janet was a reasonable candidate to have passed the exam,
had we taken other factors besides her numerical score into
account (her identity was not revealed at the comp meeting).
I discussed the situation with Andy Goldberg before the
Black Friday meeting, and he recommended that Janet take a
course in data structures or concrete math instead of
taking the comp another time. I also checked this with
Ernst Mayr, who seemed agreeable, provided that the course
she takes include a final exam. I support this suggestion,
and propose that we pass Janet on the comp subject to a
course in data structures or concrete math.
Given that Janet has spent two years studying diligently,
and has begun to make research progress (she now has an
agreement with Tanenbaum, consulting faculty at Schlumberger),
I think it would be a waste of her time to study for
the exam again. A course in concrete math would do more
towards guaranteeing adequate breadth in theory, without
impeding her progress towards a thesis.
John
∂08-Jun-88 0148 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Pentland's letter on Murdoch
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Jun 88 01:48:45 PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA05273; Tue, 7 Jun 88 23:45:40 PDT
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 88 23:45:40 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8806080645.AA05273@Pescadero>
To: comp@Pescadero.stanford.edu
Subject: Pentland's letter on Murdoch
I understand that Janet Murdock's future at Stanford is being reviewed
this week. Therefore I am writing to you concerning the research
Janet Murdock performed with me during 1987/88, while I was her research
advisor.
Janet worked with me on a computer vision research project, within the
AI Center at SRI. I found Janet to be extremely bright, dedicated,
and hardworking. She picked up fundamental concepts of computer
vision extremely quickly --- which is very surprising as her
undergraduate training was not even in computer science let alone
computer vision. Her progress during the year she worked with me was
sufficiently rapid that by the end of the year I felt she even
understood many of the subtle points about the research project ---
points that many Ph.D.'s never come to appreciate despite four years
of training.
Janet also picked up practical matters quickly, mastering the
Symbolic's Lisp Machine environment in a matter of two months.
Thereafter she quickly progressed toward being a good "hacker," and
producing a considerable amount of quite servicable code.
Perhaps the best statement I can make about Janet is to compare her to my
last graduate student, David Heeger, who won an international competition
and prize (the Marr Prize) for his thesis work. In my judgement Janet gives
every sign of being as good as David, and perhaps even better.
...
Yours,
Alex Pentland
Associate Professor of Computer, Information, and Design Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
∂08-Jun-88 0601 @elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM fourier fractal fallout
Received: from argus.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Jun 88 06:00:51 PDT
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM by argus.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Wed, 8 Jun 88 05:59:54 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 299261; Wed 8-Jun-88 08:58:36 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 64030; Wed 8-Jun-88 05:55:58 PDT
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 88 05:55 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@russian.spa.symbolics.com>
Subject: fourier fractal fallout
To: math-fun@russian.spa.symbolics.com
Cc: "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com,
rwg@russian.spa.symbolics.com,
"r@la.tis.com"@elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com
Message-Id: <19880608125528.6.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Recently found fourier coefficients for fractals, combined with
elementary geometric properties of those fractals, lead to a whole
bleepload of funny looking identities. Two among the simplest:
∞
/===\
! ! π (K + α)
∞ ! ! (1 - TAN(---------) S)
==== ! ! N 2
\ N = 1 (- 2) π
> ---------------------------- = ---------
/ 2 2
==== (K + α) SIN (π α)
K = - ∞
and Time= 17291729 msecs (I couldn't bring myself to delete this)
∞
/===\
! ! π (2 K + α)
∞ ! ! (1 - TAN(-----------) S) 2 π α
==== ! ! N π (S + COT(---))
\ N = 1 (- 2) 2
> ------------------------------ = ----------------- ,
/ 2 2 SIN(π α)
==== (2 K + α)
K = - ∞
for -sqrt(3) < S ≤ sqrt(3). Note that the first is (otherwise) independent
of S. In general, replacing K by <integer>*K yields a rational function of S,
with a degree that has to do with the period of the binary expansion of
1/<integer>.
∂08-Jun-88 1312 VAL benchmarks
Matt says the list needs a preamble. How do you like this:
There has been much recent work on formalizing nonmonotonic commonsense
reasoning. Many formalisms have been proposed, ranging from relatively
simple, such as pure Prolog or the closed-world assumption, to such
complex and powerful concepts as circumscription, autoepistemic logic
and their extensions. Moreover, there can be more than one way to use a
given nonmonotonic system for formalizing a given instance of commonsense
reasoning. John McCarthy has suggested that the comparison of different
approaches, of their possibilities and limitations, can be facilitated
if some "benchmark" examples of nonmonotonic reasoning were available
for reference.
What follows is a list of some possible benchmark problems of this kind.
It should be emphasized that the problems illustrate conceptual, rather
than computational difficulties; in each example, the challenge is to
formalize it -- not implement it on the computer.
To be useful, this list should grow and change as researchers turn to more
complex forms of commonsense reasoning and to finer distinctions between
possible meanings of informally stated examples. Please send contributions
(and criticisms) to Vladimir Lifschitz, Computer Science Department,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 (VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU).
∂08-Jun-88 1617 VAL vacation
To: JMC
CC: MPS
I'd like to take a vacation from June 16 to July 2.
- Vladimir
∂09-Jun-88 0011 jlh@vsop.stanford.edu Re: I am once again trying to solicit input
Received: from vsop.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jun 88 00:10:52 PDT
Received: by vsop.stanford.edu; Wed, 8 Jun 88 23:59:17 PDT
Date: 8 Jun 1988 2359-PDT (Wednesday)
From: John Hennessy <jlh@vsop.stanford.edu>
To: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Cc: 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,
KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu, MCHENRY@guvax.bitnet, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu,
Ralston@mcc.com, CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
Subject: Re: I am once again trying to solicit input
In-Reply-To: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu / Thu, 2 Jun 88 17:59 MST.
Supercomputer: I don't think we can use a definition that is absolute
(i.e. so many mips, mflops, etc.). This seems to be the trap of the
current regulations. Can we use a definition that is relative to the
fastest machines available (the top n% of the linpack or LL loop lists)?
∂09-Jun-88 0127 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com help for Vladimir's hotel
Received: from siemens.siemens.com (siemens-slip.siemens.com) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jun 88 01:27:17 PDT
Received: by siemens.siemens.com (5.54/1.15)
id AA23477; Thu, 9 Jun 88 04:23:55 EDT
From: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 10:26:59 -0200
Message-Id: <8806090826.AA08838@ztivax.uucp>
Received: by ztivax.uucp; Thu, 9 Jun 88 10:26:59 -0200
To: ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
shoham@score.stanford.edu, val@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: help for Vladimir's hotel
Cc: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com
I've reserved a hotel room for Vladimir in the METROPOL, Bayernstr. 43, 8000 Munich 2,
phone +49-89-530764, next to Munich centarl station.
I've sent him a mail, but haven't got a confirmation, so the situation is unclear.
The room is reserved from Friday (10th) until Sunday (12th), so I guess his flying Thursday afternoon - i.e. today.
If you can reach him, please give him the news.
Thanks a lot.
Michael Reinfrank
∂09-Jun-88 0637 bnevin@cch.bbn.com Consensus and Reality
Received: from cch.bbn.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jun 88 06:36:42 PDT
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 09:31:41 EDT
From: "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>
Subject: Consensus and Reality
To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: hayes.pa@xerox.com, jmc@sail.stanford.edu, bn@cch.bbn.com
In AIList Digest 7.24, Pat Hayes <hayes.pa@Xerox.COM> writes:
PH> A question: if one doubts the existence of the physical world in which
PH> we live, what gives one such confidence in the existence of the other
I can't speak for Simon Brooke, but personally I don't think anyone
seriously doubts the existence of the physical world in which we live.
Something is going on here. The question is, what.
One reason for our present difficulty in this forum reaching consensus
about what "Reality" is, is that we are using the term in two senses:
The anti-consensus view is that there is an absolute Reality and that is
what we relate to and interact with. The consensus view is that what we
"know" about whatever it is that is going on here is limited and constrained
in many ways, yet we relate to our categorizations of the world expressing
that "knowledge" as though they were in fact the Reality itself. When a
consensual realist expresses doubt about the existence of something
generally taken to be real, I believe it is doubt about the status of a
mental/social construct, rather than doubt about the very existence of
anything to which the construct might more or less correspond. From one
very valid perspective there is no CRT screen in front of you, only an
ensemble of molecules. Not a very useful perspective for present
purposes. The point is that neither perspective denies the reality of
that to which the other refers as real, and neither is itself that
reality.
What is being overlooked by those who react with such allergic violence
to the notion of consensual reality is that there is a good relationship
between the two senses or understandings of the word "real": namely,
precisely that which makes science an evolving thing. John McCarthy
<JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> has expressed it very well:
JM> Indeed science is a social activity and all information comes in
JM> through the senses. A cautious view of what we can learn would like to
JM> keep science close to observation and would pay attention to the consensus
JM> aspects of what we believe. However, our world is not constructed in
JM> a way that co-operates with such desires. Its basic aspects are far
JM> from observation, the truth about it is often hard to formulate in
JM> our languages, and some aspects of the truth may even be impossible to
JM> formulate. The consensus is often muddled or wrong.
The control on consensus is that our agreements about what is going on
must be such that the world lets us get away with them. But given our
propensity for ignoring (that is, agreeing to ignore) what doesn't fit,
that gives us lots of wiggle room. Cross-cultural and psychological
data abound. For a current example in science, consider all the
phenomena that are now respectable science and that previously were
ignored because they could not be described with linear functions.
But nature too is evolving, quite plausibly in ways not limited to the
biological and human spheres. The universe appears to be less like a
deterministic machine than a creative, unpredictable enterprise. I am
thinking now of Ilya Prigogine's _Order Out of Chaos_. "We must give up
the myth of complete knowledge that has haunted Western science for
three centuries. Both in the hard sciences and the so-called soft
sciences, we have only a window knowledge of the world we want to
describe." The very laws of nature continue to reconfigure at higher
levels of complexity. "Nature has no bottom line." (Prigogine, as
quoted in Brain/Mind Bulletin 11.15, 9/8/86. I don't have the book at
hand.)
Now perhaps I am misconstruing McCarthy's words, since he starts out
saying:
JM> The trouble with a consensual or any other subjective concept of reality
JM> is that it is scientifically implausible.
Since everything else in that message is consistent with the view
presented here, I believe he is overlooking the relationship between the
two aspects of what is real: the absolute Ding an Sich, and those
agreements that we hold about reality so long as we can get away with
it. In this relationship, consensual reality is not scientifically
implausible; it is, at its most refined, science itself.
JM> It will be even worse if we try to program to regard reality as
JM> consensual, since such a view is worse than false; it's incoherent.
I suggest looking at the following for a system that by all accounts
works pretty well:
Pask, Gordon. 1986. Conversational Systems. A chapter in _Human
Productivity Enhancement_, vol. 1, ed. J. Zeidner. Praeger, NY.
For the coherent philosophy, a start and references may be found in
another chapter in the same book:
Gregory, Dik. 1986. Philosophy and Practice in Knowledge
Representation. (In book cited above).
Winograd & Flores _Understanding Computers and Cognition_ arrive at a
very similar understanding by a different route. (Pask by way of
McCulloch, von Foerster, and his own development of Conversation Theory;
Winograd & Flores by way of Maturana & Varela (students of McCulloch)
and hermeneutics.)
JM> To deal with this matter I advocate a new branch of philosophy I call
JM> metaepistemology. It studies abstractly the relation between the
JM> structure of a world and what an intelligent system within the world
JM> can learn about it. This will depend on how the system is connected
JM> to the rest of the world and what the system regards as meaningful
JM> propositions about the world and what it accepts as evidence for these
JM> propositions.
Sounds close to Pask's conversation theory. There is also a new field
being advocated by Paul McLean (brain researcher), called epistemics.
It is said to concern how we can know our "knowing organs," the brain
and mind. "While epistemology examines knowing from the outside in,
epistemics looks at it from the inside out." (William Gray, quoted in
Brain/Mind Bulletin 7.6 (3/8/82).
Bruce Nevin
bn@cch.bbn.com
<usual_disclaimer>
∂09-Jun-88 0708 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM fourier fractal fallout
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jun 88 07:07:58 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 299641; Thu 9-Jun-88 10:05:07 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 64074; Thu 9-Jun-88 07:02:35 PDT
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 07:02 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: fourier fractal fallout
To: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "ho@tis-w.arpa"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19880608125528.6.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19880609140202.8.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 88 05:55 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Recently found fourier coefficients for fractals, combined with
elementary geometric properties of those fractals, lead to a whole
bleepload of funny looking identities. Two among the simplest:
∞
/===\
! ! π (K + α)
∞ ! ! (1 - S TAN(---------))
==== ! ! N 2
\ N = 1 (- 2) π
> ---------------------------- = ---------
/ 2 2
==== (K + α) SIN (π α)
K = - ∞
and Time= 17291729 msecs (I couldn't bring myself to delete this)
∞
/===\
! ! π (2 K + α)
∞ ! ! (1 - S TAN(-----------)) 2 π α
==== ! ! N π (S + COT(---))
\ N = 1 (- 2) 2
> ------------------------------ = ----------------- ,
/ 2 2 SIN(π α)
==== (2 K + α)
K = - ∞
for -sqrt(3) < S ≤ sqrt(3).
Better make that |S|<sqrt(3).
Note that the first is (otherwise) independent
of S. In general, replacing K by <integer>*K yields a rational function of S,
with a
denominator
degree that has to do with the period of the binary expansion of
1/<integer>.
I just noticed a neat way to derive the second formula from the first. (Try it
yourself before reading on?)
Replace S by -S and α by α/2. Rewrite 1 + s tan((k+α/2) π/(-2)↑n) as
1 - s tan (2k+α)π/(-2)↑(n+1). Multiply everything by (1-s tan(απ/(-2)))/4, and
on the left, (here's the trick), move this factor into the sum, and replace
tan(απ/(-2)) by tan((2k+α)π/(-2)). (Legal, since k is an integer, and tan has
period π.) Then the 1-tan slides into the product and you're done.
In this manner, we can write
∞
/===\ M
! ! π (2 K + α)
∞ ! ! (1 - S TAN(------------))
==== ! ! N
\ N = 1 (- 2)
> ------------------------------
/ M 2
==== (2 K + α)
K = - ∞
As a product of M binomials. It will be interesting if I can get my product
continuizing theology to predict from this the M = lg 3 case
∞
/===\
! ! π (3 K + α)
∞ ! ! (1 - S TAN(-----------))
==== ! ! N
\ N = 1 (- 2)
> ------------------------------ =
/ 2
==== (3 K + α)
K = - ∞
2
2 COS(π α) S 2 π α 2 π α
π (----------- + 4 SIN(-----) S + 6 COS(-----) + 3)
π α 3 3
COS(---)
3
---------------------------------------------------- .
π α 2
3 SIN(---) SIN(π α) (S + 9)
3
∂09-Jun-88 1224 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU Skytech Image/Page Scanner Demo in MJH 030
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jun 88 12:23:59 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 9 Jun 88 12:21:01-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA24039; Thu, 9 Jun 88 12:21:35 PDT
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 12:21:35 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806091921.AA24039@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: Faculty@Score
Cc: Facil@Score
Subject: Skytech Image/Page Scanner Demo in MJH 030
At 10 A.M. on Friday June 10th there will be a demonstration of the Skytech
image/page scanning system. The demo will be in room 030 of MJH.
The scanning system has extensive character recognition capability
including the ability to download special fonts for character recognition.
It interfaces to both the MACII and the IBM AT.
Representatives from the company will be available for questions and
input.
∂09-Jun-88 1243 @Score.Stanford.EDU:pallas@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jun 88 12:43:01 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 9 Jun 88 12:41:14-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA24989; Thu, 9 Jun 88 12:41:48 PDT
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 12:41:48 PDT
From: Joe Pallas <pallas@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806091941.AA24989@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: facil@score
Cc: nethax@jessica
In-Reply-To: siegman@jessica.Stanford.EDU's message of 2 Jun 88 00:12:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
Recently two draft "SUNet policy statements" were disseminated by or
to (or both) the "Network Advisory Group." The significance of these
proposals should not be overlooked by the Computer Science department.
The goal of every bureaucracy is to claim enough authority over a
broad enough territory so that it can make enough rules and
regulations to justify its continued existence and growth. In this
case, the victims will include everyone trying to do research into
networks and network protocols. A proposal that addresses this
concern appears at the end of this message.
Here is a translation (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) of "SUPPORT
REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE ROUTERS" (with some abridgment for space):
The term "private router" is being used for a router which is not
operated by Networking and Communication Systems (NCS). Ether-Spine is
the backbone system that connects various network segments on campus.
1. A department planning to install a private router must obtain a
subnet number from NCS. Due to the limited number of subnet numbers
available, NCS reserves the right to reject requests for additional
subnet numbers.
"No router can be installed without the permission of NCS."
2. Private routers are not allowed to be be directly connected to the
backbone system (Ether-Spine).
"No router can be connected to the spine unless it is run by NCS."
3. Private IP routers running Routing Information Protocol (RIP) will
be able to propagate routes on to the Ether-Spine by the permission
of NCS. All private routers must be well labeled so that NCS
personnel can readily identify them.
"No router can propagate routing information to the rest of the campus
without the permission of NCS. All non-NCS routers must wear a yellow
star or a pink triangle."
4. Support for propagating routes for a private routers is contingent
upon its correct behavior. NCS reserves the right to completely
isolate the private router subnet at the SAP if the router behavior
is such that it cannot be contained by simply disabling the
propagation of routes on to the Ether-Spine.
"Any router may be sent to the gulag if it doesn't toe the party line."
5. NCS will provide a list of routers approved for use on campus.
"Some routers are 'approved.' Others, presumably, are not. Consult
your Index before you go shopping."
6. NCS also requires that the vendors of the private routers in
question support, or be actively developing support for, standard
network management protocols so that NCS personnel can monitor the
functioning of private routers.
"Ve vant informazion!"
7. NCS personnel must have access to private routers through TELNET (if
this facility is supported by the router) or a similar mechanism.
"Private routers are not private."
8. NCS will not assume responsibility for configuration or operation of
a private router.
"Private routers are strictly private."
9. Any work done by NCS personnel on private routers (including problem
identification) will be billable at the standard rates.
"NCS will bill you for work you did not authorize."
--------
Can you say "fascist?" I knew you could. Now, here's the proposal.
(I can't take credit for it, but I don't think the originator wants
the credit.)
The requirements above would stifle research into networks and network
protocols. (For example, an experimental gateway onto an FDDI optical
fiber could not meet the requirements.) They leave only one
reasonable option: secede from SUNet. Specifically, disconnect the
MJH building net (36.8) from SUNet, taking our Arpanet connections and
wideband satellite network connection with us. Let SUNet fend for
itself. SUNet would still be able to reach the internet via DEC
and/or BARRnet, so it wouldn't be completely stranded. Researchers
would then be freed of these arbitrary and restrictive regulations.
An added benefit would be less traffic through Golden, giving CSD
users better access to the internet.
Comments?
joe
∂09-Jun-88 1416 spratt%lti.UUCP@bu-it.BU.EDU Re: AIList Digest V7 #24
Received: from bu-it.BU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jun 88 14:16:04 PDT
Received: from BUITA.BU.EDU by bu-it.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7)
id AA04962; Thu, 9 Jun 88 17:12:36 EDT
Return-Path: <lti!spratt@bu-it.bu.edu>
Received: by buita.bu.edu (3.2/4.7)
id AA16219; Thu, 9 Jun 88 17:13:17 EDT
Received: from brookline.lti.com by lti.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA03157; Thu, 9 Jun 88 11:58:54 EDT
Received: by brookline.lti.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA03782; Thu, 9 Jun 88 11:58:15 EDT
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 11:58:15 EDT
From: spratt%lti.UUCP@bu-it.BU.EDU (Lindsey Spratt x24)
Message-Id: <8806091558.AA03782@brookline.lti.com>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: AIList Digest V7 #24
Since this seems relatively distant from AI-LIST concerns, I'm replying
to you directly:
> To deal with this matter I advocate a new branch of philosophy I call
> metaepistemology. It studies abstractly the relation between the
> structure of a world and what an intelligent system within the world
> can learn about it. This will depend on how the system is connected
> to the rest of the world and what the system regards as meaningful
> propositions about the world and what it accepts as evidence for these
> propositions.
Metaepistemology sounds very similar to certain aspects of Kant's
"Critique of Pure Reason". Kant reasons about what an intelligent being
(curiously, he is careful not to restrict himself to "humans") can know, and
what certain aspects of the structure of that knowledge must be. If McCarthy's
"structure of a world" is akin to a model (in mathematical logic/model theory),
then the results of Kant's work approaches a method to determine for a
given model what a being can know of it.
∂09-Jun-88 1612 CLT returns
Perhaps you could pick them up.
∂09-Jun-88 1620 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Consensus and Reality
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jun 88 16:19:51 PDT
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 09 JUN 88 16:15:09 PDT
Date: 9 Jun 88 16:14 PDT
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Consensus and Reality
In-reply-to: "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>'s message of Thu, 9 Jun 88
09:31:41 EDT
Subject: Consensus and Reality
To: bnevin@cch.bbn.com
cc: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu, hayes.pa@Xerox.COM, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
bn@cch.bbn.com
Message-ID: <880609-161509-5665@Xerox>
I suspect we agree, but are using words differently. Let me try to state a few
things I think and see if you agree with them. First, what we believe ( know )
about the world - or, indeed, about anything else - can only be believed by
virtue of it being expressed in some sort of descriptive framework, what is
often called a `language of thought': hence, we must apprehend the world in
some categorical framework: we think of our desks as being DESKS. Second, the
terms which comprise our conceptual framework are often derived from
interactions with other people: many - arguably, all - indeed were learned from
other people, or at any rate during experiences in which other people played a
central part. ( I am being deliberately vague here because almost any position
one can take on nature/nurture is violently controversial: all I want to say is
that either view is acceptable. )
None of this is held as terribly controversial by anyone in AI or cognitive
science, so it may be that by your lights we are all consensual realists. I
suspect that the difference is that you think that when we talk of reality we
mean something more: some `absolute Reality', whatever the hell that is. All I
mean is the physical world in which we live, the one whose existence no-one, it
seems, doubts.
One of the useful talents which people have is the ability to bring several
different categorical frameworks to bear on a single topic, to think of things
in several different ways. My CRT screen can be thought of ( correctly ) as an
ensemble of molecules. But here is where you make a mistake: because the
ensemble view is available, it does not follow that the CRT view is wrong, or
vice versa. You say:
BN> From one very valid perspective there is no
BN> CRT screen in front of you, only an ensemble of
BN> molecules.
No: indeed, there is a collection of molecules in front of me, but it would be
simply wrong to say that that was ALL there was in front of me, and to deny that
this collection didnt also comprise a CRT. That perspective isnt valid.
Perhaps we still agree. Let me in turn agree with something else which you
seem to think we realists differ from: neither of these frameworks IS the
reality. Of course not: no description of something IS that thing. We dont mix
up beliefs about a world with the world itself: what makes you think we do? But
to say that a belief about ( say ) my CRT is true is not to say that the belief
IS the CRT.
I suspect, as I said in my earlier note, that you have a stronger notion of
Truth and Reality than I think is useful, and you attribute deep significance to
the fact that this notion - "absolute Reality" - is somehow forever ineffable.
We can never know Reality ( in your sense ): true, but this could not possibly
be otherwise, since to know IS to have a true belief, and a belief is a
description, and a description is couched in a conceptual framework. And as
Ayer says, it is perverse to attribute tragic significance to what could not
possibly be otherwise.
When your discussion moves on to the evolution of nature, citing Pask, Winograd
and Flores and other wierdos, Im afraid we just have to agree to silently
disagree.
Pat
∂09-Jun-88 1647 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU tak
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jun 88 16:47:46 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09059; Thu, 9 Jun 88 16:45:40 PDT
Message-Id: <8806092345.AA09059@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Cc: pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: tak
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 88 16:45:38 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Both Dan and I tried running tak with explicit cutoffs, and it seems that
it is rather hard to pick them (the cutoffs) well without a quite
considerable amount of analysis, so it doesn't look like tak is a
particularly good candidate for the QLISP paradigm.
Would you happen to know if anyone has done an analysis of the running time
of tak as a function of the arguments?
Igor
∂09-Jun-88 1921 JSW re: phone message
∂09-Jun-88 1622 JMC phone message
Olivia Sims? called from Thinking machines 617 876-1111
to say that Rolf? Seebrik? was trying to
reach Joe Weening.
JSW - Thanks for taking the message. I'm not sure who this is,
but I'll call back tomorrow to find out.
∂10-Jun-88 0012 @Score.Stanford.EDU:cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 00:12:49 PDT
Received: from Pescadero by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 10 Jun 88 00:11:00-PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA10126; Fri, 10 Jun 88 00:09:06 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 00:09:06 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8806100709.AA10126@Pescadero>
To: facil@score.stanford.edu, pallas@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
Cc: nethax@jessica.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: <8806091941.AA24989@polya.Stanford.EDU> from Joe Pallas
<pallas@polya> on Thu, 9 Jun 88 12:41:48 PDT
I share your concern that the proposal will stifle network research and
flexibility. I think it is worded a little to much to make the adminstrations
job easier and some others harder. However, I guess we have to be somewhat
sympathetic to the current fragility of IP routers, etc. It seems adequate
to me to have a policy that basically says: if you are causing real problems
to others, you can be required to shutoff or disconnect, assuming others
are within spec.
∂10-Jun-88 0518 bnevin@cch.bbn.com Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
Received: from cch.bbn.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 05:18:04 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 08:16:19 EDT
From: "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
In-Reply-To: Your message of 9 Jun 88 16:14 PDT
To: hayes.pa@xerox.com
Cc: bnevin@cch.bbn.com, ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
bn@cch.bbn.com
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Consensus and Reality
PH> First, what we believe ( know ) about the world - or, indeed, about
PH> anything else - can only be believed by virtue of it being expressed in
PH> some sort of descriptive framework, what is often called a `language of
PH> thought': hence, we must apprehend the world in some categorical
PH> framework: we think of our desks as being DESKS.
I would add that we must distinguish this 'language of thought' from our
various languages of communication. They are surely related: our
cognitive categories surely influence natural language use, and the
influence may even go the other way, though the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis
is certainly controversial. But there is no reason to suppose that they
are identical, and many reasons to suppose that they differ. (Quests
for a Universal Grammar Grail notwithstanding, languages and cultures do
differ in sometimes quite profound ways. Different paradigms do exist
in science, different predilections in philosophy, though the same
natural language be spoken.)
Note also that what we know about a 'language of thought' is inferred
from natural language (problematic), from nonlinguistic human behavior,
and sometimes introspection (arguably a special case of the first two).
If we have some direct evidence on it I would like to know.
I agree with your second statement that learning occurs in a social
matrix. It is not clear that all the "terms which comprise our
conceptual framework" are learned, however. Some may be innate, either
as evolutionary adaptations or as artefacts of the electrochemical means
our bodies seem to use (such as characteristics of neuropeptides and
their receptors in the lower brain, at the entry points of sensory
nerves to the spinal cord, in the kidney, and elsewhere throughout the
body, for instance, apparently mediating emotion--cf recent work of
Candace Pert & others at NIH). I also agree that the nature/nurture
controversy (which probably has the free will controversy at its root)
is unproductive here.
PH> I suspect that the difference is that you think that when we talk of
PH> reality we mean something more: some `absolute Reality', whatever the
PH> hell that is. All I mean is the physical world in which we live, the
PH> one whose existence no-one, it seems, doubts.
No, I only want to establish agreement that we are NOT talking about
some 'absolute Reality' (Ding an Sich), whatever the hell that is. That
we are constrained to talking about something much less absolute. That
is the point.
The business about what you are looking at now being an ensemble of
molecules >>instead of<< a CRT screen is an unfortunate red herring. I
did not express myself clearly enough. Of course it is both or either,
depending on your perspective and present purposes. If you are a
computer scientist reading mail, one is appropriate and useful and
therefore "correct". If you are a chemist or physicist contemplating it
as a possible participant in an experiment, the other "take" is
appropriate and useful and therefore "correct". And the Ultimate
Reality of it (whatever the hell that is) is neither, but it lets us get
away with pretending it "really is" one or the other (or that it "really
is" some other "take" from some other perspective with some other
purposes). We are remarkably adept at ignoring what doesn't fit so long
as it doesn't interfere, and that is an admirably adaptive, pro-survival
way to behave. Not a thing wrong with it. But I hope to reach
agreement that that is what we are doing. Maybe we already have:
PH> . . . neither of these frameworks
PH> IS the reality. Of course not: no description of something IS that
PH> thing. We dont mix up beliefs about a world with the world itself: what
PH> makes you think we do? But to say that a belief about ( say ) my CRT is
PH> true is not to say that the belief IS the CRT.
But we do mix up our language of communication with our 'language of
thought' (first two paragraphs above), perhaps unavoidably since we have
only the latter as means for reaching agreement about the former, and
only the former (adapted to conduct in an environment) for cognizing
itself. And although you and I agree that we do not and cannot know
what is "really Real" (certainly if we could we could not communicate
about it or prove it to anyone), my experience is that many folks do
indeed mix up beliefs about a world with the world itself. They want a
WYSIWYG reality, and react with violent allergy to suggestions that what
they see is only a particular "take" on what is going on. They never
get past that to hear the further message that this is OK; that it has
survival value; that it is even fun.
Ad hominem comments ("wierdos") are demeaning to you. I will be glad to
reach an agreement to disagree about what Prigogine, Pask, Winograd &
Flores, Maturana & Varela, McCulloch, Bateson, or anyone else has said,
but I have to know >what< it is that you are disagreeing with--not just
who.
Bruce
∂10-Jun-88 0700 JMC
prescription and tax
∂10-Jun-88 0934 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU tak
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 09:34:45 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04518; Fri, 10 Jun 88 09:32:24 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 09:32:24 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806101632.AA04518@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: jmc@sail
In-Reply-To: rivin's message of Thu, 09 Jun 88 16:45:38 PDT <8806092345.AA09059@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: tak
Depth cutoffs don't seem to work. However, height cutoffs, plus the
dynamic spawning predicate work quite well. The height cutoff depends
on an accurate estimate of the work as a function of the 3 inputs
remaining to be done. In the case of fib, I found the 10 millisecond
cutoff (roughly (fib 13)) to be quite effective.
For Tak, the 10 millesecond height cutoff seems to be when (abs (* (-
x y) (- x z) (- y z))) is less than or equal to 84 (i.e. bigger than
4*4*4). Using the height cutoff, plus the dynamic spawning predicate,
we obtain a speed-up of 6//7 (read 6 out of 7) and 3.65//4, over
running the same program serially. Of course, this new version of tak
also runs slower than the pure version, by about 13%.
Ilan Vardi is currently doing some analysis on Tak. It looks like
Tak's running time is bounded by N*(3**N), where N is the maximum
difference between x, y and z. From this analysis, I obtained the
height cutoff mentioned above.
∂10-Jun-88 1059 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 10:59:17 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 10 Jun 88 10:57:20-PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 10:56:47 PDT
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
To: pallas@polya.Stanford.EDU, facil@score.Stanford.EDU
cc: nethax@jessica.Stanford.EDU, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <8806091941.AA24989@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12405374390.80.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Joe, this is just a quick note -- I will have more to say about all this when I
can find time to write it up. There *are* many disturbing issues about the
proposed policy as it relates to the support of networking research and even
other areas of computing research dependent on "non-standard" protocols around
here. We clearly have to find a way to continue the kind of development at
Stanford that has made the network what it is today. For now though, CSD
secession is *not* an answer since the ARPANET will be becoming much more
restrictive in its access, coverage, and management in the next couple of
years. We have to learn how to coexist somehow in the internet environment
Stanford is building. In order to take account of the understandable concerns
for reliability David Cheriton just alluded to, can we propose any technical
solutions that would make the management/reliability task easier while allowing
everyone to use the same network? Or, do we just have to accept that we really
need two networks at Stanford -- one for "production" and one for "research" --
sort of like ARPANET/MILNET...
Tom R.
-------
∂10-Jun-88 1154 CLT
did you pick up the tax returns?
∂10-Jun-88 1200 Qlisp-mailer The Composition Problem
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 12:00:48 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05518; Fri, 10 Jun 88 11:58:34 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 11:58:34 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806101858.AA05518@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: The Composition Problem
The purpose of this discussion is to point out that Parallel
constructs of the form
(Qconstruct (Predicate based on function inputs) Form*)
pose a potentially serious software engineering problem. Almost
everyone agrees that the programmer must carefully control spawning of
tasks during the execution of his program (I don't agree, but I use a
modified Qlisp System).
The software engineering problem is just an extension of the
programmer's problem. When a large system is created by linking many
modules of Qlisp code together, these formerly finely tuned
independent Qlisp programs must now work together, in parallel. It
doesn't take too many calls to Fib with an explicit depth cutoff (or
the Goldman/Gabriel Qdotimes T form) before process resources are
completely exhausted. The problem could be called the COMPOSITION
PROBLEM. What gaurantees should the Qlisp system provide developers
about the parallel execution of Composite Qlisp Programs?
It is clear that forms which always spawn tasks are at the heart of
the Composition Problem. Programs written which always spawn tasks do
not have a "Composability" property, something which serial programs
have, and which I think Qlisp programs should have. The Composability
property needs a formal, inductive definition, but its pretty clear
what is meant by Composability.
How much consideration does Composability deserve?
-Dan Pehoushek
∂10-Jun-88 1221 RPG Paris
Could you compose a short list of your favorite restaurants in Paris?
Thanks.
-rpg-
∂10-Jun-88 1248 boesch@vax.darpa.mil BAA FOR COMMUNICATIONS
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 12:48:24 PDT
Received: from sun46.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA19600; Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:46:25 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:35:36 EDT
Message-Id: <8806101936.AA04518@sun46.darpa.mil>
Received: from LOCALHOST by sun46.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA04518; Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:36:00 EDT
To: net-pi@vax.darpa.mil, dsab@vax.darpa.mil, c3-pi@vax.darpa.mil,
dpsys-pi@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: boesch@vax.darpa.mil
Subject: BAA FOR COMMUNICATIONS
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:35:36 EDT
From: boesch@vax.darpa.mil
The long awaited BAA for communications technology is on the street.
It has been published, according RADC. It was sent from RADC to the
CBD on 7 June, so it should hve been published within the last few
days. I will follow this message on monday with exact CBD references ...
S
The following is a draft version of the BAA, I have been told by RADC
that some of the details of where to mail white-papers and proposals
has changed but the basic BAA is intact. This is only intended to
give you a warm feeling of what is in the real BAA until you can get a
copy from the CBD.
Anyone complaining about any differences between this version and the
"real" CBD will be keel-hauled (if you don't know what that is, watch
"Mutiny on the Bounty").
Sorry to any who receive multiple copies of this message. You are
probably in more than one of the lists that I mailed to.
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT OF BAA THAT WAS SENT TO RADC
Broad Agency Announcement DARPA / RADC Communication Technologies
A. ADVANCED COMMAND, CONTROL, AND COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in cooperation
with the Rome Air Development Center (RADC) is soliciting proposals for
research in the area of advanced communication systems and distributed
information sciences supporting Command, Control, and Communications (C3). When
appropriate, new concepts are to be demonstrated by means of systems
prototypes.
RADC issues this Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) under the provisions of the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR 6.102(D)(2)). This BAA puts forth various
areas of scientific research and development in the informations sciences that
are of specific relevance to RADC's and DARPA's ongoing mission to bolster
technology for defense needs. Funding for these research programs will be
predicated on the technical merit that proposing research institutions display
in their approaches to developing innovative technology to solve pertinent DoD
problems.
Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches and techniques that
lead to revolutionary advances in the state of art. Specifically not to be
included are approaches which are primarily evolutionary improvements to
existing state of the practice. Proposals to prototype new or novel systems
will also be considered.
The following list of areas is to be considered under this BAA. Specific
sub-topics not explicitly mentioned may be considered, however, white papers
not in keeping with the general intent of the following four (4) areas will not
be considered.
1. Advanced networking technologies and survivable networks.
Design and definition of future military integrated service networks, network
management and security in an integrated voice and data network, network
multi-level security architectures and devices, network survivability/integrity
in presence of countermeasures, and architectures/protocols leading to the goal
of gigabit network throughput rates.
2. High performance distributed systems & very large networks;
Techniques for large networks of similar or dissimilar hardware to provide
integrated, secure, uniform, and efficient access to services and extremely
large amounts of data; resource management strategies and mechanisms for a
distributed processing system that incorporate considerations of time
dependency in the scheduling of processes; approaches to consistency,
integrity, and autonomous operations of distributed systems components with
delayed or unreliable communications; techniques for managing data and state
information within very loosely and unreliably coupled distributed systems.
3. Intelligent multifunction radio technology;
Modular portable network radios to support the mobile and remote components of
of future military integrated service networks. Objectives include: integration
of radio, network interface, network management and security functions into
portable network modules; techniques for operation in electronics
countermeasures environments to increase connection reliability while limiting
emission signature; operation in multiple frequency bands from (30 MHz thru
60GHz); interoperability with existing and future protocols and equipment; and
electronic countermeasure threat assessment.
4. Photonics technology for communications including;
Optical protocols, highly redundant optical networks, photonic switching,
parallel links based on multiple wavelengths, optical amplifiers, holographic
memories, non-linear optics, optical interconnects, massive parallelism in
computing and communications, laser communications, terabit communications,
optical telecommunications, optical multiplexing/demultiplexing, optical logic
devices, optical phase control of array elements, chip-to-chip board level
optical connections, optical modulation, optically addressable switches,
optical bus interface units for LANs, variable coupling ratio TEE couplers are
also sought.
Unless the nature of the research precludes such, the work is expected to
produce experimental prototypes that can be distributed to the research
community for evaluation and use.
This will normally require the delivery of products such as prototype software
and/or hardware, designs, and other associated systems that embody results of
the research.
In order to encourage and facilitate technology transfer, software and systems
interfaces should be designed to anticipate future standards, all prototype
deliverables should be documented and annotated as appropriate, and examples
and tutorial material provided when necessary.
Prototypes implemented in Common Lisp and Ada will receive favorable
consideration..
Sources for research will be selected by a formal technical/scientific/business
decision process.
Prior to submitting a formal proposal, offerors are encouraged to submit a 2-3
page white paper on their proposed research topic. The purpose of this white
paper is to preclude unwarranted effort on the part of an offeror whose
proposed work is not of interest under this BAA. Those white papers found to be
consistent with the intent of this BAA will be invited to submit a proposal.
Such invitation does not assure that the submitting organization will be
awarded a subsequent contract. White papers will be accepted for period of 30
days from the date of this publication.
Evaluation of proposals will be conducted in two phases. First will occur 60
days from the data of this publication and the second 120 days from the data of
this publication. Proposals submitted may be evaluated as they are received or
they may be collected and reviewed periodically.
Individual proposal evaluations will be based on acceptability or
nonacceptability without regard to other proposals submitted under the
announcement. Evaluation of proposals will be performed using the following
criteria:
1. Quality. Overall scientific, technical, and socio-economic merit of the
proposal.
2. Relevance. Potential contributions of the effort to the agency's specific
mission.
3. Personnel. The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed
principal investigator, team leader, and key personnel who are critical in
achieving proposal objectives.
4. Capability. The offeror's capabilities, related experience, facilities,
techniques, or unique combinations of these which are integral factors for
achieving the proposal objectives. For proposals involving prototype
development this will include availability (either in-house, through
subcontract, or through industrial affiliates) of design and manufacturing
tools appropriate to the proposed prototype.
5. Transition. The offeror's plans and capability to appropriately transition
the technology, for example into the research and industrial communities.
6. Cost. Realism and amount of the proposed cost and availability of funds.
Principal funding for proposals selected in this announcement will begin in
Fiscal Year 1989 with some modest initial efforts in Fiscal Year 1988.
Proposals can range from small-scale efforts that are primarily theoretical in
nature, to medium-scale experimental and prototyping efforts of hardware and/or
software, to larger-scale integrated systems efforts.
Proposals submitted should consist of two volumes: Vol I should provide the
technical proposal and Vol II shall address the management and cost portions of
the proposal.
Vol I should be about 40 pages in length, but not exceeding 50 pages in length,
and shall include the following sections, each starting on a new page:
A. A cover page including title, technical points of contact, and
administrative points of contact.
B. A one-page summary of the innovative claims for the proposed research.
C. A one-page summary of the deliverables associated with the proposed
research.
D. A one-page summary of the schedule and milestones for the proposed research.
E. One-page summary of any proprietary claims to results, prototypes, or
systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results and/or
prototype. If there are no proprietary claims, this section should consist of a
statement to that effect.
F. A Statement of Work (SOW) in accordance with ESD Pamphlet 800-4 and no more
than 3 pages long detailing the scope of the effort and specific contractor
requirements.
G. A technical rationale paper of no more than 20 pages which includes
technical arguments that substantiate claims made in Section (B) and a
technical approach description consistent with Sections (C) and (D).
H. A description, no more than 5 pages long, of the results, products, and
transferable technology from a prospective user's point of view expected from
the project.
I. A discussion of no more than 10 pages giving previous accomplishments and
work in this or closely related research areas and the qualifications of the
investigators.
J. A bibliography of relevant technical papers and research notes (published
and unpublished) which document the technical ideas upon which the proposal is
based. This section is not subject to the page count restriction. Copies of not
more than 10 relevant papers can be included in the submission.
Vol II shall consist of two subsections.
Vol IIA shall be no more than 10 pages. It should describe the overall approach
to the management of this effort, including brief discussions on total
organization, use of personnel, project/function/subcontractor relationships,
technology transition plans, and planning, scheduling and control practices.
Vol IIB shall include a one-page cost summary and an SF 1411 (Contract Pricing
Proposal Cover Sheet, available from the Government Printing Office) for the
effort (inclusive of options). Costs shall be supported by detailed breakdowns
of labor hours by labor category and task/subtasks, materials by vendor quotes
and purchase history, travel, computer and other direct costs and indirect
costs. An explanation of any estimating factors including their derivation and
application shall be provided. Details of any cost sharing to be undertaken by
the offeror should be included in the cost proposal.
Cost Type contracts will be utilize for awards under this BAA.
FOREIGN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (To be added by PK)
EXPORT CONTROL DATA STATEMENT (To be added by PK)
This Synopsis #XXX will remain in effect for a period of 120 days from the date
of this publication. Responses should be addressed to
Rome Air Development Center
PK
Griffiss AFB, NY 13440-5700
and must reference the Synopsis #XXX on both the enclosure and the mailing
envelope.
∂10-Jun-88 1307 Mailer re: Civil Liberties 60: Two views of Death
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message rcvd 10-Jun-88 11:45-PT.]
I am pleased to see that John McCarthy also favors abolishing the death
penalty. Since this idea apparently doesn't mesh very smoothly with some
of his other political views, however, he introduces the idea that we
can't afford to abolish it now, saying:
.One of the contributors to our not being able to afford abolition and to
.the renewed support for the death penalty is the ACLU. It has helped
.increase the probability that a murderer will escape punishment entirely
.or will get out of sentenced to life imprisonment.
I note that John offers no support for this flat statement. I challenge
him to support it -- I believe that it is unsupportable.
Les Earnest
∂10-Jun-88 1400 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 14:00:52 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 13:58:33 PDT
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, pallas@polya.Stanford.EDU, facil@score.Stanford.EDU
cc: nethax@jessica.Stanford.EDU, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <1q2p3w@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12405407481.80.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
John, it's hard to see how to get transfer rates of order hundreds of
KBytes/sec and how to avoid lots of expensive phone hardware duplication all
over the place for multi-socket connections with a dial-up network solution.
DialNet is a good solution for some classes of problems but not SUNet. No
doubt, networks do create a whole new set of problems from those of switched
networks.
Tom R.
-------
∂10-Jun-88 1524 Qlisp-mailer The start of a Debate?
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 15:24:26 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06851; Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:22:10 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:22:10 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806102222.AA06851@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: The start of a Debate?
I felt that I should make one last attempt at promoting the dynamic
spawning predicate. Folks, it really is easy to write good parallel
programs using implicit parallelism, and they even tend to run faster
than programs which use explicit cutoff criteria. I don't just have
analysis, but I also have well-working parallel programs. The
Composition Problem tends to go away when you use the dynamic spawning
predicate. I feel strongly about this, but that's my problem. What
I'd like to start here is a debate on the merits and demerits of
explicit spawning and implicit spawning. Implicit spawning is certainly
not flawless, but what are the flaws? The following presents
my view of how parallelism should be controlled in a program.
Programs (functions) which require that a Process must be spawned
violate the Composability Property. Such violations should be
permitted, but with large amounts of caution, and almost always, only
at the Top Level in a program.
How then should the parallelism in a program be expressed? From my
work on the modified Qlisp system, it has become clear that the
solution is Implicit Parallelism. The programmer notes which forms
may be evaluated in parallel, but does not require that the forms be
evaluated in parallel. For instance, if there is a function call
whose arguments involve a possibly large amount of computation, then
that function call is perfect for using the parallel funcall, as in
#?(+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2))).
If there must be a user written predicate, let it be an inhibiting
predicate. That is, when the predicate is True, there will not be any
spawning. When the predicate is false, there may or may not be any
spawning, depending on the dynamic spawning predicate. In this
system, (QLET T ...) would cause no spawning, while QLET NIL may or
may not cause spawning.
Programs written in the Implicit Parallelism style tend to possess the
Composability property, in addition to the tendency to run faster than
programs using explicit depth cutoff. The dynamic predicate causes
load-balancing among processors. If a program has sufficient implicit
parallelism, there is virtually no idle time.
Dynamic spawning together with height cutoffs works very well on
most doubly recursive functions like Fib and Touch. With the
appropriate Height Cutoff, it also works well on Tak.
The Boyer program currently does not use a height cutoff, but gets
reasonable results. Results would be more consistent with a height cutoff,
but as it is, the speed-ups on the unoptimized Boyer benchmark are as much
as 6 out of 7.
The FFT benchmark uses QDOTIMES. Experimentally, the amount of
spawning done in this benchmark seems to be smallest with the
load-balancing version; there is almost no idle time. With an
explicit number of spawns per loop, there is a certain amount of idle
time per loop, mod the number of processors. Also, in the trivial
version where each loop spawns *number-of-processors* processes, the
spawning rate is larger than with the load-balanced QDOTIMES. The
speed-ups on this benchmark are difficult to judge, because of memory
allocation contention. Modulo contention, the FFT benchmark should
speed up by 6.5 or more out of 7.
Finally, running all the benchmarks together causes even less
spawning and idle overhead, although there is still memory allocation
overhead.
Dan Pehoushek
∂10-Jun-88 1617 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 16:17:27 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 16:15:40 PDT
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <1c2sIT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12405432441.80.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
John, I wasn't scorning the need for EMail facilities and I agree the problems
of addressing and delivery are a mess. That's a different problem from the
context of the earlier messages, though, which concerned a set of policy
proposals from Yundt's SUNet group that would restrict *campus* communications
where high bandwidth and protocol flexibility are needed.
Tom R.
-------
∂10-Jun-88 1738 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM re: Consensus and Reality
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 17:38:07 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 10 JUN 88 17:34:27 PDT
Date: 10 Jun 88 17:34 PDT
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: re: Consensus and Reality
In-reply-to: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>'s message of 09 Jun 88 16:32
PDT
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <880610-173427-7788@Xerox>
No, Im afraid I decided long ago that Pask was way too far out to be worth
taking seriously ( he formed his own company and wrote lots of obscure things
which combined a commitment to general system theory and cybernetics with a sort
of faint mysticism ), I havnt read anything more recent which would change my
opinion ( there are only so many years reading left, I cant afford to waste them
finding out whether old nuts have become geniuses, its like buying lottery
tickets. If they have indeed written something really important, I will hear
about it through reputable channels soon enough. )
I havnt read Kant either, but I was cured of the need by reading Johan van
Benthems wonderfully dry discussion of Kant on time, in pp 32etseq and 234etseq
in his book. And again, in response to Nevins: Kant was writing in an
intellectual climate which was stone-age compared to ours. He didnt have access
to modern mathematical concepts of infinity, for example, or modern physical
ideas, let alone such stuff as Freud, Darwin, Turing, Goedel.... Its extremely
unlikely that he said anything which hasnt been said better since by someone
else. If Nevins thinks that there is something in Kant which hasnt been
extracted and distilled, then he is making claims of historical scholarship
which are probably fairly overconfident.
Sorry to just give you cynicism, but Im getting a bit tired of all the crap in
AiList. Let me pass on some advice I just got from Ken Sloan apropos of this:
Never try to teach a pig to dance - it's messy, and only annoys the
pig.
Enjoy ( /hope you enjoyed/delete as appropriate) Munich.
Pat
∂10-Jun-88 1740 Qlisp-mailer meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 17:40:28 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07677; Fri, 10 Jun 88 17:38:20 PDT
Message-Id: <8806110038.AA07677@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: meeting
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 17:38:18 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Will be held on Wednesday, May 15th in MJH301. On the agenda will be
the computer algebra plans for the immediate future, the recent tech-reports,
state of the world update and hopefully the formulation of a coherent policy
re QLISP distribution to third parties.
Igor
PS: the meeting is, unsurprisingly, at noon.
∂10-Jun-88 1753 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: tak
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 17:53:47 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07790; Fri, 10 Jun 88 17:51:33 PDT
Message-Id: <8806110051.AA07790@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, jmc@sail
Subject: Re: tak
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 10 Jun 88 09:32:24 -0700.
<8806101632.AA04518@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 17:51:31 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
My message referred specifically to the "standard" QLISP. The
analysis Ilan is doing (at my urging) is obliquely referred to
in my message; it is clear that it can be used to obtain reasonable
performance, but is it reasonable to do two days worth of analysis
(and most Lisp hackers would almost certainly lack the mathematical
expertise required for the task) to write a reasonable parallel version
of a "one-line" serial program?
Igor
∂10-Jun-88 1815 Qlisp-mailer The start of a Debate? Well, maybe.
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 18:15:01 PDT
Received: from labrea.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07983; Fri, 10 Jun 88 18:12:50 PDT
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Fri, 10 Jun 88 18:13:21 PDT
Received: from vesuvius.lucid.com by edsel id AA22819g; Fri, 10 Jun 88 18:07:50 PDT
Received: by vesuvius id AA14972g; Fri, 10 Jun 88 18:05:54 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 18:05:54 PDT
From: Peter Benson <edsel!pab@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8806110105.AA14972@vesuvius.lucid.com>
To: qlisp@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Dan Pehoushek's message of Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:22:10 PDT <8806102222.AA06851@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: The start of a Debate? Well, maybe.
I absolutely agree that in the "real world" it is important to
have a dynamic predicate to determine whether or not to spawn.
On the other hand it is useful to know what the optimal limits of
parallelism are for a particular algorithm or type of algorithm. I could
easily envision a world where people do things like:
(qlet (and (dynamic-predicate)
(obscure-algorithm-specific-predicate))
...)
Someone studying a specific algorithm might want (dynamic-predicate) to
always return T so that there is a point of comparison.
Of course, if one could guarantee that the dynamic predicate is always
perfect then any fancy cutoff test is a waste of time. I think its pretty
hard to show that a particular predicate is always going to be perfect, but
that might be a good thing to investigate.
I think as a language feature the current situation, where NIL means serial,
non-nil means parallel, and the non-nil value may determine the nature
of the parallelism, is pretty reasonable. Overloading the predicate like
that might not be the prettiest thing in the world. Whether NIL means
"yes" or NIL means "no" just doesn't seem that interesting.
That's what I think. Does anyone care?
-ptr-
∂10-Jun-88 1827 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 18:27:42 PDT
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 10 JUN 88 18:22:36 PDT
Date: 10 Jun 88 18:22 PDT
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
In-reply-to: "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>'s message of Fri, 10 Jun 88
08:16:19 EDT
To: bnevin@cch.bbn.com
In-Reply-To: your message of 10 June 88 08:16 EDT
cc: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM, ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
bn@cch.bbn.com
Message-ID: <880610-182236-7854@Xerox>
OK, my last communication on this topic, I swear. I absolutely agree that the
internal representation ( LofT ) is different from the languages of
communication ( I suspect profoundly different, in fact ). I had a remark to
that effect in the first draft of my last note, but removed it as it seemed to
be aside from the point. Oddly enough, I am more impressed by the way in which
speakers of different languages can communiate so easily, ie by the apparent
unity of LofT in the face of an external babel; whereas you seem to be more
impressed with the opposite:
BN> Different paradigms do exist in science, different
BN> predilections in philosophy, though the same
BN> natural language be spoken
so perhaps we are still disagreeing: but let that pass.
Of course its not obvious that all the terms we use are learned: I tend to think
that many cant be ( eg enough about spatial relationships to recognise a visual
cliff, and see T. Bowers work ). I was trying to lean over as far as I could in
the `social' direction, and pass you an olive branch.
But let me pass again to the central point of difficulty:
BN> No, I only want to establish agreement that we are
BN> NOT talking about some 'absolute Reality' (Ding an
BN> Sich), whatever the hell that is. That we are constrained
BN> to talking about something much less absolute. That
BN> is the point.
My point was that there is no NEED to establish agreement: that in saying that
the world is real, and that ( for example ) the CRT in front of ( the same one,
by the way ) really is a CRT, I am not claiming that the DinganSich is
CRT-shaped: I dont find the concept of an ultimate Reality ( your term ) useful
or perhaps even coherent: Im just talking about the ordinary world we all
inhabit. This `absolute', `ultimate' talk is yours, not mine. I feel a little
as though you had come up with an accusing air and told me forcefully that we
CANT refer to Froodle; and when I assured you that I had no intention of talking
about Froodle, you replied rather sternly that that was all right then, just so
long as we agreed that Froodle was unmentionable. I am in a double bind: if I
disagree you will keep on arguing with me; but if I agree, then it seems that I
agree with your strange 19th-century views about the Ultimate:
BN> ...you and I agree that we do not and cannot know
BN> what is "really Real"
No: I dont think this talk is useful. In agreeing that all our beliefs are
expressed in a framework and that it doesnt make sense to imagine that we could
somehow avoid this, I am not agreeing that we can never get to what is really
real: Im saying that this idea of a reality which is somehow more absolute than
ordinary reality is just smoke. I DO think that we can know what is really
real, that some of our beliefs can be true: REALLY true, that is, true so that
no reality could make them truer, as absolutely and ultimately true as it is
possible to be. They are true when the world is in fact the way they claim it
to be, thats all.
AS for ad hominem, well, Im afraid Im getting tired. As far as I can discover,
there isnt anything in Winograd and Flores ( I refer to the book ), McCulloch (
on this sort of topic, not his technical work ) or Bateson which is sharp enough
to be worth arguing about. I confess to not having read recent Pask, or any
Prigogine or Manturana & Varela: but there are only so many hours in a day, and
so many days in a life, and the odds that I will find anything interesting there
seem to me to be low.
OK, no more from Pat on this topic.
∂10-Jun-88 2250 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jun 88 22:50:45 PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA11384; Fri, 10 Jun 88 22:47:21 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 22:47:21 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8806110547.AA11384@Pescadero>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu, Rindfleisch@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
facil@score.stanford.edu, pallas@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: re: Your Comments, Please: Pvt. Routers & Multiple Protocols
Cc: nethax@jessica.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: <1q2p3w@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> from John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL> on
10 Jun 88 1126 PDT
JMC's message reminds me of a classic line in the campus rag when I was a
grad student: "The reason computers are so popular among academics is that
they generate more problems than they solve."
∂11-Jun-88 0206 nbires!ames!oliveb!epimass!hodges@unidot.uucp Proposed Seminar
Received: from umunhum.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Jun 88 02:06:41 PDT
Received: by umunhum.stanford.edu (1.2/inc-1.2)
id AA01981; Sat, 11 Jun 88 02:06:32 pdt
Received: by ncar.UCAR.EDU (5.58/1.00.UUCP-MOD.8-11-85)
id AA20736; Fri, 10 Jun 88 16:48:52 MDT
Received: Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:40:51 PDT by ames.arc.nasa.gov (5.59/1.2)
Received: by oliveb.OLIVETTI.COM (smail2.5)
id AA08426; 10 Jun 88 15:41:43 PDT (Fri)
Received: by epimass.EPI.COM (MC 2.0/smail2.2/05-17-87)
id AA01466; Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:38:53 PDT
From: epimass.EPI.COM!hodges@ames.uucp (Richard Hodges)
Message-Id: <8806102238.AA01466@epimass.EPI.COM>
Subject: Proposed Seminar
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:38:51 PDT
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.7 beta]
Proposal for a Seminar:
The Computer Experience and the Human Spirit
I am planning a seminar-workshop with a a working title of "The
Computer Experience and the Human Spirit". Jacob Needleman, Professor
of Philosophy at San Francisco State University, who is well known for
his books and seminars on the inner quest, has expressed interest in
this subject and suggested that he and I might offer such a program if
there is sufficient response.
It would be held in San Francisco and would consist of one or two
whole days' work together on a weekend, with presentations, exercises,
and exchanges among the participants. There would be a fee.
We would like to invite all who share an interest and concern about
the growing influence of computers on our inner as well as outer life
to participate. This would include those who work with computers
professionally, philosophers and spiritual explorers who wish to
understand how to approach the computer, and those for whom the
computer has become an inescapable fact of their daily lives.
Questions which we would like to explore include:
Do computers liberate or enslave us?
The computer as a creative medium.
What does the experience of working with computers help us
to understand about ourselves and our place in the world
order?
What new insights, metaphors, and values can be developed
from the computer experience? What are their potential
benefits and pitfalls?
How can we improve the quality of our relationships with
computers?
I am sending this out to invite commentary, suggestions, and
expressions of interest in participation. Please respond by e-mail or
telephone, or letter.
Also, if you are in touch with any other individuals, groups, or
mailing lists of people who might be interested, please forward this
message (and let me know).
Richard Hodges
hodges@violet.berkeley.edu
(415)268-3656
650 Calmar
Oakland CA, 94610
∂11-Jun-88 1253 andy@carcoar.Stanford.EDU Problems with UUCP
Received: from carcoar.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Jun 88 12:53:31 PDT
Received: by carcoar.Stanford.EDU (5.51/inc-1.01)
id AA07234; Sat, 11 Jun 88 12:52:30 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 88 12:52:30 PDT
From: Andy Freeman <andy@carcoar.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806111952.AA07234@carcoar.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Problems with UUCP
Newsgroups: su.nethax
In-Reply-To: <2886@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
In article <2886@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> you write:
> If anyone needs
>it, an explanation of why UUCP isn't what's needed will be provided.
Other than it provides limited services (lacking cost control and
charge-back for one thing), it isn't secure or reliable, and
connectivity is a problem, what's wrong with UUCP?
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: andy@polya.stanford.edu
(415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle
∂11-Jun-88 1645 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Problems with UUCP
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Jun 88 16:29:02 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA28190; Sat, 11 Jun 88 16:23:48 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 88 16:23:48 PDT
From: Andy Freeman <andy@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806112323.AA28190@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 11 Jun 88 1340 PDT <#2x1N@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Problems with UUCP
People who write mail software for UUCP world have decided that
relative addressing (foo!bar!sail!jmc) is a disaster. They've adopted
domain addressing; the domain doesn't imply a route, just a hierarchy
of names used to lookup a route from the current machine. Of course,
since USENET is an anarchy, there is no way to convince sites to
upgrade, and many haven't. They haven't had to pay for their lack of
responsibility, yet. (I've been trying to get the news software
people to make new versions incompatible with those more than 3 years
old, but haven't convinced all of them yet.)
-andy
∂13-Jun-88 0645 bnevin@cch.bbn.com Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
Received: from cch.bbn.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jun 88 06:37:56 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 88 09:36:47 EDT
From: "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
In-Reply-To: Your message of 10 Jun 88 18:22 PDT
To: hayes.pa@xerox.com
Cc: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu, bn@cch.bbn.com
We have some confusion of persons here.
It was in "Simon Brooke's acidic comments on William Wells' rather
brusquely expressed response to Cockton's social-science screaming" that
you perceived "a three-hundred-year old DOUBT about the world, and how
we know it's there." (V7 #24) On the contrary, my opening remark was:
BN> I can't speak for Simon Brooke, but personally I don't think anyone
BN> seriously doubts the existence of the physical world in which we live.
BN> Something is going on here. The question is, what.
I then said that it is the anti-consensus view that lays claim to an
absolute reality (WYSIWYG realism--the "naive realism" I thought was
unhorsed by Russell in 1940, in _An Inquiry Into Meaning and Truth_),
and that a consensual realist, like myself, acknowledges that we should
not attribute such absoluteness to what we perceive and know.
PH> . . . I am more impressed by the way in which
HP> speakers of different languages can communiate so easily, ie by the apparent
PH> unity of LofT in the face of an external babel; whereas you seem to be more
PH> impressed with the opposite
Speakers of different languages can communicate when there is mutual
good will and intent to communicate, and when they come to (or come with
a prior) agreement on a domain that constrains the semantics and
pragmatics sufficiently to make the ambiguities manageable. Same
applies to speakers of the same language. Get into rougher waters where
the discourse is no longer constrained by subject-matter (sublanguage
syntax) and social convention, however, and lifelong speakers of the
same neighborhood dialect can and often do find one another
incomprehensible.
PH> Of course its not obvious that all the terms we use are learned: I tend
PH> to think that many cant be ( eg enough about spatial relationships to
PH> recognise a visual cliff, and see T. Bowers work ). I was trying to lean
PH> over as far as I could in the `social' direction, and pass you an olive
PH> branch.
Thanks, an easy olive branch to accept and to reciprocate as follows:
it seems obvious to me that some of this is learned, some biologically
innate. With the caveat that I believe it is sounder science not to
_assume_ a lot is innate (reference here to the sillier biologicist
claims of Generativists).
BN> I only want to establish agreement that we are
BN> NOT talking about some 'absolute Reality'
BN> . . . that we do not and cannot know
BN> what is "really Real"
PH> My point was that there is no NEED to establish agreement
I did not intend that you and I should be the only parties to such
agreement. Some earlier messages seemed to claim that the world of
naive realism was in some sense absolute, e.g. Mr. T. William Wells.
TW> OK, answer me this: how in the world do they reach a consensus
TW> without some underlying reality which they communicate through.
PH> . . . this idea of a reality which is somehow more absolute than ordinary
PH> reality is just smoke. I DO think that we can know what is really real,
PH> that some of our beliefs can be true: REALLY true, that is, true so that
PH> no reality could make them truer, as absolutely and ultimately true as
PH> it is possible to be.
"Some of our beliefs." Certainly. The hard question is, which ones, and
how can we tell the difference.
PH> They [some of our beliefs] are true when the world is in fact the way
PH> they claim it to be, thats all.
If one takes the appropriate perspective, has the appropriate purposes
and intentions, is prepared to ignore irrelevancies, and is able to get
away with ignoring what doesn't fit, then, yes, the world is "in fact"
and "really" the way our beliefs claim it to be. From another
perspective, with other purposes and intentions, ignoring other
irrelevancies that the world (in that context) lets us get away with
ignoring, the world is in fact the way our rather different beliefs
claim it to be. For all practical purposes, the earth is flat with lots
of hills, valleys, cliffs, bodies of water, plains, etc. From an
astronomical or astronautical perspective, different beliefs apply.
Neither view can falsify the other (pace my 9th grade science teacher,
many years ago), because they are incommensurate, they do not
communicate with each other. We can "act as if" the world were flat
most of the time, and get away with it. And most of the time the
astronomical "truth" about the shape of the earth is irrelevant and
pointless to talk about. Lucky for us! We might otherwise have to
include a quantum physical statement about the shape of the earth in
everyday discourse--and act on it!
So sure, some of our beliefs are REALLY true--as far as they go. However,
where one set of beliefs contradicts another set of beliefs couched in
another perspective and serving another purpose, they can't both be
REALLY true, can they? Well, yes, they can. You just have to assume
one perspective at a time, and not try to reconcile them. To try to
reconcile them all is tantamount to trying to establish knowledge of
Absolute Reality, and we know that is a fruitless quest.
I am willing to let this dialog between you and me rest here. I hope
that it is plain to those who objected to "consensual reality" that the
consensual aspects of knowledge and belief are neither silly nor
trivial. I have tried to clarify that "consensual reality" refers to
shared beliefs, institutionalized as social convention, that the world
lets us get away with. Our late 20th century American (techie
subculture) consensus reality has no greater and no less claim to being
absolutely real than any other. It works really well in some respects.
It courts disaster in others. Time will tell how much the world will
let us get away with. It is of course an evolving consensus, and the
process of adaptation can allow for better accomodation with other
competing/cooperating perspectives that do exist in the biosphere.
Bruce Nevin
bn@cch.bbn.com
<usual_disclaimer>
∂13-Jun-88 0915 Qlisp-mailer Re: The start of a Debate?
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jun 88 09:15:32 PDT
Received: from Xerox.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09843; Mon, 13 Jun 88 09:13:09 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 13 JUN 88 09:14:26 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 88 8:16:52 PDT
From: jlevy.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: The start of a Debate?
In-Reply-To: <8806102222.AA06851@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <880613-091426-9044@Xerox>
Dan,
For what it's worth (probably 0.02$..) :
In most common concurrent languages (FCP, Actors, ..) the POSSIBLE concurrency
is quite large, and the language definition takes the view that "concurrency is
the ABILITY to execute things in parallel". Thus, an implementation is not
REQUIRED to execute anything in parallel and works just fine on a single cpu. In
the view of these languages, it is bad to have a static specification of how
much parallelism is really REQUIRED in the execution of a specific program.
There are interesting issues in fairness of allocation of resources if two
programs, one which uses the dynamic spawning predicate and the other statically
specifying parallelism, are combined.
Thanks for the interesting discussion on cutoffs. This convinces me even more
that the correct view is to specify IMPLICITLY as much concurrency as possible
(i.e. use a language with fine grained concurrency) and to let the
implementation break its head on how to run the program most efficiently.
Jacob Levy
References
pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU's message of Fri, 10 Jun 88 15:22:10 PDT --
The start of a Debate?
∂13-Jun-88 1037 hearn%hilbert@rand-unix.ARPA Various
Received: from rand.org (RAND-UNIX.ARPA) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jun 88 10:37:20 PDT
Received: from hilbert.rand.org by rand.org; Mon, 13 Jun 88 10:22:22 PDT
Received: by hilbert.arpa; Mon, 13 Jun 88 10:18:24 pdt
From: Tony Hearn <hearn%hilbert@rand-unix.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8806131718.AA15762@hilbert.arpa>
To: goodman@mis.arizona.edu
Cc: 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,
KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu, MCHENRY@guvax.bitnet@rand-unix.ARPA,
OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com, CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
Subject: Various
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 88 10:18:21 PDT
I've been thinking about how one defines supercomputing. The top n% of
currently available computing as measured by recognized benchmarks is
certainly one way to go. However, this gets complicated by special
purpose architectures such as the Connection Machine. Depending on
application, this is either a supercomputer or an expensive PC.
There is also another thing to be factored into such a definition if we
are considering the issue of what to deny other countries. Presumably
every level of computing gives them a different level of capability. This
is particularly true for real time applications. For example, a system
analyzing signals to determine where all the submarines in the Pacific
Ocean are must get the answers quickly. Having the information back in 24
hours doesn't help much. However, I can't think of a way to formulate
such a notion of capability denial so as to prevent beaurocratic abuse of
the criterion.
You asked for a title for the report. How about something like "The
Global Information Society"? That's certainly one of our main
conclusions, and would (properly, I think) set the tone of the document.
∂13-Jun-88 1307 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:kaufmann@CLI.COM workshop notes
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jun 88 13:06:56 PDT
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Mon 13 Jun 88 13:05:11-PDT
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (CHAOS 3131) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 13 Jun 88 16:00:31 EDT
Received: from CLI.COM (TCP 1202000076) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 13 Jun 88 16:00:21 EDT
Received: by CLI.COM (4.0/1); Mon, 13 Jun 88 14:55:14 CDT
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 88 15:00:06 CDT
From: Matt Kaufmann <kaufmann@CLI.COM>
Message-Id: <8806132000.AA00956@client12.CLI.COM>
Received: by client12.CLI.COM (3.2/CLI-1.2)
id AA00956; Mon, 13 Jun 88 15:00:06 CDT
To: shankar@score.stanford.edu, marek@ms.uky.edu,
cowles@uwyo.bitnet.pixley@mcc.com, wpierce@cs.utexas.edu,
woodcock@dockmaster.arpa, cooper@spanky.cs.utexas.edu,
Kevin_Compton@um.cc.umich.edu, ai.bledsoe@r20.utexas.edu,
men%linus%mitre-bedford.arpa@mitre.arpa,
theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu, plummer@mcc.com,
sdcrdcf!eggert@cs.ucla.edu, martin!eggert@cs.ucla.edu,
oravax!ed@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu, oravax!fred@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: workshop notes
Here are notes from a discussion that took place at a "pre-CADE
workshop" last month (May 1988). Jim Williams says it's very OK to
distribute these to any interested party, so feel free to pass these
along if you'd like.
-- Matt Kaufmann
____________________________________________________________________
PRE-CADE WORKSHOP, CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
During the course of the workshop, various topics were suggested for
discussion. Jim Williams began the concluding discussion with a short
summary. Major questions included what applications are useful,
and how can we demonstrate utility. Two distinct kinds of applications
were identified, namely component-applications and end-applications.
The following account is based largely on notes taken by Matt Kaufmann.
SUGGESTED TOPICS
1. How to achieve good standards (if possible), for such things as
input/output and database support subsystems.
2. Is it feasible to create a global theorem-proving network, where
all available systems collaborate on solving submitted conjectures?
3. What's worth working on?
systems that solve hard problems
systems that handle a particular class of problems
systems for particular applications.
4. What applications are feasible?
natural language
verification (software, hardware)
math packages (e.g. Macsyma)
teaching mathematics and logic
solving open problems
robotics.
SUMMARY INITIATING THE DISCUSSION
A lot is going on that seems to be good, especially related to intended
applications. The system of Wos and McCune found a class of open problems
that it can solve easily. Effective geometry theorem proving is an
accomplished fact. The TPS system seems to be of sufficient utility
that it is a useful teaching technique. Peter Andrews added that
some of the messy details (including messy symbolic stuff) are avoided
by his TPS, even in proof-checking mode. However, this is useful
for training people to do formal logic proofs, rather than for training
people to do mathematics in the traditional style (i.e. with many
details omitted). Suppes' work was mentioned as another example of
the use of automated systems in teaching logic.
A notable aspect of the workshop was the increased use of so-called
non-classical logics (modal logics, lambda calculi). One wonders if
"where there's smoke there's fire." The combinatory logic work
at at Argonne, for example, uses the same theorem proving techniques
as previous provers based on open predicate calculus.
A number of questions are suggested by the demos that have been presented.
What is the role of these various non-classical extensions of first-order
logic? Regarding a global theorem proving system, does this require
us to have logic-independent provers? Regarding what to work on, can
we extend the competence seen in geometry and combinatory logic to
more general theorem provers? Regarding applications, how feasible
are hardware and software verification?
COMPONENT-APPLICATIONS
Deepak Kapur gave examples of successful hardware verification: microcode
verification (by Crocker et al), Hunt's verification of a microprocessor,
GE's effort that caught two bugs in an image processing chip (Sobel's
algorithm), the Viper project (Mike Gordon et al). Williams mentioned
that Ford was thinking of verifying microprocessors but decided that
it was too difficult to get the engineers and verification people
to understand each other.
Andrews suggested robotics and policy analysis. It was noted that
the former may be much easier to formalize than the latter. But on
the other hand, better reasoning tools might encourage development
of a more formal basis for economic and policy analyses, for example.
We may need principles for deriving actions, not merely for proving
theorems.
But Kapur pointed out that people don't use known algorithms for planning
in the robot realm, and that people don't use verified software.
Someone mentioned the Gypsy Message Flow Modulator as an example.
Williams explained that it was to be used somewhere in Spain, but
the Navy didn't use it because it would have been admitting that they
had a security problem, which was itself a violation of security!
There was also the issue of uncleared people having done the verification,
which helped kill a later effort to use this code.
Loveland pointed out a similar example regarding an expert system
for use in hospitals which helps avoid over-prescription of dangerous
drugs. There was the problem of admitting that there was a problem
to be addressed, not to mention the possibility of lawsuits in case
such a system was down or was ignored.
Stickel discussed his work related to natural languages, which builds
on existing theorem-proving technology developed to conduct nondeterministic
searches. This led to some discussion regarding appropriate logics
for dealing with natural language. Stickel pointed out that first-order
logic is sufficiently expressive to do quite a lot (especially, as
Loveland pointed out, when one adds some set theory). But Andrews
questioned the overhead of the coding of natural language in first-order
logic. Miller pointed out the elegance and expressiveness of higher-order
logics.
Loveland raised the issue of having more naturally expressive programming
languages. Examples cited included Prolog, equational systems (e.g.
O'Donnell's), and higher-order functional programming languages. Pase
mentioned that O'Donnell's language now has a compiler which seems
to be even more efficient than the C compiler. Kapur mentioned CLP(R)
as a nice example of an exciting new development in this direction
(i.e. computational power and expressiveness).
DEMONSTRATING UTILITY, END-APPLICATIONS
Kapur raised the question of what we can do to make it clear that
this body of work (theorem proving, that is) is useful. Pase suggested
that verification (e.g. of microwave oven microprocessors) would catch
people's attention. Kapur warned that there have been nice computer
algebra applications that have been ignored. Miller pointed out that
kids are getting literate in programming languages at rather early
ages, which, in particular, means that they're getting familiarized
with notions that are relevant to theorem proving (such as types).
Does this suggest that theorem-proving is more accessible to kids
than it may have been previously?
Loveland suggested that it would be nice to find applications where
one really wants to be able to call on a theorem prover as an end-application,
as opposed to a component of a larger system. It seems that, currently,
there really aren't any. Andrews cited education as the closest thing
we currently have to an end-application (i.e. in teaching logic).
It was pointed out that mathematicians are an obvious place to look
for demand for a theorem prover, and Lusk gave such an example where
his group was able to help -- namely semigroups. But such examples
seem rare. Pase mentioned that hardware is an obvious realm where
logic is integral and theorem-provers could thus be useful.
Kaufmann asked, wouldn't it be nice if we could have a tool which
was as useful as Macsyma (for algebraic manipulation) or Cayley (for
finite groups)? Maybe LMA was a bit like this. But Lusk replied that
we'd have a better shot at having a popular tool, if we had something as
general purpose and uniform as these tools. The problem seems to be that
existing theorem-provers seem rather specialized, i.e. not of general
interest. Kaufmann commented that mathematics, as usually done, is with huge
gaps compared to what is usually verified -- combinatorial/algebraic,
manipulative things (like semigroups) being a notable exception. But Lusk
emphasized that it's worth trying to make contacts with mathematicians, as
the above example points out. And Kapur pointed out that Macsyma didn't
catch on immediately -- the point being that we may need to be patient.
He also mentioned an example of a skeptical person getting spoiled
once she got hooked on Macsyma -- disappointed that it couldn't
do more. Kaufmann added that maybe if we do get a tool in general
use, people will be disappointed quickly.
Miller mentioned a $100,000 prize -- the rules seem to be a bit
vague, but roughly speaking, the prize is for automatically discovering
a significant new theorem in mathematics. Do we dream about winning
such a prize? (Several in the room do.) Loveland concluded that doing
mathematics, like successfully doing AI, reaches the upper levels
of human intelligence. In some sense, it is the end of the game.
∂13-Jun-88 1554 Qlisp-mailer new new-qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jun 88 15:53:57 PDT
Received: from labrea.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03895; Mon, 13 Jun 88 15:51:36 PDT
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Mon, 13 Jun 88 15:52:36 PDT
Received: from kolyma.lucid.com by edsel id AA03265g; Mon, 13 Jun 88 15:48:27 PDT
Received: by kolyma id AA12639g; Mon, 13 Jun 88 15:50:01 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 88 15:50:01 PDT
From: Carol Sexton <edsel!carol@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8806132250.AA12639@kolyma.lucid.com>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: new new-qlisp
I have just installed a new new-qlisp on go4.
This lisp contains an initial implementation of futures.
The following forms now return futures:
(qlet 'eager ...)
(spawn non-nil ...) ;Note that spawn now takes a propositional argument.
(qlambda non-nil ..)
Right now a future's value must be explicitly obtained with
get-future-value.
For example
(defun foo (x)
(qlet 'eager ((a (1+ x)) (b (1- x)))
(+ (get-future-value a)
(get-future-value b))))
works but
(defun foo (x)
(qlet 'eager ((a (1+ x)) (b (1- x)))
(+ a b)))
would probably not work.
The function futurep is a function of 1 argument and returns
t or nil depending on whether the argument is a future or not.
The future future-realized-p is a function of 1 argument which
should be a future and returns t or nil depending on whether
or not the future has a value.
Carol
∂13-Jun-88 1910 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu draft of issues chapter. Comments etc. solicited.
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jun 88 19:08:52 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 88 18:19 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: draft of issues chapter. Comments etc. solicited.
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, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS, THORNTON
Marjorie and I have put together a strawman chapter of the issues and
questions that we should be trying to address. This follows below. For each
issue, we present a minimal introductory discussion that ends with some
basic questions. The intention was to provide a short, fairly crisp,
modular, and flexible draft of this important chapter.
We are sending you this material before the rest of the draft report to
maximize the time you have to think about these issues before our July
meeting. Please read it carefully and provide us with your comments as
soon as possible. We encourage you to suggest additional issues/questions or
to argue against some that are included below. Editorial comments and
improved wording are also welcome. We would like these questions to
serve as guides to the kinds of information we need to have you provide in
the technical and Soviet chapters.
Ideally, the technical chapters should address these issues-questions
in enough detail so that we can put together a conclusions chapter that
parallels the issues chapter. It would be nice if we could assemble the
evidence and ideas to provide convincing answers and recommendations for
most of these questions or, failing a concensus on an answer or
recommendation, to at least provide a conclusion in the form of a good
discussion of why we couldn't do so. We have no delusions that we can
provide definitive resolutions of every issue, and so this material might
serve the additional purpose of providing a map of key issues that would at
least help others get through that part of the learning curve. This is
likely to be a major policy matter for any new administration.
Again: one of the most pressing and most important purposes of the
issues chapter is to poke the membership to bring forward evidence and
ideas. We want to use it to give us explicit targets and questions to
address in their writings and discussions at the July meeting. It is also
important to try to give State and our larger ultimate readership the
perception that our report is actually addressing explicit and relevant
questions.
Please remember that what follows is not a set of conclusions. We hope
to provide a draft "strawman" conclusions chapter by around the 17th. It
will be much longer, and hopefully will usefully parallel the issues raised
below. Above all else, we'd like our July meeting to build cases for or
against these (and any other) tentative conclusions.
========================================================================
The committee identified a number of cross-cutting issues in the course of
this study. Loosely, those issues fall into three, not always distinct
categories: technical issues, economic issues, and political/military
issues [must relabel]. policy export controls
Technical issues:
Definitions. More precise definitions of computer products and technologies
are needed to specify what is and what is not subject to export control.
Such definitions need to take into account boundaries between "neighboring"
technologies, changes in definitions over time, and other control-specific
contexts. Definitions that are too wide stifle competitiveness, while
definitions that are too narrow allow excessive and potentially damaging
technology transfer. For example, what is a useful definition of
"supercomputer" for control purposes? There is general agreement that
supercomputers are important and should be controlled. But "supercomputer"
is a moving target, and technological developments are dramatically changing
the options available for high speed computing. The usual definitions
(fastest, most expensive) are unsatisfactory because they do not take into
account the state of high speed computing in the target countries, e.g.,
where a Cray-1 would still be considered a supercomputer. How can we make
"supercomputers" a special high priority control category if we cannot tell
CoCom, industry or the US Government what one is? How can applications and
systems be categorized? How can definitions help determine the structure and
application of a control program?
Interdependence of computer technology elements. It is difficult to
evaluate computer technology elements wholly on their own. The popular
view of computer technology focuses on several different elements,
including machines of different sizes and capabilities (microcomputers,
minicomputers, mainframes, and supercomputers), components (esp.
integrated circuit chips for memories and processing) and peripherals, and
software and systems. While there are identifiable research communities
and markets for each element, the importance of any one element to an
application or to a country's domestic computer industry may
depend on conditions pertaining to other technologies and economic factors.
What are the interdependencies among technology elements? How do
those technology interdependencies affect market structure? How do
technology interdependencies affect foreign availability of computer
technology? Have the breadth and complexity of computer technology
advanced so much as to militate against a broad-based control system?
Technological Pace and Innovation. While export controls restrict access to
technology already created, another mechanism for maintaining technical
superiority is to run faster, to develop more technology faster than the
adversary or competitor. The pace of computer technology change is rapid
overall, but it varies by element. The rapid pace noted in the popular and
business press primarily consists of the implementation of evolutionary or
incremental changes (e.g., continued miniaturization of circuitry). However,
major gains may also come from breakthroughs, which may offer improvement
along relevant dimensions of an order of magnitude or more. Breakthroughs
can give rise to radical change in the direction of computer technology and
in the importance of any given piece of technology. They also can cause
chain reactions of change among numerous technology elements because of
their interdependencies. How can control policies and specifications keep
abreast of technologies characterized by such rapid incremental innovations?
Which technologies may be most effectively controlled? In what technology
elements are breakthroughs most likely, and when might they occur? What are
the preconditions for breakthroughs? Who is most likely to generate
breakthroughs, and why? What is the lag between a breakthrough and
commercial use? Should emerging innovations (both incremental and
breakthrough) be "born" controlled or do they have to be explicitly put on
the control list?
Standards. Technical standards facilitate the spread of computer
technology, although they can also slow movement toward new -- but
nonconforming -- technologies. They provide a framework for technology
development, they are a means toward greater product choice for consumers,
and they encourage high-volume, low-cost production. How do the presence
or absence of standards affect the rate, direction, and location of
change among the various elements of computer technology? How does the
standard-setting process, typically international and characterized by
openness (standards must be published to be effective), also affect those
variables? How might export control policy be tied to policy and practice
vis a vis technology standards?
Forms of control. Technology is essentially know-how. The sale of a product
is a technology transfer only to the extent that the product itself reveals
know-how. This is often a weak and passive form of technology transfer.
Export controls have traditionally been focused on product shipments and
use. What are the more effective mechanisms of technology transfer? To what
extent can or should these mechanisms be controlled? Most controls are in
the form of legal restrictions. Are there technical restraints that can be
used to limit the potential for and raise the cost of diversion, reverse
engineering, etc. (e.g., object code, strong embedding of sensitive
technology into application-specific products).
Economic:
Globalization. Computer technology today draws heavily on theory and
products that originated in the United States, but it has become
increasingly global. Where to innovations tend to occur, and how is the
geographic incidence changing? What is the distribution of computer
technology innovation between the West and the East? What does it mean to
be a world leader in computer technology, and how sustainable is leadership?
How much has production spread geographically, vs. how much has use spread?
What are major centers of computer technology production? Where else is
computer technology produced? What does the spread of production and use
imply for control programs? What does the spread of production imply for
the structure of computer industries? How has globalization shaped concerns
about U.S. computer competitiveness, and what do those concerns imply for
controls? To what extent are export and re-export controls a handicap in
global markets? How do controls affect competitiveness within East Bloc
markets? Should control program assessment of foreign availability regard
differently evidence about production capability in CoCom, CMEA, and other
countries, and why or why not? How does foreign availability determination
vary across technologies? Are different standards being (should be?) used to
assess foreign availability for CoCom, CMEA countries, neutrals?
Commoditization. A growing number of computer technologies and products
have become widely available and inexpensive. It is common to refer to them
as commodities, to underscore how easy they are to obtain. A precise
definition, from the field of economics, relates wide availability of a
commodity to the inability of an innovator to restrict (legally or
technologically) access to the basic features of the innovation. Thus, the
globalization of computer technology reflects the inability of innovating
nations to control the technologies they originate. Which computer
technologies can be considered commodities? How is the pool of
computer-related commodity technologies changing, and at what rate? To what
extent do these commodities tend to be subject to standardization, de facto
or otherwise? Do commodity technologies represent particular levels of
technology? What does commoditization imply for control programs?
Cross-fertilization. The technology base of any one company or country
may be extended through cooperative agreements with other companies. Such
agreements may take the form of alliances, mergers and acquisitions, or
licensing agreements. Unlike the simple purchase (or theft) of a
piece of computer technology, a cooperative agreement has an active human,
people-to-people technology transfer component. How important are
cooperative agreements in the computer sector? To what extent are
cooperative agreements in the computer sector international, and why? How
much cooperation and cross-fertilization is occurring within the West, and
how much is East-West? How are cross-fertilization patterns likely to
change and why?
Political, Military, Hybrid.
Military significance. National security is a concept that can be
interpreted relatively narrowly (in terms of military defensive and
offensive activities and needs) or relatively broadly (in terms of the
structure of a society and the interdependence of military and civilian
economic and social phenomena). The narrower perspective is easier to work
with but may not be realistic. Although both detailed assessments of
military criticality and detailed analysis of military-industrial structures
are beyond the scope of this report, the contribution of computer technology
to national security is a motivating issue that underlies the report as a
whole. The technical assessments within this report, in turn, provide
guidance (but not total prescriptions) for the design of a technology
transfer program intended to enhance national security. How easily can the
military criticality of computer technology be identified? How much do
computer technologies vary in their relevance to national security, esp.
from the perspective of military criticality? How close are military and
civilian functionality for computer technologies? How easily can civilian
applications be converted to military technology? How does purely civilian
development and use of computer technology affect military capabilities?
When should computer technologies with high civilian value be controlled?
Absorbability. The value of computer technology depends on how easily and
how well it can be used. How fast has computer technology been transferred
from West to East? How well and how quickly has it been absorbed into the
economy, for civilian and military use? What are the prerequisites for
effective use of computer technology, and to what degree do they exist in
CMEA countries? What is the linkage between civilian and military use of
computer technology and on what does it depend? Has perestroika and the "new
detente" lessened the military risk of computer-related technology transfer?
What have been the factors inhibiting more effective East-West technology
transfer in computing? How have export controls affected the practice of
technology transfer? How have the effectiveness of these inhibiting factors
changed in recent years? How are they likely to change in the future?
Protectability and Effectiveness of Control Policies. To what extent do
computer technology elements vary in the degree to which they can be
protected or controlled? How much does protectability depend on technical
attributes, such as the degree to which an element can be easily
transported, and also on economic attributes, such as the number and nature
of the countries in which an element is produced? Are there useful forms of
technical protection? Is there a particular link in the chain from design
through production where the technology is most protectable or most
vulnerable? Should there be a much smaller and more tightly controlled list
with more severe penalties? What are the problems of determining and
updating such a list? Violations and enforcement: How much? How important?
To what extent do violations and weak penalties undermine the value of
export controls?
Political. How do we disentangle -- with a focus on computing --
the concepts of national security, economic warfare, and foreign
policy? How relevant and important are technology considerations to this
question?
∂14-Jun-88 0905 Qlisp-mailer Required vs. Implicit Parallelism
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jun 88 09:05:52 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08065; Tue, 14 Jun 88 09:03:16 PDT
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 88 09:03:16 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806141603.AA08065@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jlevy.pa@Xerox.COM
Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: jlevy.pa@Xerox.COM's message of Mon, 13 Jun 88 8:16:52 PDT <880613-091426-9044@Xerox>
Subject: Required vs. Implicit Parallelism
Jacob,
When a program has alot of possible concurrency, it seems like the
programmer's job SHOULD be easy, as in FCP and Actors. However, as in
Qlisp, when he must keep track of other subsystems spawning, the
logistics begin to get troublesome, and the code gets unnecessarily
complex. Programs (functions) which REQUIRE parallelism simply do not
COMPOSE well. Sure, at Top-Level, Required Parallelism won't hurt,
but good code is written to be reused...
It seems to me that Qlisp should handle the easy parallelization
problems well. That is, the programmer's job, when there is an
abundance of potential parallelism, should be simple; without using a
good dynamic spawning predicate, I just don't see Qlisp being simple
to use.
Another point you raised was fairness in the allocation of resources
among dynamic and static tasks. Maybe something should be done at
compile or load time for "static" programs... Anyway, it is quite an
interesting question, and deserves some investigation. Clearly,
demanding a fixed amount of resource from a variable (scarce) supply
is problematic. Another typical answer is that the garbage collector
should solve this problem.
******
Peter raised the question of whether a dynamic predicate is always
going to be perfect... NP-hard stuff. But, many NP-hard graph
problems are trivial on Trees!
The TOPS predicate (Top-Of-Processor's-Task-Stack), as I've finally
decided to call it, when used in large computation trees, with a
height cutoff, produces near perfect parallelism; the speed-up on k
processors approaches k*(1-c), where c is a small constant, depending
only on the ratio of the cost of evaluating the TOPS predicate (which
can be pipelined) and the cost of the HEIGHT CUTOFF (serial) subtree.
The exact size of the HEIGHT CUTOFF determines the "GRANULARITY".
If anyone would like to see some analysis details, please ask.
The interesting thing is that, in the limit, the cost of spawning
tasks goes to zero. The programmer's task, in this dynamic spawning
environment, is to merely annotate the computation trees. If
extremely high efficiency is necessary, then appropriate height
cutoffs should be used (or a new Parallel Lisp Machine which uses a
zero-cost pipelined TOPS predicate). The major parallel programming
task, then, is to find these computation trees (hopefully, just
recursive function call situations), and change the appropriate
DOTIMES to QDOTIMES.
-Dan
∂14-Jun-88 1145 Qlisp-mailer meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jun 88 11:45:43 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00731; Tue, 14 Jun 88 11:43:20 PDT
Message-Id: <8806141843.AA00731@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: meeting
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 88 11:43:19 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Just a reminder that the next meeting will be held on Wednesday,
June 15 (NOT May 15, as previously advertised) in MJH301 at noon.
∂14-Jun-88 1218 Qlisp-mailer Re: The Composition Problem
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jun 88 12:17:25 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01288; Tue, 14 Jun 88 12:14:58 PDT
Message-Id: <8806141914.AA01288@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: The Composition Problem
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 10 Jun 88 11:58:34 -0700.
<8806101858.AA05518@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 88 12:14:56 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Note that Joe's "virtual processor" idea addresses this
problem (briefly, each task assumes that there is a certain number of
processors available, this number not necessrily being equal to the
number of physical processors, but presumably in some way dependent on
that last, for example if foo spawns baz and baaz, and foo had 17
virtual processors, then baz and baaz may each get six virtual
processors, while the continuation of foo gets five).
∂14-Jun-88 1541 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Yet another Same-Fringe
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jun 88 15:41:03 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05241; Tue, 14 Jun 88 15:38:37 PDT
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 88 15:38:37 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806142238.AA05241@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Yet another Same-Fringe
Here is yet another SAME-FRINGE. It doesn't use catch/throw. It only
speeds up by a factor of 2, due to CONS contention, I believe. Future-Light
spawns a future if the dynamic predicate is right.
;; Traverse, with the REST of the traverse (possibly a future) as the
;; second argument.
(defun traverse (tree rest)
(cond ((null tree) rest)
((atom tree) (cons tree rest))
(t (traverse
(car tree)
(future-light (traverse (cdr tree) rest))))))
;; Compare two fringes. The cdrs could be futures.
(defun compare-fringe (f1 f2)
;; If f1 is null, then f2 should be null to return T.
(cond ((null f1) (null f2))
;; If f2 is null, return f1, to see the difference.
((null f2) f1)
((eq (car f1) (car f2))
(compare-fringe (touch-future (cdr f1))
(touch-future (cdr f2))))
;; else return the difference, for debugging.
(T (list f1 f2))))
;; Do the traversing in parallel.
(defun same-fringe (tree1 tree2)
#?(compare-fringe (touch-future (traverse tree1 nil))
(touch-future (traverse tree2 nil))))
∂14-Jun-88 2156 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jun 88 21:56:47 PDT
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 14 JUN 88 21:55:51 PDT
Date: 14 Jun 88 21:55 PDT
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
In-reply-to: "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>'s message of Mon, 13 Jun 88
09:36:47 EDT
To: bnevin@cch.bbn.com
cc: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM, jmc@sail.stanford.edu, bn@cch.bbn.com
Message-ID: <880614-215551-12474@Xerox>
Oh dear, I despair of you understanding what I am trying to say. There is no
confusion of persons: anyone who talks about `absoluteness' and `ultimate
Reality' which is somehow unknowable, and from which unknowability it follows
that there are several different realities whose structures somehow depend upon
social or linguistic conventions or agreements; any such thinker is one of those
whose position I am trying to reject.
You respond to my passionately worded declaration of faith in the reality of the
real by objecting
>"Some of our beliefs." Certainly. The hard question is,
> which ones, and how can we tell the difference.
but this misses the point at issue: we are arguing about ontology, not
epistemology: what is real, not how we could come to know what is real.
Certainly, deciding which of our beliefs are true is a wellknown difficulty, and
I dont mean for a moment to suggest that its easy, or that the world wears its
structure on its sleeve: we dont just directly apprehend truth, as Gibson wanted
to say. But it contributes little to this problem to declare that ANY suitably
consistent collection of beliefs, held by a sufficiently large body of people (
presumably, for a sufficiently long time ) defines ( a ) reality: that just
denies the validity of the question.
For many years the world was thought to be flat: now we know that was a mistake,
although we understand why it seemed plausible and is still a useful
approximation. On your account, however, it wasnt wrong: the world still IS
flat: and its also, now, not flat, as we know from astronomical photographs: and
both of these are true?
> they can't both be REALLY true, can they? Well,
> yes, they can.
No, of course they cant. What nonsense: in order to make something true, all
youve got to do is get enough people to believe it? A politicians Nirvana.
> To try to reconcile them all is tantamount to trying
> to establish knowledge of Absolute Reality, and we
> know that is a fruitless quest.
NO: to do this reconciliation is simply to try to find out what is true, what
the world is in fact like. Nothing `Absolute' about it, thats just Froodle
talk. Its not at all a fruitless quest, in fact, its essentially what we ( and
most mammals, in a more restricted way ) are doing most of our waking lives.
>I am willing to let this dialog between you and me rest here.
Well, in spite of what I said earlier, Im not, because you persist in
misunderstanding and me and reinterpreting what I say, as in your next words..
> I hope that it is plain to those who objected to >"consensual reality" that
the consensual aspects of >knowledge and belief are neither silly nor trivial.
I have > tried to clarify that "consensual reality" refers to >shared beliefs,
institutionalized as social convention, >that the world lets us get away with.
OK so far: if thats all `consensual reality' is - shared beliefs - than all we
are arguing about is the use of the word `reality'. BUt then you say
> Our late 20th century American (techie subculture) >consensus reality has no
greater and no less claim to >being absolutely real than any other.
and again we part company. I wont claim that modern Western scientific culture
has got it all right: in fact, its part of that culture that this is in some
deep sense impossible ( Popper ). But it does, I think, have a much tighter
grip on reality than any other culture Ive come across: and certainly, Im not
going to agree that they are all pretty much the same. Take one example:
astrology is garbage.
Pat
PS this is not forwarded to AIList, to keep my promise of no more on this topic.
∂15-Jun-88 0109 yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no Your travel arrangement to China?
Received: from tor.nta.no by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Jun 88 01:05:09 PDT
Posted-Date: 15 Jun 88 10:02 +0100
Received: by tor.nta.no (5.54/3.21)
id AA14465; Wed, 15 Jun 88 10:06:39 +0200
Date: 15 Jun 88 10:02 +0100
From: Jianhua Yang <yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.nta.no>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <300*yang@vax.runit.unit.uninett>
Subject: Your travel arrangement to China?
Dear Prof. John McCarthy,
I sent you the enclosed message for a time ago.
It might be lost somewhere on the way to you.
However, would you please give me the cost figures
for your travel to China which is to be covered by
the conference, as soon as possible? I need the figures
to prepare/review the conference budget, before
we (I and Prof. Arne Solvberg) leave Norway in
the end of next week (24, 25 June).
Thanks in advance for your help!
Sincerely yours,
Jianhua Yang
Encl.: the previous message:
-----
Send-date: Wed, 25 May 1988 12:48:28 UTC+0100
From: Jianhua Yang <yang@vax.runit.unit.uninett>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Your travel arrangement to China.
INVITED SPEAKER TO THE IFIP CONFERENCE IN CHINA, JULY 1988.
Dear Prof. John McCarthy,
May I ask you how you are planning to arrange your
travel to China and back to the states? May I ask you
for the estimated cost figures for your travel to/from China
which will be covered by the conference budget? I have
to look at the conference budget for the last time, I hope.
Thanks for your help!
Sincerely yours
Jianhua Yang.
--------
∂15-Jun-88 1242 AI.PETRIE@MCC.COM Metaepistemology
Received: from MCC.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Jun 88 12:42:13 PDT
Date: Wed 15 Jun 88 14:40:56-CDT
From: Charles Petrie <AI.PETRIE@MCC.COM>
Subject: Metaepistemology
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <12406704071.51.AI.PETRIE@MCC.COM>
Would you say that Kant was only doing epistemology because
he was only concerned with one, given system? That is, Critique
of Pure Reason describes an instance of a class of relationships
that metaepistemology studies abstractly? If I understand you correctly,
it occurs to me that Kant's "proofs" were doomed to failure because
they had no abstract theory, and thus theorems, on which to rest.
-------
∂15-Jun-88 1311 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu some good stuff from Clark. Let's hear more from the rest of you!
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Jun 88 13:10:39 PDT
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 88 12:33 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: some good stuff from Clark. Let's hear more from the rest of you!
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, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS, THORNTON
From: UACCIT::IN%"CWeissman@dockmaster.arpa" 15-JUN-1988 11:56
To: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subj: Re: draft of issues chapter. Comments etc. solicited.
Return-path: CWeissman.BSPO@dockmaster.arpa
Received: from DOCKMASTER.ARPA by rvax.ccit.arizona.edu via TCP; Wed Jun 15
11:13 MST
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 88 13:55 EDT
From: CWeissman@dockmaster.arpa
Subject: Re: draft of issues chapter. Comments etc. solicited.
To: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Cc: CWeissman@dockmaster.arpa
In-Reply-To: Message of 13 Jun 88 21:19 EDT from
"GOODMAN%uamis at RVAX.CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU"
Message-ID: <880615175504.244558@DOCKMASTER.ARPA>
Sy,
I am caught up in crisis document due same time as July meeting, so this
is quick reponse.
1. I will attend July meeting. 2. I will not have section on
Applications. Matwerial has shown up, but I missed my free month window
in May and now snowed. I am committed to do it, but it will be after
July meeting, possibly end of July.
3. Comments on Issues: a)Technical Issues Super Computers are machines
specially constructed to solve our societies most complex (i.e.,
computationally intensive) problems employing: 1) ultra
high-speedcircuits; 2)parallel computing logic; and, 3) special purpose
(i.e., problem specific) chips an software.
The above is my operational definition. Note it broadens definition to
"computationally intensive" rather than just "speed", which admits
signal processing chips ala Star wars, and parallel machines ala
Connection Machine. Your text should replace "high speed" by
"computationally intensive" through out.
b) Interdependence Examples here will help. Try software dependent on
CPU, OS, Higher Order Language; Super computers dependent on Networks;
mainframes on discs.
c) Technology Pace & Innovation We have not made enough of the "run
faster" idea. Try this concept: If a space traveler showed us "its"
advanced technology, could we understand, could we replicate the
"breakthru" it demonstrated? How far ahead does a society need be
before the less advanced CANNOT build the breakthru for lack of tech
base? If that is to "cute" ask the same questions about our own past.
Could Edison comprehend an IBM PC? Could Turing? Could Von Nuemann
understand modern programming and replicate "X-windows"? I think such
thoughts are provocative because in our discussions with State and the
guys form Va, the USSR is already 10 or more years behind in some
fields. If they fall much farther they may drop beyond repair.
Our system seems to thrive in a free marketplace, so less controls
(other than direct military programs) my "win the race."
d) Standards.
Idea missed here. Standards in free world creates rapid industrial
"infrastructure" of small companies taking enterprising risks with
emerging technology to build a market for "products that are components"
built to standards. We see this all around -- specially software,
scanner, graphics, desk accessories, ROM chips for all sorts of things.
Standards does that. It also accellerates the rate of change/progress.
It is also part of Interdependence.
e) Forms of Control. You Have totally ignored the best scheme "TOOLS".
Know-how yes, but only with tools. My Martian example above. Or better
yet, last week I hired a plumber to replace a washer, because it
required a very special set of wrenches to get to the valve deep behind
6 inches of concrete. I had the Know-how, but he had the tools. It was
$35 well spent for 15 min work.
More if I have time. Clark
PS, route this around if yoy feel there's merit. CW
∂16-Jun-88 0622 bnevin@cch.bbn.com Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
Received: from cch.bbn.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jun 88 06:21:06 PDT
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 88 09:14:55 EDT
From: "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus and Reality, Consensus and Reality
In-Reply-To: Your message of 14 Jun 88 21:55 PDT
To: hayes.pa@xerox.com
Cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, bn@cch.bbn.com
I have had other obligations, hence the delay. In the first four
numbered swatches of text, I will try to clear away some
misunderstandings that have kept us at cross-purposes. In the last are
some issues that I think are central to AI and KR and that seem to have
got confused with some less creditable ideas.
1. -=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
> There is no confusion of persons
Let me try again. I believe you are confusing me with Simon Brooke. I
went back and found the passage in AIList 7.24 in which you attributed a
desire for absolute knowledge to him:
> Look: of course we can only perceive the world through our perceptions,
> this is almost a tautology. So what? This is only a problem if one is
> anxious to obtain a different kind of knowledge, something which is
> ABSOLUTELY certain. The need for this came largely from religious
> thinking, and is now a matter of history. I'm not certain of anything
> more than that there is a CRT screen in front of me right now. Unlike
> Descartes, I'm not interested in nailing down truth more firmly than by
> empirical test. Once one takes this sort of an attitude, science
> becomes possible, and all these terrible feelings of alienation, doubt
> and the mysteriousness of communication simply evaporate. Of course,
> perception and communication are amazing phenomena, and we don't
> understand them; but they aren't isolated in some sort of philosophical
> cloud, they are just damned complicated and subtle.
This was in response to Simon Brooke. I don't know what he said that
constituted expressions of alienation, etc., but that is not my concern.
In 7.25, after distancing myself somewhat from Simon Brooke, I said:
> One reason for our present difficulty in this forum reaching consensus
> about what "Reality" is, is that we are using the term in two senses:
> The anti-consensus view is that there is an absolute Reality and that is
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
> what we relate to and interact with. The consensus view is that what we
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
> "know" about whatever it is that is going on here is limited and constrained
> in many ways, yet we relate to our categorizations of the world expressing
> that "knowledge" as though they were in fact the Reality itself. When a
> consensual realist expresses doubt about the existence of something
> generally taken to be real, I believe it is doubt about the status of a
> mental/social construct, rather than doubt about the very existence of
> anything to which the construct might more or less correspond.
Here, I am trying to use language that speaks to these two sides. I may
have been wrong in attributing such ideas to them, but that was what I
was doing. In my own view, I do not postulate some transcendent Reality
apart from what I empirically experience, but I am confident that I do
not exhaust the possibilities of empirical experience at any given
moment, hence there are things in principle knowable that I either do
not notice (irrelevant) or that I at the moment cannot know (no
cyclotron handy--usually also irrelevant).
Then in 7.27, responding to me, but evidently thinking I was the same
person as you responded to in 7.24:
> I suspect, as I said in my earlier note, that you have a stronger notion of
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ ↑↑↑
> Truth and Reality than I think is useful, and you attribute deep significance to
> the fact that this notion - "absolute Reality" - is somehow forever ineffable.
It seems pretty clear that you thought you were talking to the same
person as in the earlier note.
2. -=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
> my passionately worded declaration of faith in the reality of the real
> . . .
> we are arguing about ontology, not
> epistemology: what is real, not how we could come to know what is real.
Once you have said that reality is real (I try not to deny tautologies
:-) it seems to me that there is nothing more that you can say about it
without invoking your way of coming to distinguish reality from
illusion. There are valid questions about seeing things that are not
there and being blind to things that are there because of expectation,
priming, predisposition, scientific paradigm, etc. You cannot just
assume that things are as they seem (naive WYSIWYG realism).
Neither of us questions the existence of an objective, fully observer-
independent "external world," though I put that expression in quotes not
to beg the obvious question "external to what" (no homunculi). That is
what Realists agree on. More interesting is the question of access to
this observer-independent reality. Here is an analysis of some Realist
points of view from a recent paper by my friend Tom Ryckman, "Is
'Ecological Realism' Really Realism? Some Implications of J. J.
Gibson's Theory of Perception," coming out of last summer's NSF workshop
on scientific realism:
Realism: There exists a fully determinate external world of objects
and events (a definite "world structure" [Fine, _The Shaky Game, 137])
which is essentially independent of any of our perceptual or cognitive
faculties and activities.
Scientific Realism: we can have theoretical knowledge of this
world structure and to obtain such knowledge is the goal of science.
Perceptual Realism: we can, and we usually do, have perceptual
knowledge of the objects and events in the external world as they
really are.
Direct version: our perceptual experience is directly and
reliably of the objects and events in the external world and there
are no intermediary entities between the stimulation coming from
this external world and our percepts; i.e. no media of internal
representation, schemata, systems of categories, images, ideas,
etc. (Entails the non-existence of unobservables.)
Direct Critical Realism: what can be perceived, can be
perceived directly. (Evades problem of unobservables.)
Indirect version: Perception is a causal sequence of events from
the external object (distal source) to the proximal stimulus of
the sense receptors (sensation) to the cognitive elaboration of
sensation which yields a veridical or near-veridical percept of
the object.
Naive Realism: "Things are exactly as they seem." (Russell, 1940,
15). Russell argued that this entails the falsity of any theory
that says unobservable things exists, e.g. physics.
I believe most AI/KR work falls under Indirect Perceptual Realism. The
anti-consensual ranting to which I was responding sounds to me like
naive WYSIWYG realism. I believe the Rand `objectivism' enthusiasts
fall into this too, though they seem more interested in justifying their
right-wing political bent than in epistemology.
The point here is that we must talk about epistemology to deal with the
issues at hand. Certainly that's what I thought we were discussing.
3. -=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
> it contributes little to this problem to declare that ANY suitably
> consistent collection of beliefs, held by a sufficiently large body of people (
> presumably, for a sufficiently long time ) defines ( a ) reality: that just
> denies the validity of the question.
Straw man. This sounds like you are attributing the following claim to me:
If a sufficiently large group of people
shares a set of mutually consistent beliefs
for a sufficiently long time
reality comes to conform to those beliefs.
We could discuss that intriguing notion, which has as you probably know
has a considerable following in EST sorts of circles. (Hundredth monkey
and all that.) I would rather not.
I am not saying that beliefs define reality. If anything, it appears to
be the other way around.
What I am saying is the following:
People come to various agreements (by learning, by negotiation) and
hold beliefs and disbeliefs about
what is going on
what a given event or circumstance signifies
how to conduct oneself for the furtherance of mutually
understood (though not always shared) purposes.
So long as
(a) what their agreement or belief ignores is not relevant to
present purposes and
(b) their interactions in their environment support what the belief
postulates, then
(c) they can get away with supposing that the belief represents
reality or even that the belief IS reality. (Acting as if P
may constitute supposing that P is true, whether P is consciously
asserted or not. There may be some other P' that actually
accounts for the behavior, of course, which is why tacit belief-
disbelief structures are notoriously hard to demonstrate.)
However, for any given belief or belief system (so far in human history,
as far as we know)
(d) there are always demonstrably present features of a given token
that are ignored as irrelevant to the type, and
(e) type characteristics are postulated not all of which are in
fact present for a given token, thus supporting wellknown
perceptual tendencies to fill in gaps and 'regularize' what is
cognized.
4. -=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
Continuing from your last:
> anyone who talks about `absoluteness' and `ultimate
> Reality' which is somehow unknowable,
> and from which unknowability it follows
> that there are several different realities whose structures somehow
> depend upon social or linguistic conventions or agreements . . .
Several issues to disentangle here. First, you are reading much more
than is warranted into my use of the phrases you find objectionable, see
above. Again, mention is not endorsement.
Second, I am somewhat puzzled by what appears to be inconsistency in your
attitude toward a supposed "unknowable Ultimate Reality" or Ding an
Sich, as follows:
Western science has developed a congeries of partly overlapping
perspectives for its numerous fields and subfields, and a way of
defining and refining such perspectives, that we (you, I, others)
believe has collectively an especially good 'grip on reality' (your
words). This suggests a reality that is not completely known, and
indeed, I think the general understanding is that there are things about
reality as yet undiscovered, and that they exist now even though no
human (so far as we know) is cognizant of them. You cite Popper as
indicating as a core belief of modern Western scientific culture that it
is in some deep sense impossible for science to get it all right. If
true, this is a supposition that reality (the thing "gripped") is in
some measure unknowable. Are you hoist by your own petard, or is the
English language constraining you to say things you don't mean?
> . . . to do this reconciliation [of contradictory perspectives]
> is simply to try to find out what is true, what
> the world is in fact like. Nothing `Absolute' about it
"What the world is in fact like" sounds like "absolute" talk to me.
I am not arguing with you, here, I am just trying to get clear what you
are saying, as the apparent contradiction is confusing.
Thirdly, the existence of different ways of framing perceptions and
other interactions in an environment does not `follow from' any
postulated 'unknowability', it is simply an observed fact. So I am
making no claim that "follows from" a supposed 'unknowability of
ultimates.' However, I do have what I believe are nontrivial questions
about the ontological status of "social or linguistic conventions or
agreements."
5. -=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
And now, having I hope cleared away some misconstrual, here are what I
think are the real issues. My ideas here are evolving and not always
clearly worked out, but I will try to be clear.
You balk at the term `consensual reality'. Well, first, as I said, I'm
using the term to refer back to its use in earlier discussion. But I
agree with you that the equivocal use of the word `reality' is
problematic here. I see two points of confusion:
1. One's perspective/beliefs/expectations strongly affect how one
construes objects and events, particularly the actions of other agents.
This is of course an epistemological issue. Is this delusion and
superstition that science aims to dispel? Perhaps. There is evidence,
and it has certainly been argued, that one's paradigm in science has the
same sort of blinkering effect. This undermines the simple confidence
that "things are as they seem." We assume a change of consensus
(whatever its claim to truth) does not bring about a change of reality
("fully determinate . . . essentially independent of any of our
perceptual or cognitive faculties and activities"). (Carl Bohm, some
inferences made from Bell's Theorem, Prigogine's dissipative systems,
especially with nonlinearity--there are serious thinkers who dissent
even here, but I am not.)
2. Things like social conventions are realities in their own right.
> that there are several different realities whose structures somehow
> depend upon social or linguistic conventions or agreements . . .
No, the claim is rather that `social or linguistic conventions or
agreements' are among the realities that humans interact with. I think
you would agree that beliefs, conventions, agreements, and so on, govern
or strongly influence how we construe the physical objects and events in
our lives. I think you would agree that we relate to the perceived
social role of people at least as much as to their physical bodies.
The question is, what is the ontological status of such things? I do
not claim to have a complete, consistent answer, but I cannot concur if
you say they are not real.
Intelligent agents can and typically do orient their behavior to such
social and cognitive realities, ignoring perceptible features of the
situation that are irrelevant or perhaps that are not encoded in the
convention, acting as if missing features were present. Furthermore,
such behavior is adaptive, and fosters survival.
Animals respect territory, people obey social convention, use a
particular language, etc. Yes, there are physical tokens that the
animals construe as marking territory and that the people interpret
according to convention, but there generally is nothing intrinsic in
these tokens that compels such construal. (Note that an argument of
evolutionary adaptation does not claim any intrinsic link between e.g.
sign and significance.) A robot had better know about these things if
it is to behave intelligently with humans. If the humans have to
constrain their behavior to accomodate the robot's inability to construe
objects, events, and the actions of other agents appropriately, then
they will conclude that it is not so bright--and rightly so.
What are the relationships between these `consensual realities' to the
`simplex realities' of objects and events sans consensus? (Sans
consensus save that employed by the "objective observer", of course ;-)
They must have some such relationship if they are to be relevant: a
consensus that loses its physical or biological relevance is soon
forgotten, or (more typically) reinterpreted so as to apply to changed
circumstances. A convention that ignores dangers or resources or
generates peril eventually dies out because the people who hold it die
out. (It's not quite so simple, because ability to adapt can accomplish
quite astonishing wonders, and sometimes people hold to beliefs and
conventions that are patently self-destructive--many examples in e.g.
Ward Goodenough's classic handbook _Cooperation in Change_.) Of course
I don't know the answer to that question.
An agent typically interacts with its environment with some plan or
purpose. One measure of the veracity of a given perspective (theory,
model, I don't know what the really appropriate term is) is:
How well can an agent interact with its environment so as to
accomplish intended purposes for which that perspective is
appropriate, while presuming that perspective accurately reflects
reality?
I recognize that science has as its purpose an accurate, consistent,
comprehensive, simple, and elegant account of what is going on. An
admirable purpose, and one which I share when I am doing science.
However, I know of no scientist whose everyday routine conduct of self
is governed by science. Consider sometime for five minutes how
pedestrians negotiate a stretch of sidewalk without collision. They are
not thinking of the physics or chemistry involved. More importantly,
they are not thinking of the subtle signals they send by the angle of a
descending foot, the cocking of a hand or head, the shift of eyes, by
which they signal intent and negotiate right of way. All of this can be
described scientifically--Erving Goffman made an excellent start before
he died--but even then it will not be the scientific description or any
theory relating to it that will govern people's ongoing behavior on that
stretch of sidewalk. These are social realities the robot has to know.
Whether that round object is a ts!iqlektas to be boiled and pounded for
a poultice, or a melon to be chilled, sliced and eaten in the shade, or
indeed an obstacle to be got around that has no name because the raccoon
that wants the corn in the next row has no language, does not change the
physical properties of that round object one whit. Each of these
perspectives addresses what is really there, but describes only those
aspects of it that are relevant to the agent's present purposes. Each
is a representation, if you wish, of what is really there, none of these
representations is the thing represented, and none of them is utterly
comprehensive.
Now, you might get a couple of flavors each of physicists, chemists,
botanists, and ecologists to converge on that one hapless melon and
subject it to detailed assessment of what is really there from each
perspective. This catalog would be incomplete, as far as we can tell.
It would also be mostly irrelevant to any of the three
perspectives/purposes/agents described.
Add in a few flavors of ethologists, psychologists, and sociologists for
a real mess. But at least they begin trying to figure out how the melon
fits in to its interaction with the exotic native (how's that for an
oxymoron!) who wants a ts!iqlektas poultice, the garden partier, and the
raccoon. Are these matters part of the reality of the melon (Ehem! The
what? We're presupposing a certain set of perspectives by using that
word!). Well, no, they're incomplete apprehensions of the "melon" by
intelligent agents who are biased by the purposes they have in mind, not
at all objective. Well, do these several perspectives have their own
reality? Is animal behavior that satisfies a biological function itself
a reality, or are only the things that are interacting realities? Are
Gibson's "affordances" real? Is a cultural pattern or artefact real?
Is language real? Is AI real?
It appears to me that you are talking about the 'simplex' reality
treated of in physics, chemistry, and parts of biology. I am talking
about the consensual matters treated of in other parts of biology, such
as animal ethology, in psychology, and in the social sciences generally.
These sciences are messier, because their subject matter is messier.
If you want AI, you have to deal with the messy stuff.
I am talking about belief-disbelief systems (Rokeach) that govern or
guide behavior. Such are for the vast majority of agents in the world
most of the time not matters of consciously held theory. Perhaps you
are talking about consciously held theory, which btw rarely if ever
guides day-to-day routine behavior?
If you were to look at today's Boston Globe, below the fold, you would
see a photograph of Ronald Reagan chatting amiably with Howard Baker and
Kenneth Duberstein. Until recently (and perhaps even still in some
regions), an orthodox Muslim would not be able to cognize the same
object as a picture of anything. These people never learned conventions
for mapping ordinary visual perception of objects onto a plane
projection, because pictures of any kind were proscribed in their
culture. Might an "objective" view describe areas of ink-soaked paper,
and actually agree more closely with the old-fashioned Muslim?
There is the old story about the hillbilly family that went to visit the
city. They stayed in a hotel. "What was it like?" They talked about
this wonderful spring of water that flowed only when you wanted it to.
But it had this wooden ring that got in the way, so they took it off and
framed Grandpa's picture in it. Now why is the image of grandpa's
picture framed by a toilet seat so funny? Might an "objective" view
humorlessly see the wooden object rather than either function?
You want to say that a person believing that the earth is flat is
deluded. I am saying that the approximately sphereoid shape of the
earth is irrelevant for virtually all routine conduct and that the
belief-disbelief system that governs ordinary conduct, were it brought
to conscious articulation, probably would postulate that the surface is
flat. It is simply much more convenient, even for calculations by
surveyors of local real estate for the new particle accelerator, to act
as if it were so, and only lip service is given to the more encompassing
perspective we currently consider to be the truth (and do not expect to
be substantially revised). The problem of programming robot locomotion
is not couched in heliocentric terms.
Similarly, heliocentric astronomy is much more convenient for the
calculations of astronomers, and heliocentric calculations in turn
typically ignore that the center of gravity of the solar system does not
coincide with the center of the sun, or that the solar system orbits
approximately around the galactic center with an up and down oscillation
that has not been observed in the planetary orbits. The Ptolemaic
epicycles did work, after all, and still could, to a certain
approximation--with modern computational methods, they could probably
be made as accurate as you pleased. And we ask at what time the sun
rose this morning, rather than a more complex question phrased in
irrelevant heliocentric or galactocentric terms.
Well and good, you might say. Lay cultures have no special claim on
truth, and that is why they may disagree with one another, and ingrained
habit and even superstition embedded in our culture dies hard. But
science does have a better claim on truth. . . No, you acknowledge that
"it's part of that [modern Western scientific] culture that this [having
it all right] is in some deep sense impossible ( Popper )." This is of
course one reason that science disagrees with itself, both at any
particular time and over the course of time, the continuing effort to
get it more right. I agree that science does seem to "have a much
tighter grip on reality than any other culture Ive come across," as
regards the non-social, non-psychological aspects of what is going on.
As soon as you involve intelligence, or even metabolism, things rapidly
get messy in ways that have turned agreeably crisp in very few areas,
and those controversial. I have mentioned some who have done much to
find crisp structure here. (It is ironic that you use the term "double
bind" in your complaint. A useful concept isn't it? Very important for
family therapy. Quite crisp, at least in its original formulation.
Gregory Bateson's work.)
It is the perspectives informing the actions of intelligent agents that
matter most to AI, I think.
I hope this clears away some misunderstandings. I would welcome your
disclosing holes and errors in my thinking.
I haven't any claims about astrology one way or another. Its familiar
newspaper form is a popular whipping boy, but can scarcely be
representative. I know that Newton took it quite seriously, and to an
objection replied "I, sir, have studied the subject, you have not!" But
I am not in a position to speak with authority on it.
Bruce
∂16-Jun-88 1142 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU publication
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jun 88 11:42:27 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09098; Thu, 16 Jun 88 11:39:49 PDT
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 88 11:39:49 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806161839.AA09098@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Cc: pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: publication
FYI,
This doesn't have much to do with Qlisp... My friend in the EE
department recently published a paper on high resolution electron beam
guns. Such guns are used in chip manufacturing. The paper will be
published in a prestigious journal, but I forget which one. I
developed the simulation algorithm for this project, last fall, and
was second author on the paper; Dave did almost all the work, though.
Based on these results, Prof. Pease's group will build a higher
resolution (.1 micron) electron beam column than those currently in
commercial use, which are roughly 1.0 microns in diameter. Pat has a
copy of it. -Dan
∂16-Jun-88 1424 Qlisp-mailer Bill Dally visit
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jun 88 14:23:57 PDT
Received: from pepper.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06123; Thu, 16 Jun 88 14:21:27 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by pepper.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.0)
id AA16499; Thu, 16 Jun 88 14:18:25 PDT
Message-Id: <8806162118.AA16499@pepper.Stanford.EDU>
To: mips@mojave.stanford.edu, sal@mojave.stanford.edu,
compilers@mojave.stanford.edu, dsg@pescadero.stanford.edu,
qlisp@gang-of-four.stanford.edu, susan@umunhum.stanford.edu,
delagi@sumex.stanford.edu, hailperin@sushi.stanford.edu,
luckham@sierra.stanford.edu
Cc: ag@pepper.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Bill Dally visit
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 88 14:18:22 PDT
From: ag@pepper.Stanford.EDU
Prof. Bill Dally from MIT will be here next Tuesday (21st June) afternoon
and will give a talk on "Fine Grain Concurrent Computing" at 1:30pm in
CIS-101. He will be around after that and if you are interested in talking
to him, send me a mail message giving the times when you will be available.
--- Anoop.
P.S. Please pass this message to others who you feel would be interested.
∂17-Jun-88 1045 @RELAY.CS.NET:dlpoole@watdragon.waterloo.edu another example to think about
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jun 88 10:45:31 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ac13383; 17 Jun 88 12:41 EDT
Received: from waterloo.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id ag08187; 17 Jun 88 12:33 EDT
Received: from watdragon by watmath; Fri, 17 Jun 88 11:16:56 EDT
Received: by watdragon; Fri, 17 Jun 88 11:16:53 EDT
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 11:16:53 EDT
From: David Poole <dlpoole@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Message-Id: <8806171516.AA04277@watdragon>
To: KurtKonolige@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, Pp00@UTEP.BITNET, bart@ai.toronto.edu,
brewka@gmdxps.uucp, cv00@UTEP.BITNET, dlpoole@watmath.waterloo.edu,
ginsburg@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, haugh@mmlai.uu.net, horty@CS.CMU.EDU,
jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, myers@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, scott@alberta,
thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU, val@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: another example to think about
A Clash Of Intuitions
Here is another example to compare with my example of the
the lottery paradox arising in default reasoning.
It seems to indicate that any solution to the lottery problem
will get the wrong answer in the problem below (based on our
current conceptions of how to represent generic knowledge).
The example is:
people typically have a usable left arm
people typically have a usable right arm
if you have a broken x arm then you are abnormal with respect to
the corresponding assumption
Matt has either a broken left arm or a broken right arm
(I can't remember which)
In the notation Michael Gelfond suggested this becomes
Person(x) and ~ L ab(Leftarm,x) => usable(Leftarm,x)
Person(x) and ~ L ab(Rightarm,x) => usable(Rightarm,x)
broken(Leftarm,x) => ab(Leftarm,x)
broken(Rightarm,x) => ab(Rightarm,x)
broken(Leftarm,Matt) or broken(Rightarm,Matt)
Michael's solution would conclude that
usable(Leftarm,Matt) and usable(Rightarm,Matt)
which seems to be clearly wrong
It seems as though the structure of this example is the
same as the structure of the "all birds are abnormal in some respect"
example that i gave on Wednesday, but that different answers are
expected. Note that the solution of making the solution depend on the question
does not work in this case, as we still don't want to answer yes that
we predict that matt has a usable Right arm and a usable left arm.
Its not that there is something wrong with Micheal's patch, its it just
that we do not understand the phenomena we are trying to formalise.
My conclusion from this is that doing research in this area is not a matter
of patching up out formalisms but by understanding the phenomena, and the
best way to do this is to use them for real examples (not that these are
real, but they were abstracted from trying to solve real problems).
So what do you all think?
David Poole
∂19-Jun-88 0830 JMC
look up check
∂19-Jun-88 1000 JMC
Sarah
∂19-Jun-88 2109 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU more examples?
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jun 88 21:09:40 PDT
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.59/1.1)
id AA06935; Sun, 19 Jun 88 21:10:51 PDT
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 88 21:10:51 PDT
From: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8806200410.AA06935@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: more examples?
I've written a theorem-proving program I call GENTZEN which has pleased me
by working several nice examples including your example about sterile dishes.
Do you have any more examples of pieces of reasoning you would like to
see a system be able to do automatically? I'd like to have more grist for
the mill. GENTZEN doesn't yet do non-monotonic reasoning--that will have
to wait till later, though I have a plan for it-- so we are talking about
first-order predicate calculus examples.
∂20-Jun-88 0728 JK meeting
One of the issues I would like to discuss is spending more like 50%
of my time at Stanford. See you at 5.
∂20-Jun-88 0816 aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK free-will
Received: from NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jun 88 08:07:24 PDT
Received: from cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk by NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id aa00946; 20 Jun 88 7:35 BST
Received: from csuna (csuna.ARPA) by cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk; Mon, 20 Jun 88 07:42:58 bst
From: Aaron Sloman <aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 88 07:42:19 BST
Message-Id: <11634.8806200642@csuna.cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: free-will
John,
Having just read an extract from your letter to the ai-list moderator,
I realise I should have copied this to you. Ignore it if you have had
enough of the topic! And apologies if you have already seen it as a
result of my posting. I have no idea where such things go - though I
have had one nice reply from Boeing in Seattle.
best wishes
Aaron
>From Aaron Sloman Sun Jun 19 10:16:35 BST 1988
To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Disposing of the free will issue
Cc: hayes.pa%xerox.com@uk.ac.ucl.cs.nss,dvm@yale-zoo.arpa
I posted the message below to two newsgroups, but it occurs to me that
it should have gone to ailist if that has a different distribution from
comp.ai. Anyhow, I am sure you will know whether it is appropriate to
send this on. (It implicitly criticises Drew's proposal, but I didn't
spell that out, since the message was already rather long.)
Thanks
Aaron Sloman
Subject: How to dispose of the free will issue (long)
Newsgroups: comp.ai, sci.philosophy.tech
Distribution: world
Keywords: free will architecture terminology
(I wasn't going to contribute to this discussion, but a colleague
encouraged me. I haven't read all the discussion, so apologise if
there's some repetition of points already made.)
Philosophy done well can contribute to technical problems (as shown by
the influence of philosophy on logic, mathematics, and computing, e.g.
via Aristotle, Leibniz, Frege, Russell).
Technical developments can also help to solve or dissolve old
philosophical problems. I think we are now in a position to dissolve the
problems of free will as normally conceived, and in doing so we can make
a contribution to AI as well as philosophy.
The basic assumption behind much of the discussion of freewill is
(A) there is a well-defined distinction between systems whose
choices are free and those which are not.
However, if you start examining possible designs for intelligent systems
IN GREAT DETAIL you find that there is no one such distinction. Instead
there are many "lesser" distinctions corresponding to design decisions
that a robot engineer might or might not take -- and in many cases it is
likely that biological evolution tried both (or several) alternatives.
There are interesting, indeed fascinating, technical problems about the
implications of these design distinctions. Exploring them shows that
there is no longer any interest in the question whether we have free
will because among the REAL distinctions between possible designs there
is no one distinction that fits the presuppositions of the philosophical
uses of the term "free will". It does not map directly onto any one of
the many different interesting design distinctions. (A) is false.
"Free will" has plenty of ordinary uses to which most of the
philosophical discussion is irrelevant. E.g.
"Did you go of your own free will or did she make you go?"
That question presupposs a well understood distinction between two
possible explanations for someone's action. But the answer "I went of my
own free will" does not express a belief in any metaphysical truth about
human freedom. It is merely a denial that certain sorts of influences
operated. There is no implication that NO causes, or no mechanisms were
involved.
This is a frequently made common sense distinction between the existence
or non-existence of particular sorts of influences on a particular
individual's action. However there are other deeper distinctions that
relate to different sorts of designs for behaving systems.
The deep technical question that I think lurks behind much of the
discussion is
"What kinds of designs are possible for agents and what are the
implications of different designs as regards the determinants of
their actions?"
I'll use "agent" as short for "behaving system with something like
motives". What that means is a topic for another day. Instead of one big
division between things (agents) with and things (agents) without free
will we'll then come up with a host of more or less significant
divisions, expressing some aspect of the pre-theoretical free/unfree
distinction. E.g. here are some examples of design distinctions (some
of which would subdivide into smaller sub-distinctions on closer
analysis):
- Compare (a) agents that are able simultaneously to store and compare
different motives with (b) agents that have no mechanisms enabling this:
i.e. they can have only one motive at a time.
- Compare (a) agents all of whose motives are generated by a single top
level goal (e.g. "win this game") with (b) agents with several
independent sources of motivation (motive generators - hardware or
software), e.g. thirst, sex, curiosity, political ambition, aesthetic
preferences, etc.
- Contrast (a) an agent whose development includes modification of its
motive generators and motive comparators in the light of experience, with
(b) an agent whose generators and comparators are fixed for life
(presumably the case for many animals).
- Contrast (a) an agent whose motive generators and comparators change
partly under the influence of genetically determined factors (e.g.
puberty), with (b) an agent for whom they can change only in the light of
interactions with the environment and inferences drawn therefrom.
- Contrast (a) an agent whose motive generators and comparators (and
higher order motivators) are themselves accessible to explicit internal
scrutiny, analysis and change, with (b) an agent for which all the
changes in motive generators and comparators are merely uncontrolled
side effects of other processes (as in addictions, habituation, etc.)
[A similar distinction can be made as regards motives themselves.]
- Contrast (a) an agent pre-programmed to have motive generators and
comparators change under the influence of likes and dislikes, or
approval and disapproval, of other agents, and (b) an agent that is only
influenced by how things affect it.
- Compare (a) agents that are able to extend the formalisms they use for
thinking about the environment and their methods of dealing with it
(like human beings) and (b) agents that are not (most other animals?)
- Compare (a) agents that are able to assess the merits of different
inconsistent motives (desires, wishes, ideals, etc.) and then decide
which (if any) to act on with (b) agents that are always controlled by
the most recently generated motive (like very young children? some
animals?).
- Compare (a) agents with a monolithic hierarchical computational
architecture where sub-processes cannot acquire any motives (goals)
except via their "superiors", with only one top level executive process
generating all the goals driving lower level systems with (b) agents
where individual sub-systems can generate independent goals. In case
(b) we can distinguish many sub-cases e.g.
(b1) the system is hierarchical and sub-systems can pursue their
independent goals if they don't conflict with the goals of their
superiors
(b2) there are procedures whereby sub-systems can (sometimes?) override
their superiors. [e.g. reflexes?]
- Compare (a) a system in which all the decisions among competing goals
and sub-goals are taken on some kind of "democratic" voting basis or a
numerical summation or comparison of some kind (a kind of vector
addition perhaps) with (b) a system in which conflicts are resolved on
the basis of qualitative rules, which are themselves partly there from
birth and partly the product of a complex high level learning system.
- Compare (a) a system designed entirely to take decisions that are
optimal for its own well-being and long term survival with (b) a system
that has built-in mechanisms to ensure that the well-being of others is
also taken into account. (Human beings and many other animals seem to
have some biologically determined mechanisms of the second sort - e.g.
maternal/paternal reactions to offspring, sympathy, etc.).
- There are many distinctions that can be made between systems according
to how much knowledge they have about their own states, and how much
they can or cannot change because they do or do not have appropriate
mechanisms. (As usual there are many different sub-cases. Having
something in a write-protected area is different from not having any
mechanism for changing stored information at all.)
There are some overlaps between these distinctions, and many of them are
relatively imprecise, but all are capable of refinement and can be
mapped onto real design decisions for a robot-designer (or evolution).
They are just some of the many interesting design distinctions whose
implications can be explored both theoretically and experimentally,
though building models illustrating most of the alternatives will
require significant advances in AI e.g. in perception, memory, learning,
reasoning, motor control, etc.
When we explore the fascinating space of possible designs for agents,
the question which of the various sytems has free will loses interest:
the pre-theoretic free/unfree contrast totally fails to produce any one
interesting demarcation among the many possible designs -- it can be
loosely mapped on to several of them.
So the design distinctions define different notions of free:- free(1),
free(2), free(3), .... However, if an object is free(i) but not free(j)
(for i /= j) then the question "But is it really FREE?" has no answer.
It's like asking: What's the difference between things that have life and
things that don't?
The question is (perhaps) OK if you are contrasting trees, mice and
people with stones, rivers and clouds. But when you start looking at a
larger class of cases, including viruses, complex molecules of various
kinds, and other theoretically possible cases, the question loses its
point because it uses a pre-theoretic concept ("life") that doesn't have
a sufficiently rich and precise meaning to distinguish all the cases
that can occur. (Which need not stop biologists introducing a new
precise and technical concept and using the word "life" for it. But that
doesn't answer the unanswerable pre-theoretical question about precisely
where the boundary lies.
Similarly "what's the difference between things with and things without
free will?" This question makes the false assumpton (A).
So, to ask whether we are free is to ask which side of a boundary we are
on when there is no particular boundary in question. (Which is one
reason why so many people are tempted to say "What I mean by free is..."
and they then produce different incompatible definitions.)
I.e. it's a non-issue. So let's examine the more interesting detailed
technical questions in depth.
(For more on motive generators, motive comparators, etc. see my (joint)
article in IJCAI-81 on robots and emotions, or the sequel "Motives,
Mechanisms and Emotions" in the journal of Cognition and Emotion Vol I
no 3, 1987).
Apologies for length.
Now, shall I or shan't I post this.........????
Aaron Sloman,
School of Cognitive Sciences, Univ of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QN, England
ARPANET : aarons%uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
aarons%uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa%nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk@relay.cs.net
JANET aarons@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk
BITNET: aarons%uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa@uk.ac
or aarons%uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa%ukacrl.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu
As a last resort (it costs us more...)
UUCP: ...mcvax!ukc!cvaxa!aarons
or aarons@cvaxa.uucp
∂21-Jun-88 0259 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com nmr/grassau proceedings
Received: from siemens ([129.73.7.1]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jun 88 02:59:24 PDT
Received: by siemens (5.54/1.15)
id AA25666; Tue, 21 Jun 88 05:56:13 EDT
From: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 11:57:13 -0200
Message-Id: <8806210957.AA09307@ztivax.uucp>
Received: by ztivax.uucp; Tue, 21 Jun 88 11:57:13 -0200
To: abrown.wbst@xerox.com, appelt@warbucks.ai.sri.com, dekleer.pa@xerox.com,
dressler@ztivax.siemens.com, ft00%utep.bitnet@siemens.siemens.com,
ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu, konolige@ai.sri.com,
morris@intellicorp.arpa, sandewal@polya.stanford.edu,
alberta!scott@siemens.siemens.com, val@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: nmr/grassau proceedings
Cc: bart@ai.toronto.edu, hayes.pa@xerox.com, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com, thomason@c.cs.cmu.edu
Here↑s some info concerning the publication of the nmr-workshop papers.
As already discussed at the workshop, the plan is as follows:
- we will have "edited proceedings", which by default consist of revised, extended, and polished versions of the workshop papers, plus possibly papers by the
invited speakers (McCarthy, Hayes).
- this is a real default, the final papers will be double checked by the programme committee, as there were a few presentations with substantial differnces from the
extended abstracts
- the volume will be published in a new subseries on AI of the Springer Lecture
Notes on Computer Science, series editor: Prof. Joerg Siekmann
- the papers will be limited to 20 pages in the volume, it shall be full papers and not extended abstracts
- the copyright policy is as follows
- papers which have previously been published in an IDENTICAL form are discouraged, papers which appear e.g. at AAAI in a short 5-page version are no problem from our side, but the authors must check there↑s no problems from AAAI↑s side
- papers which appeared in the volume may be published LATER elsewhere, so the
authors hold the copyright. Since Springer lecture notes is a well-known series which is widely available, double publication of the same paper is not necessary to get it distributed, as may be the case for some other workshop proceedings.
- Our goal is to publish the book by the end of this year. Towards this end, we
expect the final camera ready copies by October 1st. Reviewing will be done quickly, and Springer guarantees a maximum delay of 8 weeks after receipt
of the camera ready copies. The expectation is that no revisions will have to be
carried out after October 1st.
- the format of the papers is roughly as follows:
- typing area 7.5 x 11 inches, one-and-a-half line spacing in the text,
type size large enough to stand reduction to 75%, no special paper needed
You will receive full authors instructions (which are not very restrictive)
by paper mail.
Please let me know
- if you are interested in conztributing your paper
- may have problems making the deadline?
Regards,
Michael
∂21-Jun-88 0305 reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com nmr-proceedings
Received: from siemens ([129.73.7.1]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jun 88 03:05:22 PDT
Received: by siemens (5.54/1.15)
id AA25784; Tue, 21 Jun 88 06:03:28 EDT
From: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com (Michael Reinfrank)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 12:04:34 -0200
Message-Id: <8806211004.AA09381@ztivax.uucp>
Received: by ztivax.uucp; Tue, 21 Jun 88 12:04:34 -0200
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: nmr-proceedings
Cc: reinfra@ztivax.siemens.com
Dear John:
could you please let me know if youl'll find the time to write a paper for the workshop proceedings?
Deadline is Oct. 1st, page limit approx. 20.
Best regards,
Michael
∂21-Jun-88 0800 JMC
Teller
∂21-Jun-88 1005 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Alex Gorbis
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jun 88 10:05:31 PDT
Date: Tue 21 Jun 88 10:00:52-PDT
From: Sharon Hemenway <HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Alex Gorbis
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12408247795.12.HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy:
I'm writing to you to express some concerns I have about Alex and
to alert you to his current situation. Alex has yet to pass any
portion of the Comprehensive Exam and, in fact, did quite poorly on
all 3 parts of the Spring Exam. I worry about what next year might
bring for him.
As I said above, I really just wanted to alert you to his situation
and hope that you might be able to offer him some good counsel.
Sharon
-------
∂21-Jun-88 1107 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Janet Murdoch
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jun 88 11:07:03 PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA03603; Tue, 21 Jun 88 11:03:59 PDT
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 11:03:59 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8806211803.AA03603@Pescadero>
To: hemenway@score.stanford.edu
Subject: Janet Murdoch
Cc: comp@Pescadero.stanford.edu
Sharon,
After polling the comp committee there were no objections and considerable
support for the proposal of John Mitchell's to allow Janet to continue in
the Ph.D. program. I therefore view his proposal as being approved, and
regard the department as having given this committee the authority to
approve the proposal and her continuation in the program.
Thus, she has now passed the comp subject to completing a course in data
structures or concrete math to the satisfaction of John Mitchell.
Please can you pass this information onto Janet.
Thanks.
David Cheriton
∂21-Jun-88 1434 Qlisp-mailer meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jun 88 14:34:25 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02055; Tue, 21 Jun 88 14:32:55 PDT
Message-Id: <8806212132.AA02055@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: meeting
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 14:32:52 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Will be tomorrow (June 22; wednesday) at noon in MJH 301. On the
agenda will be current status, some performance analysis, some TR
distribution and some future plans.
CU there
∂21-Jun-88 1958 @RELAY.CS.NET:bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca visit
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jun 88 19:58:46 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ac14461; 21 Jun 88 22:23 EDT
Received: from ubc by RELAY.CS.NET id aj04569; 21 Jun 88 22:17 EDT
Received: by ean.ubc.ca id AA27963; Tue, 21 Jun 88 16:33:39 pdt
Date: 21 Jun 88 16:34 -0700
From: Wolfgang Bibel <bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca>
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <1221*bibel@vision.ubc.cdn>
Subject: visit
John,
I'll be at Stanford the afternoon of July 5 and certainly would be very
pleased if I could drop into your office for a chat. Are you there
around that time?
Wolfgang
∂21-Jun-88 2320 paulf@shasta.stanford.edu mailpaths
Received: from shasta.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jun 88 23:20:06 PDT
Received: by shasta.stanford.edu; Tue, 21 Jun 88 23:20:35 PDT
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 23:20:35 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@shasta.stanford.edu>
Subject: mailpaths
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Try uklirb!siekmann@ira.uka.de; relay.cs.net should pick this up automatically,
unless sail doesn't support mx records.
Sorry for the delay, but I was in North Dakota for the last two weeks...
By the way, ISDN will accomplish the "phone net" ideal of universal service.
Not terribly soon of course, but it is in the works. Of course, nameserving
would be pretty impractical with such a configuration, so be prepared to
remember lots of 64 bit integers!
-=paulf
∂22-Jun-88 0131 ME MX records
∂21-Jun-88 2348 JMC
Try uklirb!siekmann@ira.uka.de; relay.cs.net should pick this up automatically,
unless sail doesn't support mx records.
Does SAIL support mx records?
ME - You bet.
∂22-Jun-88 0959 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed over the summer?
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jun 88 09:57:08 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA14303; Wed, 22 Jun 88 09:56:43 PDT
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 88 09:56:43 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806221656.AA14303@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Formfeed over the summer?
My guess, from whom I've seen around, is that it's still too early -- a lot
of people are still away on pre-summer vacations. If you *would* come to a
formfeed tomorrow, let me know; if there are half a dozen of us, I'll get
back to you.
Matt
∂22-Jun-88 1000 JMC
steve lawrence
∂22-Jun-88 1143 @polya.Stanford.EDU:air@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Formfeed over the summer?
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jun 88 11:43:51 PDT
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA19260; Wed, 22 Jun 88 11:43:24 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04468; Wed, 22 Jun 88 11:41:49 PDT
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 88 11:41:49 PDT
From: Arkady Rabinov <air@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806221841.AA04468@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed@polya.Stanford.EDU, ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Formfeed over the summer?
I will come tomorrow; but I am leaving for couple weeks next week.
Arkady
∂22-Jun-88 1405 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Black Friday
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jun 88 14:05:49 PDT
Date: Wed 22 Jun 88 14:03:44-PDT
From: Sharon Hemenway <HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Black Friday
To: JSW@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, rpg@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12408554151.48.HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
The Computer Science Department faculty met on June 2, 1988 to
evaluate the progress of our PhD students. This was the second of two
meetings held this year. The primary emphasis of this meeting was to
evaluate students who had not yet met requirements made at the first
evaluation meeting or who had, in the interim, fallen behind the
standards of "reasonable progress." During the meeting, the students
records were reviewed and comments from their advisor and from other
appropriate faculty members were solicited. A decision was then made
about what requirements or recommendations would be made for each
student discussed.
We will require that you complete the collection of data by the end of
Summer quarter 1987-88 and that your committee be convinced that you
are making continuing progress at that time. We further require that
you submit your final dissertation to the University by the end of
Autumn quarter 1988-89 and, barring exceptional circumstances, will
not extend your candidacy beyond that quarter.
We anticipate that the 1988-89 Gray Tuesday meeting will be held in
mid-December 1988 and the Black Friday meeting, again in June. Please
feel free to see either me or your advisor if you have any questions about
this letter.
Sharon Hemenway
-------
∂22-Jun-88 1613 J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Re: Reagan achievement?
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jun 88 16:13:41 PDT
Date: Wed 22 Jun 88 16:11:52-PDT
From: Joe Brenner <J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Reagan achievement?
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <g6tJy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12408577478.23.J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
I'd be more inclined to give the credit to Maggie Thatcher. I think
England's recovery has been more dramatic than ours, and a more
clear demonstration of free market principles... The things Reagan's
claiming "credit" for could as easily be the result of deficit spending
as the results of tax cuts, etc.
You might also give some "credit" to the innumerable examples of socialist
flops around the world.
-- Joe B.
-------
∂22-Jun-88 2000 JMC
foreign cash
∂23-Jun-88 0702 @ira.uka.de:siekmann@uklirb.uucp Re: Thanks
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jun 88 07:02:52 PDT
Received: from germany.csnet by RELAY.CS.NET id ab03707; 23 Jun 88 8:12 EDT
Received: from uklirb by iraun1.ira.uka.de id aa09053; 23 Jun 88 11:57 MET DST
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 88 11:55:45 MET DST
From: Joerg Siekmann <siekmann@uklirb.uucp>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Thanks
Your message arrived,thankyou.I shall send you by ordinary mail some
information on the hydrogen car as well as a survey on unification
theory. Your talk was very well received as you probably already noticed
from the reaction of the audience.
all the best joerg siekmann
∂23-Jun-88 0900 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU formfeed moved to Rockwell for the summer ...
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jun 88 09:00:45 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01905; Thu, 23 Jun 88 09:00:12 PDT
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 88 09:00:12 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806231600.AA01905@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: formfeed moved to Rockwell for the summer ...
... since most of our members seem to be there! For anyone who doesn't
know, Rockwell is at 444 High Street, which is just north of University
Avenue. The next meeting will be on June 30 (that's next week, not this
one) -- I hope the change of venue isn't an inconvenience! See you there.
Matt
P.S. Rockwell is on the 4th floor of the building.
∂23-Jun-88 1104 JK Nilsson
I am seeing next week tuesday.
∂23-Jun-88 1220 AR.REC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jun 88 12:20:28 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Thu, 23 Jun 88 12:20:54 PDT
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 88 12:20:13 PDT
From: Mary Poxon and Barb <AR.REC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
The Stanford Recycling Center is now able to provide
new desktop recycling boxes free of charge to all University
employees for their use in recycling office paper.
The desktop boxes are shaped much like mail trays and
are designed to provide a convenient receptacle
for waste paper.
For more information about the Stanford Office Paper Recovery
Program, or to order desktop boxes for your office or building,
please call the Stanford Recycling Center at 723-0919
or send email to ar.rec@forsythe.
Thank you for your support of recycling at Stanford!
Barb Voss and Mary Poxon
co-managers, Stanford Recycling
∂23-Jun-88 1653 Qlisp-mailer meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jun 88 16:53:16 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08335; Thu, 23 Jun 88 16:51:41 PDT
Message-Id: <8806232351.AA08335@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: meeting
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 88 16:51:39 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
The next meeting will be held next wednesday (June 29th) at noon in
MJH 301. On the agenda will be the present (perceived) shortcomings in
the Qlisp implementation, especially (though not only) performance
shortcomings.
CU there.
Igor
∂23-Jun-88 1730 RPG Qlisp Meetings
To: JMC, CLT
John and Carolyn:
I think the time has come to express my dissatisfaction with the Stanford
Qlisp meetings. I have taken to avoiding them for 2 reasons: First, there
is a lack of productive discussion. For example, Ron has given your troops
what I think is a provocative paper that we wrote in which some radical
new directions for Qlisp are presented, yet the next scheduled meeting is
about implementation shortcomings. Second, the bulk of intellectual
content from the Stanford end comes when one of you is there, and that is
an infrequent occurrence.
We have a weekly 1-2 hour meeting at Lucid in which language design,
implementation design, and interesting research ideas about Qlisp are
discussed. The level of discussion and enthusiasm is incomparable with
what I see at Stanford.
I feel that it is appropriate for Ron and me to attend the Stanford
meetings only when one of you expresses an interest in also attending. I
would like to see more productive and reasonable topics. Possibly it is
appropriate for us to host all meetings and set the agenda, since at least
Ron and I feel that Qlisp is a viable research topic.
Regarding next wednesday's agenda, I feel that my position on Qlisp
implementation strategy has been made clear enough in the past, and that
unless there is some new content proposed for the discussion, no one from
Lucid will attend.
-rpg-
∂23-Jun-88 2331 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of April computer charges.
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jun 88 23:31:35 PDT
Date: Thu 23 Jun 88 23:30:38-PDT
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of April computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12408919496.9.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for April.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA705T 100 347.69 272.24 ***.** 6.84 5.00 2672.86
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA705T 100 38.85 10.96 24.72 42.38 5.00 121.91
Total: 386.54 283.20 ***.** 49.22 10.00 2794.77
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.
-------
∂24-Jun-88 0011 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of May computer charges.
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jun 88 00:11:00 PDT
Date: Fri 24 Jun 88 00:05:57-PDT
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of May computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12408925925.9.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for May.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA705T 100 95.38 72.39 ***.** 16.29 5.00 2258.57
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA705T 100 .00 .00 31.54 .00 5.00 36.54
Total: 95.38 72.39 ***.** 16.29 10.00 2295.11
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.
-------
∂24-Jun-88 0747 mimsy!cvl!harwood@rutgers.edu Re: Ding an sich
Received: from rutgers.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jun 88 07:46:38 PDT
Received: by rutgers.edu (5.54/1.15) with UUCP
id AA25466; Fri, 24 Jun 88 04:49:06 EDT
Received: by umix.cc.umich.edu (5.54/umix-2.0)
id AA15917; Fri, 24 Jun 88 02:05:50 EDT
Received: from umd5.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14) with UUCP
id AA01569; Fri, 24 Jun 88 01:37:16 EDT
Received: by umd5.UMD.EDU (5.54/umd.04)
for brl-adm!husc6!bloom-beacon!SAIL.STANFORD.EDU!JMC id AA00666; Wed, 22 Jun 88 18:36:38 EDT
Received: by cvl.umd.edu (5.54/4.7)
id AA26671; Wed, 22 Jun 88 17:01:41 EDT
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 88 17:01:41 EDT
From: David Harwood <mimsy!cvl!harwood@rutgers.edu>
Message-Id: <8806222101.AA26671@cvl.umd.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Ding an sich
Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest
In-Reply-To: <19880621215411.6.NICK@INTERLAKEN.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Center for Automation Research, Univ. of Md.
I've suggested before, in religious discussions among scientists,
that (mathematical) intelligibility of the universe (by apparently
simple algebraic or recursive formulae and operations) may well
be a "proof" of the existence of a Creator who intends to create
"rational beings". My argument was that, given any well-defined
concept of "universe", almost none would admit recursive description.
Thank God polynomial equations are good for something. It could be
a mathematical hell and a lot worse...than the best of all possible
-humanly intelligible- worlds.
∂24-Jun-88 1048 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message has expired without successful delivery to recipient(s):
reinfra@ZTIVAX.SIEMENS.COM
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
21-Jun-88 1234 JMC re: nmr-proceedings
To: reinfra@ZTIVAX.SIEMENS.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue, 21 Jun 88 12:04:34 -0200.]
I expect to have time to complete a paper based on my remarks at
the conference.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂24-Jun-88 1150 @SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU:Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU congratulations
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jun 88 11:50:16 PDT
Received: from KSL-1186-4.STANFORD.EDU by SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Fri, 24 Jun 88 11:20:37 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 11:15:05 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: congratulations
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <613148457.A0726.KSL-1186-4.Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Congratulations on winning the Kyoto Prize.
∂24-Jun-88 1152 @Score.Stanford.EDU:csdaccount@jaguar.Stanford.EDU away for a while
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jun 88 11:52:09 PDT
Received: from jaguar.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 24 Jun 88 11:53:56-PDT
Received: by jaguar.Stanford.EDU (5.51/inc-1.01)
id AA14464; Fri, 24 Jun 88 11:43:22 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 11:43:22 PDT
From: CSD account <csdaccount@jaguar.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806241843.AA14464@jaguar.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: away for a while
Apparently-To: @Score.Stanford.EDU:JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
This is an automatic reply from mail you sent to Betty Scott
------------------------------------------------------------
Your message is being forwarded to Sharon Bergman <bergman@score>
since I will be away from the office for the next 3 to 4 weeks.
Betty Scott
June 13, 1988
∂24-Jun-88 1336 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jun 88 13:36:50 PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA25350; Fri, 24 Jun 88 13:36:34 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 13:36:34 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8806242036.AA25350@athena.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.stanford.edu
Cc: nilsson@TENAYA.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 24 Jun 88 1151 PDT <179pKJ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
CONGRATULATIONS!!!
George
∂24-Jun-88 1541 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU John McCarthy wins Inamori Prize
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jun 88 15:41:30 PDT
Date: Fri 24 Jun 88 15:43:19-PDT
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: John McCarthy wins Inamori Prize
To: hk.rwb@forsythe.Stanford.EDU
cc: Nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, MPS@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12409096568.24.TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Bob, I called and you are out of town. This is the announcement
I just received on John McCarthy receiving the Inamori Prize.
Carolyn Tajnai
---------------
Return-Path: <MPS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from SAIL.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 24 Jun 88 15:37:36-PDT
Message-ID: <1O9sxt@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 24 Jun 88 1534 PDT
From: Pat Simmons <MPS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
To: tajnai@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
a205 1033 24 Jun 88
AM-BRF--Japan-Prize,0152
Two Americans, West German Receive Kyoto Prize
TOKYO (AP) - Two Americans and a West German each will receive the
Kyoto Prize for pioneering research in a ceremony scheduled for
November, Japan's Kyodo News Service said Friday.
Kyocera Corp. Chairman Kazuo Inamori set up the Kyoto Prize,
administered under his Inamori Foundation, four years ago to honor
research in the fields of basic science, frontier science and
philosophy.
Stanford University Professor John McCarthy was selected in the
field of frontier science for his work on artificial intelligence.
Noam Avram Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology took
the basic science award for his work in linquistics.
West German scholar Paul Thieme was chosen for his research on
Indian philosophy, the report said.
Each of the prize recipients will receive $350,000 in the Nov. 10
ceremony in Kyoto, 230 miles southwest of Tokyo, Kyodo said.
AP-NY-06-24-88 1330EDT
***************
-------
∂24-Jun-88 1557 JSW Siemens mail
I'd suggest trying to mail to the person @siemens.com leaving
off the ztivax.
∂24-Jun-88 1622 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Kyoto Prize
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jun 88 16:22:24 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 16:21:28 PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Kyoto Prize
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12409103514.58.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Joh, I just saw the message about the Kyoto Prize. I want to send my
warmest congratulations to you on this very prestigious (and lucrative!)
award. It is truly a wonderful event and a very richly deserved honor.
Just great!!!!!!
Ed
-------
∂24-Jun-88 1630 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Kyoto Prize
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jun 88 16:30:11 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 16:29:31 PDT
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Kyoto Prize
To: JMC@sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <o9tKc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12409104980.58.FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Joh, the dollar just got substantially stronger today (it's really true).
Fujitsu Labs is basicly an "applier". Their Basic REsearch is not too good.
As you heard at lunch, they are thinking of setting up an American lab,
so contacts with them my be appropriate at this time.
NTT Musashino Labs is a much stronger place. IBM Japan, Nori Suzuki's
lab, is a much stronger place (but not from a practical point of view).
Ed
-------
∂24-Jun-88 1635 @SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU:Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: bad news re: Dukakis
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jun 88 16:35:25 PDT
Received: from KSL-1186-4.STANFORD.EDU by SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Fri, 24 Jun 88 16:34:37 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 16:29:05 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: bad news re: Dukakis
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
cc: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <613167297.A0807.KSL-1186-4.Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <o9scf@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I hope that JMC doesn't consider Vatican City to be a democracy! The
Vatican is a theocracy. Sadly, the US Congress repealed an 1867 ban on
diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 1984.
Like South Africa, Israel has some democratic characteristics, but it can
not be considered a democracy:
. Religious discrimination exists in its citizenship laws.
. In spite of Israel's illegal (and internationally unrecognized) annexation
of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the natives of those areas are still
considered non-citizens, subject to deportation at any time.
. Freedom of speech is limited (e.g. the recent deportation of an American
citizen who supports Palestinian rights -- even the Reagan administration
protested this).
. The military has wide-ranging powers to detain or punish without trial.
One of their quaint customs is to bulldoze a house if any member of the
family is (or is alleged to be) involved in resistance activities. I have
not heard of any trials or due process performed prior to the bulldozing.
Israel exists to placate 17 million Jews on this planet. South Africa
exists to placate 3 million or so conservative Dutch Protestants (the other
2.8 million white South Africans are of British descent who would rather make
peace with the non-whites). The cost of this placation of the religious
politics of 1/200th of the world's population may end up being World War III.
∂24-Jun-88 1640 YLIKOSKI%FINFUN.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU metaepistemology
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jun 88 16:39:55 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Fri, 24 Jun 88 16:40:21 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 24 Jun 88 16:39:35 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 18:46 O
From: <YLIKOSKI%FINFUN.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: metaepistemology
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
X-Original-To: @AILIST,@JMC, YLIKOSKI
Distribution-File:
AILIST@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In AIList Digest V7 #41, John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
writes:
>I want to defend the extreme point of view that it is both
>meaningful and possible that the basic structure of the
>world is unknowable. It is also possible that it is
>knowable.
Suppose an agent which wants to know what there is there.
Let the agent have methods and data like a Zetalisp flavor.
Let it have sensors with which it can observe its environment and
methods to influence its environment like servo motors running robot
hands.
Now what can it know?
It is obvious the agent only can have a representation of the Ding an
Sich. In this sense the reality is unknowable. We only have
descriptions of the actual world.
There can be successively better approximations of truth. It is
important to be able to improve the descriptions, compare them and to
be able to discard ones which do not appear to rescribe the reality.
It also helps if the agent itself knows it has descriptions and that
they are mere descriptions.
It also is important to be able to do inferences based on the
descriptions, for example to design an experiment to test a new theory
and compare the predicted outcome with the one which actually takes
place.
It seems that for the most part evolution has been responsible for
developing life-forms which have good descriptions of the Ding an Sich
and which have a good capability to do inference with their models.
Humans are the top of this evolutionary development: we are capable of
forming, processing and communicating complicated symbolic models of
the reality.
Andy Ylikoski
∂24-Jun-88 1641 @SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU:Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: bad news re: Dukakis
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jun 88 16:40:53 PDT
Received: from KSL-1186-4.STANFORD.EDU by SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Fri, 24 Jun 88 16:40:25 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 16:34:53 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: bad news re: Dukakis
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
cc: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <613167645.A0812.KSL-1186-4.Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <o9scf@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
To forestall JMC's obvious objection, no, I don't support the Arabs who
fight Israel or the radical blacks who fight South Africa. I don't think we
should be supporting either side, but we *should* be taking action to contain
their blood-letting inside their own playpens.
∂24-Jun-88 1642 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to recipient(s):
reinfrank@SIEMENS.COM
Here is how the remote host replied to this mail address:
reinfrank@SIEMENS.COM
550 <reinfrank@SIEMENS.COM>... User unknown
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
24-Jun-88 1641 JMC nmr-conference and testing
To: reinfrank@SIEMENS.COM, reinfra@SIEMENS.COM
This is a renewed attempt to reach you using
reinfrank@siemens.com and reinfra@siemens.com as
addresses. The actual message is that I expect
to be able to finish a paper based on my remarks
by the deadline.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂24-Jun-88 1642 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to recipient(s):
reinfra@SIEMENS.COM
Here is how the remote host replied to this mail address:
reinfra@SIEMENS.COM
550 <reinfra@SIEMENS.COM>... User unknown
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
24-Jun-88 1641 JMC nmr-conference and testing
To: reinfrank@SIEMENS.COM, reinfra@SIEMENS.COM
This is a renewed attempt to reach you using
reinfrank@siemens.com and reinfra@siemens.com as
addresses. The actual message is that I expect
to be able to finish a paper based on my remarks
by the deadline.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂25-Jun-88 0338 @RELAY.CS.NET:ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jun 88 03:38:41 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ae04997; 25 Jun 88 6:34 EDT
Received: from utokyo-relay by RELAY.CS.NET id al03597; 25 Jun 88 6:28 EDT
Received: by ccut.cc.u-tokyo.junet (5.51/6.3Junet-1.0/CSNET-JUNET)
id AA11415; Sat, 25 Jun 88 18:27:40 JST
Received: by nttlab.ntt.jp (4.12/6.2NTT.h) with TCP; Sat, 25 Jun 88 14:42:16 jst
Received: by aoba.aoba.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0); Sat, 25 Jun 88 10:18:44 jst
Received: by ito.aoba.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00131; Sat, 25 Jun 88 10:02:22 jst
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 88 10:02:22 jst
From: Takayasu ITO <ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET>
Return-Path: <ito@ito.aoba.tohoku.junet>
Message-Id: <8806250102.AA00131@ito.aoba.tohoku.junet>
To: JMC%SAIL.STANFORD.EDU%csnet-relay.csnet%u-tokyo.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Subject: Kyoto Prize
Dear Professor McCarthy,
Congratulation for receiving the Kyoto Prize.
As you are already informed the Inamori Foundation anounced the 4th Kyoto Prize
winners yesterday.
Sincerely,
Takayasu Ito
P.S.: I am going to attend the 2nd ISO-Lisp meeting and Lisp Conference to be
held at Snowbird.On the way to Snowbird I am going to stop at Stanford
to talk with Dr. Gabriel on US/Japan Workshop on Parallel Lisp to be held
at the end of next May. I will try to see you and Carolyn,then.
∂25-Jun-88 0908 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to the address(es) below
because the destination Host Name(s) are Unknown:
ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
∂25-Jun-88 0920 JSW
∂25-Jun-88 0911 JMC
∂25-Jun-88 0908 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to the address(es) below
because the destination Host Name(s) are Unknown:
ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
JJW - The "UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET" part can't be right, because CSNET
isn't an official domain. I think the following will work:
ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet%utokyo-relay@relay.cs.net
∂25-Jun-88 1030 larrabee@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Two Americans, West German Receive Kyoto Prize
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jun 88 10:30:18 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA28062; Sat, 25 Jun 88 10:30:13 PDT
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 88 10:30:13 PDT
From: Tracy Larrabee <larrabee@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806251730.AA28062@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Re: Two Americans, West German Receive Kyoto Prize
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <g9tL1@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
Please add my congratulations to your (no doubt long) list.
∂25-Jun-88 1305 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Kyocera Prize
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jun 88 13:05:13 PDT
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 88 13:04:44 PDT
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Kyocera Prize
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12409329843.12.WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Congratulations! Gio
-------
∂25-Jun-88 1602 GLB
a205 1033 24 Jun 88
AM-BRF--Japan-Prize,0152
....
Kyoto Prize for pioneering research....
Stanford University Professor John McCarthy was selected in the
field of frontier science for his work on artificial intelligence.
------------
Fantastic !
∂25-Jun-88 1712 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu congratulations
Received: from glacier.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jun 88 17:12:34 PDT
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu; Sat, 25 Jun 88 17:12:35 PDT
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 88 17:12:35 PDT
From: John B. Nagle <jbn@glacier.stanford.edu>
Subject: congratulations
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Congratulations on winning the Kyoto Prize. I like the "Pay taxes"
comment you gave the press.
John Nagle
∂26-Jun-88 0802 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU mathematica (new software)
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jun 88 08:02:50 PDT
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.59/1.1)
id AA17472; Sun, 26 Jun 88 08:04:44 PDT
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 88 08:04:44 PDT
From: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8806261504.AA17472@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: blufox@ucscd.UCSC.EDU, clt@sail.stanford.edu,
david@pericles.tcp.cs.umass.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
joel@pericles.tcp.cs.umass.edu, pohl@v, sf@csli.stanford.edu,
shankar@score.stanford.edu, ucdavis!caldwr!haiku.uucp!mike,
val@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: mathematica (new software)
Yesterday I was present at the "unveiling" of Mathematica,
a new MACSYMA-type program written by eight people under the
direction of Stephen Wolfram. It runs on several computers
including the SUN and the MAC 2. It was extremely impressive,
and I believe it will be used by thousands of mathematicians
for a long time. "Forget MACSYMA" says the advertisement,
I think correctly. Mathematica is to MACSYMA as TeX is to
troff.
In about five minutes, (with Wolfram's help) I defined the
Weierstrass representation for minimal surfaces (a functional
taking complex functions as arguments), put in specific functions,
and drew a 3d graph of Enneper's surface, with two lighting sources,
hidden surface removal, and many colors, on the MAC 2.
The system consists of a mathematical "kernel" containing
symbolic routines, numerical routines, and graphics routines.
The symbolic routines include: arithmetic (arbitrary precision),
factoring, algebraic equation solving (systems of polynomial eqns),
integration. The numerical routines include eqn solving and evaluation
of many special functions. Graphics include 3d as mentioned above.
Further things are meant to be developed as "notebooks" within the
Mathematica language, e.g. parametric surfaces is a "notebook"; only
z=f(x,y) surfaces can be graphed by the "kernel".
You use Mathematica as a programming language. It is a rule-based
language with some iterative constructs. Rules are invoked based on
pattern matching (full regular expression matching, not just unification),
and you can declare operators to be associative and/or commutative and
the matcher will know about it. Evaluation continues until either the
expression doesn't change anymore or RecursionLimit (default 256) is exceeded.
All graphics is PostScript-based, so you can output to any PostScript device
or get a PostScript file. You can also get output suitable for C, Fortran,
or TeX. It's alleged that you can make a library of Mathematica functions
and use them from your own programs, and can call your own programs from
within Mathematica, and in the UNIX environment can communicate with other
processes through pipes.
This is a wonderful package: I'm going out to buy a MAC 2 just so I can
run it.
≠
∂26-Jun-88 1956 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jun 88 19:56:03 PDT
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1988 19:57 PDT
Message-ID: <RDZ.12409667186.BABYL@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU>
From: RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Congratulations on the Japanese award. That's quite an impressive
amount of money.
Johan said that you wished that I had talked to you about the search
rearrangement work that I've been doing. Would you like me to bring
you a copy of the paper? I had sort of assumed that it wouldn't
interest you...
Ramin
∂26-Jun-88 2242 rick@hanauma.STANFORD.EDU Congratulations on your Kyoto Prize
Received: from hanauma.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jun 88 22:42:32 PDT
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 88 22:45:54 pdt
From: Richard Ottolini <rick@hanauma.STANFORD.EDU>
To: JMC@sail
Subject: Congratulations on your Kyoto Prize
∂27-Jun-88 0706 BHAYES-ROTH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU another congratulation
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jun 88 07:06:30 PDT
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 07:03:56 PDT
From: Barbara Hayes-Roth <BHAYES-ROTH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: another congratulation
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: hayes-roth@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Stanford-Phone: (415) 723-0506
Message-ID: <12409788448.19.BHAYES-ROTH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
John -
Congratulations on winning the Kyoto prize -- they couldn't have
chosen a more deserving recipient.
Regards,
Barbara Hayes-Roth
-------
∂27-Jun-88 0845 BOYLE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Congratulations.
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jun 88 08:45:25 PDT
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 08:42:51 PDT
From: Faye Boyle <BOYLE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Congratulations.
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: BOYLE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12409806456.24.BOYLE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
I read your entries to bboard su-etc with great respect and enjoyment.
I would like to express my admiration for your contributions to the
field of artificial intelligence, and my congratulations for a prize
well deserved.
-------
∂27-Jun-88 1252 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [billo@cmx.npac.syr.EDU: Re: Qlisp ]
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jun 88 12:52:07 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08040; Mon, 27 Jun 88 12:50:13 PDT
Message-Id: <8806271950.AA08040@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: rpg@sail, clt@sail, jmc@sail
Cc: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: [billo@cmx.npac.syr.EDU: Re: Qlisp ]
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 12:50:10 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
What should I tell the guy? He seems to be "in the business" so some
of our concerns about randoms getting their hands on the present
incomplete implementation seem to have been addressed. Also, how long
should I tell him to wait? (this is presumably largely for LUCID/rpg
to know).
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <billo@cmx.npac.syr.EDU>
Received: from cmx.npac.syr.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06965; Mon, 27 Jun 88 02:34:10 PDT
Received: by cmx.npac.syr.EDU (5.51/Northeast Parallel Architectures Center)
id AA13386; Mon, 27 Jun 88 00:34:09 EDT
Message-Id: <8806270434.AA13386@cmx.npac.syr.EDU>
To: rivin@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Qlisp
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 26 May 88 17:25:23 -0700.
<8805270025.AA05770@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 00:34:08 EDT
From: billo@cmx.npac.syr.EDU
Hi. I got your message regarding your concerns about making
Qlisp widely available to the whole NPAC community here.
There is currently only one researcher who is especially interested
in Qlisp -- and he is *very* interested. He and a graduate student
have been working on parallelizing a language called LOGLISP
which combines logic with lisp programming. The language
naturally expresses parallelism via "or parallel-parallelism" in
the logic programming aspect of it. They have been concentrating
on using closures as a natural and convenient way to introduce
parallelism into the implementation (LOGLISP is written in lisp).
Of course, Qlisp has queue-based parallel closures, so it seems
a natural to use for this application. Here is what Prof. Sibert
wrote to me after I mentioned your concerns (I also mentioned its
preliminary state of development).
- ---------------
BY E. E. SIBERT:
LOGLISP is a logic programming system developed by J.A. Robinson
and E. Sibert at Syracuse, integrating logic programming with LISP so
as to offer programmers the benefits of both. From the beginning,
LOGLISP has differed from PROLOG in using a search strategy with
simulated or-parallelism, introduced in order to avoid depth-first
runaway, and implemented with a bounded back-tracking technique. Most
current versions of LOGLISP use Common LISP as their basis, though
other LISPs have been used as well.
We are very much interested to experiment with concurrent
implementations of LOGLISP using NPAC's parallel computers. Not only
is or-parallelism a natural and easy way to introduce concurrency, but
LOGLISP also provides for recursive invocation of logic queries from
the logic, which yields another degree of potential concurrency, while
raising some interesting questions about process scheduling and
synchronization. In fact, we have a version of the system which has
been adapted to exploit concurrency, simulated for the moment, and
which could be ported to Q-LISP in a matter of weeks. Small-scale
experiments indicate good prospects for performance improvements, and
we are eager to investigate the behavior of a truly concurrent
version.
- -----------
BACK TO BILL
So, you can see that we have a research project that could really use
Qlisp to full advantage. As for not making it available to our
general community, that seems a reasonable request, and one that
shouldn't be too hard to do, as Prof. Sibert is an associate
director of NPAC -- we'll just keep it in our little family.
Incidentally, it is my understanding that the version you
have runs on the Alliant FX/8(0). Have you ported to any
other machines?
Thanks very much for your consideration. ....Bill
Bill O'Farrell, Northeast Parallel Architectures Center at Syracuse University
(billo@cmx.npac.syr.edu)
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂27-Jun-88 1306 FAGIN@IBM.COM Kyoto prize
Received: from IBM.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jun 88 13:05:53 PDT
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 13:01:35 PDT
From: Ron Fagin <fagin@ibm.com>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <880627.130135.fagin@IBM.com>
Subject: Kyoto prize
Congratulations on winning the Kyoto prize!
$350,000 is not bad!!!
∂27-Jun-88 1457 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Congratulations John McCarthy
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jun 88 14:57:01 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA22308; Mon, 27 Jun 88 14:56:29 PDT
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1988 14:56:27 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: cab@sail, binford@coyote, buchanan@sumex-aim, cheriton@pescadero,
or.dantzig@sierra, dill@amadeus, feigenbaum@sumex-aim, rwf@sail,
genesereth@score, goldberg@polya.Stanford.EDU, golub@patience,
guibas@dec.com, ag@amadeus, jlh@amadeus, dek@sail, latombe@coyote,
zm@sail, mayr@score, jmc@sail, ejm@sierra, jcm@navajo, nilsson@score,
oliger@price, pratt@polya.Stanford.EDU, shoham@score, ullman@score,
wiederhold@sumex-aim, winograd@CS
Cc: winograd@csli, simmons@sail, wheaton@athena
Subject: Congratulations John McCarthy
Message-Id: <CMM.0.86.583451787.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
You're invited to join in a celebration to honor John McCarthy upon his being
awarded The Inamouri Foundation's 1988 Kyoto Prize.
Time: 4:00 - 6:00
Place: Psychology Patio (lower level patio towards the rear
of MJH)
RSVP to Joyce Chandler no later than Thursday - 10:00.
∂27-Jun-88 1533 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU ["Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu> : Congratulations
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jun 88 15:33:16 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA24431; Mon, 27 Jun 88 15:33:03 PDT
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1988 15:33:01 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: cab@sail, binford@coyote, buchanan@sumex-aim, cheriton@pescadero,
gail@sol-margaret, dill@amadeus, feigenbaum@sumex-aim, rwf@sail,
genesereth@score, goldberg@polya.Stanford.EDU, golub@patience,
guibas@dec.com, ag@amadeus, jlh@amadeus, dek@sail, latombe@coyote,
zm@sail, mayr@score, jmc@sail, ejm@sierra, jcm@navajo, nilsson@score,
oliger@pride, pratt@polya.Stanford.EDU, shoham@score, ullman@score,
wiederhold@sumex-aim, winograd@csli, simmons@sail, wheaton@athema
Subject: ["Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu> : Congratulations
John McCarthy ]
Message-Id: <CMM.0.86.583453981.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Whoops.....I forgot to tell you the date......Friday, July 1.
---------------
Return-Path: <@Score.Stanford.EDU,@Score.stanford.edu:chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA22396; Mon, 27 Jun 88 14:58:12 PDT
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Mon 27 Jun 88 14:59:58-PDT
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by Tenaya.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA28641; Mon, 27 Jun 88 14:57:00 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Mon 27 Jun 88 14:59:34-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA22308; Mon, 27 Jun 88 14:56:29 PDT
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1988 14:56:27 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: cab@sail, binford@coyote, buchanan@sumex-aim, cheriton@pescadero,
or.dantzig@sierra, dill@amadeus, feigenbaum@sumex-aim, rwf@sail,
genesereth@score, goldberg@polya.stanford.edu, golub@patience,
guibas@dec.com, ag@amadeus, jlh@amadeus, dek@sail, latombe@coyote,
zm@sail, mayr@score, jmc@sail, ejm@sierra, jcm@navajo, nilsson@score,
oliger@price, pratt@polya.stanford.edu, shoham@score, ullman@score,
wiederhold@sumex-aim, winograd@CS
Cc: winograd@csli, simmons@sail, wheaton@athena
Subject: Congratulations John McCarthy
Message-Id: <CMM.0.86.583451787.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
You're invited to join in a celebration to honor John McCarthy upon his being
awarded The Inamouri Foundation's 1988 Kyoto Prize.
Time: 4:00 - 6:00
Place: Psychology Patio (lower level patio towards the rear
of MJH)
RSVP to Joyce Chandler no later than Thursday - 10:00.
∂27-Jun-88 2150 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to meet on WEDNESDAY this week!
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jun 88 21:49:55 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA12489; Mon, 27 Jun 88 21:49:23 PDT
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 21:49:23 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806280449.AA12489@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Formfeed to meet on WEDNESDAY this week!
There is a conflict of some sort at Rockwell, so I'm going to try
to have Formfeed on WEDNESDAY this week, instead of Thursday, in
the Rockwell conference room. Please let me know if this causes
anyone any hardship.
Thanks!
Matt
∂27-Jun-88 2325 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM quickie(?)
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jun 88 23:25:14 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 303880; Tue 28-Jun-88 02:23:48 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 65303; Mon 27-Jun-88 23:24:44 PDT
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 23:24 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: quickie(?)
To: ACW@IVORY.S4CC.Symbolics.COM
cc: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19880620164427.3.ACW@ROCKY-MOUNTAINS.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19880628062438.1.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Character-Type-Mappings: (1 0 (NIL 0) (NIL :ITALIC NIL) "CPTFONTI")
Fonts: CPTFONT, CPTFONTI
bcc: "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 88 12:44 EDT
From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW@IVORY.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 88 23:48 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 88 17:33 EDT
From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW@IVORY.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 12:44 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 11:50 EDT
From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW@IVORY.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 23:41 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject to finite acceleration, is it possible to obey an
infinitude of disjoint stop signs in finite time? I think so. For
example, arrange the stop signs as a Cantor set. Use enough acceleration
to cross order-n gaps in (expt 4 (- n)) seconds.
YOW! Extra credit for even dreaming of doing it for an
uncountable infinity. And for slipping through the loophole I left by
saying "finite" when I should have said "bounded".
This raises the stakes. Can you do it for an uncountable set with
*bounded* acceleration? Yes. Make a Cantoroid set whose order-n gaps are
narrow enough to be crossed in (expt 4 (- n)) seconds at maximum
acceleration.
Right. Except you mean *broad* enough. I do not. There is a
maximum gap that can be bridged in T seconds at a given acceleration.
Anything narrower will do.
I see. You make the trip longer by removing stop signs because
this lengthens the straightaways.
Supposing that the order-n gaps are
of size α↑n, what is the smallest feasible α? The President meant
to say "the largest feasible α".
I see. And by letting α go all the way to 0, thereby deleting
just the dyadic rationals 1/2, 1/4, 3/4, . . ., we can make the trip
instantaneously! And here I thought the Palo Alto traffic engineer was my
enemy.
The President, as usual, meant to ask a different question!
α can range up to 1/2, but 1/2 itself diverges.
Well, that's almost the "right" answer to the question I
mistakenly asked, but you forgot a square root. It takes ~ sqrt(α↑n) time
to traverse each of the 2↑n gaps of order n. The sum over n, for
convergence, requires the term ratio 2 sqrt(α) < 1 or α < 1/4.
But this is paradoxical.
Intuitive argument #1: The larger the gaps, the faster you can
get going before the next stop sign.
Intuitive argument #2: The larger the gaps, the lower the
dimension of the Cantor set of stop signs, and lower dimensional sets are
"infinitely smaller".
As α rises to 1/2, the scaling dimension of the set goes to 1.
Which set? I claim the set of gaps has dimension 1, and the set
of stop signs has dimension 1 (and finite measure!) for α < 1/3, and is
*empty* for α > 1/3! (The problem with this α formulation is that you
don't have self- similarity for α ≠ 1/3.)
What I meant to ask was: suppose the 2↑n nth order gaps are
formed by deleting the central β fraction of each of the 2↑n intervals
separating the gaps of lower order. (So that you do have
self-similarity.)
What is the smallest (dammit) β consistent with a finite, legal,
and survivable trip?
This formulation has the additional virtue of having its answer
independent of the initial gap size, whereas the answer for gap(n) := c
α↑n depends critically on c. (The only time you get self-similarity is
when c = 1-2α.)
The canonical Cantor set (α = 1/3) is exceptional in conforming to
both the α and β model, and is therefore intuitively misleading.
After two therapy sessions with Salamin, I have reduced my
insanity to the following:
A Cantor set is incomparably larger than the set of endpoints of
the deleted intervals, since the latter are merely countable. (In fact,
any set of disjoint intervals in C is countable.) Thus it shouldn't
matter much if we form the stopping set by deleting closed intervals,
which gets rid of all the stop signs at the triadic rationals.
(Preparation C shrinks swollen Cantoroids, but will it stop the itching?)
However, the interval endpoints are the only ones we have been
counting! We can generalize the notion of legal stopping and smooth
starting by requiring a speed ≤ sqrt(2ε1asε0) whenever we are distanceε1
sε0 from the nearest stop sign. (Why will there always be a nearest?)
This will fix the absurdity of the α=0 case, but leave us with something
almost as bad: we can infinitely expedite a trip by adding an infinitude
of stopsigns, in the form of miniature α<1/4 Cantoroids which narrow the
gaps during, say, the α=β=1/3 construction.
If Proxmire gets wind of this, you set- and measure-theorists can
kiss off your NSF money.
∂28-Jun-88 1228 CLT ballet
sat 16 jul 20:00 Joffrey WMO (Nijinsky)
∂28-Jun-88 1325 HAILPERIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU prospective Ph.D. student
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 88 13:25:21 PDT
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 88 13:22:43 PDT
From: Max Hailperin <HAILPERIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: prospective Ph.D. student
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12410119550.75.HAILPERIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Would you have a few minutes today, tommorrow, or the next day to talk
with a prospective Ph.D. student?
Thanks.
-------
∂28-Jun-88 1331 HAILPERIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: prospective Ph.D. student
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 88 13:31:40 PDT
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 88 13:29:00 PDT
From: Max Hailperin <HAILPERIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: prospective Ph.D. student
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <1oqqgW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12410120692.75.HAILPERIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks, I'll head on over with him.
-------
∂28-Jun-88 1333 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu friday
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 88 13:33:05 PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA29877; Tue, 28 Jun 88 13:32:53 PDT
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 88 13:32:53 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8806282032.AA29877@athena.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 28 Jun 88 1304 PDT <gqqOZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: friday
I'll try to set it up and will get back to you as soon as I can.
gw
∂28-Jun-88 1341 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu friday
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 88 13:41:24 PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA29884; Tue, 28 Jun 88 13:40:56 PDT
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 88 13:40:56 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8806282040.AA29884@athena.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 28 Jun 88 1304 PDT <gqqOZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: friday
The architect will be out of town all week, so we'll have to postpone
the meeting until you get back from China. When will that be?
gw
∂28-Jun-88 1409 CORBATO@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Congratulations!
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 88 14:09:44 PDT
Date: Tue 28 Jun 88 17:05:34-EDT
From: Fernando J. Corbato <CORBATO@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Congratulations!
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
cc: corbato@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Message-ID: <12410127350.27.CORBATO@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
John,
It was a pleasant surprise to read in the New York Times Saturday that
you had been awarded a Kyoto prize. You richly deserve it and I wish
I could say I had something to do with it but I cannot. I imagine you
are basking in the new found celebrity and hope you can still get some
work done. Congratulations again.
With best regards, Corby.
-------
∂28-Jun-88 1736 mmlai!haugh@uunet.UU.NET Re: another example to think about
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 88 17:35:13 PDT
Received: from mmlai.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14) with UUCP
id AA03857; Tue, 28 Jun 88 20:29:20 EDT
From: mmlai!haugh@uunet.UU.NET
Received: by mmlai.LOCAL on Tue, 28 Jun 88 14:42:20 edt
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 88 14:42:20 edt
Message-Id: <8806281842.AA22019@mmlai.LOCAL>
To: KurtKonolige@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, Pp00%utep.bitnet@RELAY.CS.NET,
bart%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET, brewka%gmdxps.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET,
cv00%utep.bitnet@RELAY.CS.NET,
dlpoole%watmath.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET, ginsburg@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
haugh%mmlai.uu.net@RELAY.CS.NET, horty@CS.CMU.EDU,
jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, myers@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, scott@alberta,
thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU,
uunet!RELAY.CS.NET!dlpoole%watdragon.waterloo.edu@uunet.UU.NET,
val@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: another example to think about
DAVID POOLE'S NEW EXAMPLE:
I imagine that everyone has noticed that David's NEW EXAMPLE about
Matt's broken arm is NOT A PROBLEM FOR the usual CIRCUMSCRIPTION
treatments of defeasible inheritance (where there are no "L" operators).
Circumscription of abnormalities will prevent concluding that both of Matt's
arms are usable, since one of them will be abnormal in every minimal model.
David's example, however, does clearly pose a PROBLEM FOR defeasible
inheritance theories in AUTOEPISTEMIC and DEFAULT LOGICS. Furthermore, the
problem looks like it might be serious, since our intuitions are so
unequivocal in this case (no one would want to conclude that both of
Matt's arms are usable on the basis of such information), the example
is quite natural, and the difficulties are by no means restricted to
Michael Gelfond's formulations. All previous inheritance formulations
in auto-epistemic or default logic (that I'm familiar with) have similar
problems. Etherington's proposals for representing exceptions
to defaults, for example, would explicitly assert them in the default
rules, for example:
Person (x): Usable_left_arm(x) & ~ Broken_left_arm(x)
---------------------------------------------------------
Usable_left_arm(x).
Such rules will also support the conclusion that both of Matt's
arms are usable in David's example, since it creates no contradiction
to apply such a default for each arm.
Since model-minimization non-monotonic formulations (such as McCarthy's)
do not face this problem, it is natural to look to them for suggestions on
how consistency-based theories might be modified to avoid it.
Indeed, we have discovered that the intended consequences can be
achieved in such cases by a simple modification to Gelfond's theory which
more fully incorporates the spirit of McCarthy's original abnormality
minimizations.
HANDLING DISJUNCTIVE ABNORMALITIES IN AUTOEPISTEMIC THEORIES
Here, I will briefly present one treatment of disjunctive abnormalities
in autoepistemic theories that accords with our intentions in cases
like the broken arm example. First, I will present a simplified
version of the problem in which simple "isa" inheritance networks are
used, rather than get entangled in representing general multi-place
relations, since the latter pose formalization problems that are independent
of this issue. Under this simplification, the original axioms become:
A1. [Person(x) & ~ L ab(x, Person, Usable_left_arm)] => Usable_left_arm(x)
A2. [Person(x) & ~ L ab(x, Person, Usable_right_arm)] => Usable_right_arm(x)
A3. Broken_left_arm(x) => ab(x, Person, Usable_left_arm)
A4. Broken_right_arm(x) => ab(x, Person, Usable_right_arm)
A5. Broken_left_arm(Matt) v Broken_right_arm(Matt)
These axioms share the problem identified by David in that they support
proofs that both arms are usable. The formalization is easily rectified,
however, by altering it to more closely model the typical circumscription
treatment of such cases, which have been found to conform to our intuitions.
A circumscriptive version of this theory would be identical except for
deletion of the "L" operators and minimization of "ab". We can achieve a
comparable effect in autoepistemic theories by deleting the L's from A1 and A2
and adding an autoepistemic rule that effectively minimizes ab's, i.e.
A0. ~ L ab(x,P,Q) => ~ ab(x,P,Q)
Such a theory will now have two stable expansions, one in which Matt
is abnormal with respect to his left arm being usable and his right arm
is usable, and one in which he is abnormal with respect to his right arm
being usable and his left arm is usable.
There are no stable expansions with no abnormalities, since A3-A5
require at least one, and there are no stable expansions with both
abnormalities, since A0 insists that there are no more than those
required.
This type of autoepistemic theory of inheritance can be directly mapped
into default logic using the obvious translation of A0 to a default rule:
: ~ ab(x,P,Q)
_____________
~ ab(x,P,Q)
Such formulations of consistency-based inheritance theories would acquire
many of the advantages of McCarthy's circumscription-based theories.
They require only a single default rule or use of negative introspection.
The statements of default rules do not vary as new exceptions are
added (unlike in Etherington and Reiter); only new statements of
abnormalities need be added. A simple procedure for determining all the
abnormality axioms for general inheritance theories is provided in
[Haugh, AAAI-88] which can be combined with this type of auto-epistemic
formulation to provide theories that work as intended for these disjunctive
cases (as well as for arbitrary non-disjunctive theories).
Thus, I conclude that David's broken arm example does not demonstrate any
insurmountable problems for any of the standard nonmonotonic formalisms.
PROBLEMS WITH UNWARRANTED CLOSED-WORLD ASSUMPTIONS
While McCarthy's formulations of defeasible inheritance have, thus, provided
us with the basic techniques for handling such disjunctions in any standard
non-monotonic formalism, they continue to suffer from distinct problems of
their own. In particular, all previous circumscription-based theories
have been committed to unwarranted and unnecessary closed-world assumptions
(all abnormalities are assumed provable, e.g., it is assumed that no penguins,
emu's,... exist that aren't known). In contrast, previous formulations
of auto-epistemic theories have been formulated that avoid any such
commitments by using a schema for "All P's are Q's" such as:
[ L P(x) & ~ L ~ Q(x) ] => L Q(x).
Such formulations avoid closed-world assumptions since the scope of
the generalization is effectively over known P's rather than all P's.
Thus, they can allow that there might be penguins that fly, even though
all the known penguins don't fly.
There is a trade-off in such formulations, however, in which closed-world
assumptions are avoided at the cost of unintended results in many contexts
of disjunctive knowledge. Kurt Konolige [IJCAI, 1987] is among those
who have recognized such problems with disjunction. He advocated
dropping the requirement that "P(x)" be known, and using:
[ P(x) & ~ L ~ Q(x) ] => L Q(x)
What he didn't mention is that this reintroduces the closed-world
assumptions. Our solution to formulating David's abnormality
disjunctions runs afoul of the same problem - we explicitly assume
that we know all of the abnormal things, whereas, all that is needed
for inheritance is that we know all the abnormalities of those things
we know of. A less compromised formulation is possible, as follows:
[ Knows_of(x) & P(x) & ~ ab(x,P,Q) ] => Q(x)
where
[ Knows_of(x) & ~ L ab(x,P,Q) ] => ~ ab(x,P,Q)
and, "Knows_of(x)" is a predicate used to indicate knowledge of an
object; it can be defined naturally in an epistemic logic by:
Knows_of(x) <=> (Exists y) L y=x
This is basically Hintikka's definition of knowing who or knowing what
someone or something is. It depends on a special semantics for
quantifying into epistemic contexts in which the truth of such a
quantification requires a special relation between the knower and the
object, roughly that of knowledge by acquaintance in Russell's sense.
Others (Boer & Lycan) have argued that this formulations does not quite
capture the ordinary language understanding of "knowing who," although
I believe that it will do the job for our purposes here. It could be
modified, if further qualifications were found needed for inheritance
reasoning. [I'm still not sure if we need the "Knows_of" qualification in
both the default rule and the minimization of abnormalities - this choice
awaits further investigation.]
This formulation avoids any unwarranted closed-world assumptions, since
it doesn't allow default conclusions about objects that aren't known of.
Specific intended closed-world assumptions about particular classes
may, of course, be added as independent axioms (e.g., "Bird(x) =>
Knows_of(x)"). It also handles disjunctions of abnormalities
properly because any alternative abnormalities should be abnormalities
of known objects, and the abnormality itself will defeat any default
rule to which it is relevant, as explained above.
CIRCUMSCRIPTION-BASED DISJUNCTIVE OPEN-WORLD THEORIES
Thus, auto-epistemic theories can escape this tradeoff problem in
a fairly natural manner. The customary circumscription-based formulations
do not lend themselves so naturally to this type of solution since they
do not include auto-epistemic features. A recently developed family of
circumscription-based inheritance theories manages to avoid closed-world
assumptions (Haugh, AAAI-88) by implicitly incorporating some auto-epistemic
notions. But, these particular theories were not designed to fully
address all the problems of disjunctive reasoning, and they cannot
express all of the disjunctive cases considered here.
The techniques just presented for auto-epistemic theories, however,
can be applied within circumscription-based theories to properly handle
disjunctions while avoiding unnecessary closed-world assumptions.
A "knows_of" predicate may also be used within circumscription theories,
although its semantics will not be as explicit unless general epistemic
expressive capabilities are also incorporated.
The customary type of abnormality minimization translation of default
relations (P's are Q's) could be modified as follows:
[ Knows_of(x) & P(x) & ~ ab(x,P,Q) ] => Q(x)
Then minimization would be of the formula "Knows_of(x) & ab(x,P,Q)"
rather than simply of ab. Again, I'm not yet sure whether we need
the "Knows_of" qualification in both places. In any case, this
should work within any context in which abnormalities are determined
separately on the basis of an inheritance theory's structure, as
in (Haugh, AAAI-88).
In simple inheritance theories in which all known individuals are finite
in number and referred to by individual constants (c1, c2,..., cn), the
"knows_of" predicate could be defined by a simple formula, e.g.:
knows_of(x) <=> [x=c1 v x=c2 v ... v x=cn]
Individual functions and definite descriptions would further complicate
the definition, and fuller acknowledgement of its auto-epistemic
import might be required in the form of a general knowledge predicate
or modal operator.
Thus, we conclude that the disjunctions characteristic of David's
broken arm example can be accommodated in both consistency-based and
minimality-based nonmonotonic theories without any of the unwarranted
closed-world assumptions that have traditionally accompanied circumscriptive
theories.
DAVID'S ORIGINAL BIRDS EXAMPLE:
The strength of our intuitions in the broken arm case strongly suggests
re-examining analogous cases in which our intuitions are less decisive,
i.e., the birds examples David originally presented.
Now, I take it that we did not reach any consensus about the preferred
conclusions in these bird examples. As I recall, Teodor Przymusinski
suggested that circumscription obtained the correct results in the original
case, where there were many types of birds, but only one (Canary) that wasn't
abnormal in some respect -- hence concluding Tweety to be a Canary in such
cases, when given only that Tweety was a bird, seemed appropriate to him.
McCarthy suggested that the content of the example might not reflect
commonsense knowledge or commonsense communication conventions, since
(for example) we may not have such conventions about size of birds or
their nesting habits. Others appeared to suggest that we would prefer
the conclusions of typical circumscription theories in examples in which
there were fewer types of birds (e.g., only emus and canaries).
David began by arguing that we shouldn't be able to conclude that
Tweety was a Canary in the original case, although, after discussion,
he seems to have shifted to the more general view that we "do not understand
the phenomena we are trying to formalize." Thus, I conclude that our
collective intuitions about David's birds examples are not very decisive,
while they appear quite decisive in the analogous broken arm example
(although final judgement awaits further feedback from others).
Given these facts about our intuitions and the way that circumscription
theories accurately support their preferences in clear-cut cases,
it is natural to look for extra-theoretic explanations in analogous cases
where our intuitions are less firm. That is, after recognizing that typical
circumscription inheritance theories work so well in clear-cut cases of
this type (as well as in many others), we are less suspicious of the
circumscription theory formulations in analogous cases in which somewhat
confused intuitions conflict with the results of circumscription.
The success of the formalism in decisive cases argues for a conservative
policy toward theory change in response to cases with indecisive leanings
towards conflict with our theory (i.e., in response to David's birds cases).
Suspicions about the source of such problematic intuitions more naturally
fall upon hidden presumptions, mistaken informal descriptons or other
extra-theoretic problems, rather than upon the formalization procedure.
Indeed, several extra-theoretic sources of confusion have already been
identified. Once our suspicions are thus directed, other such sources of
confusion are easily recognized, supporting a coherent explanation of the
conflicting intuitions in David's birds examples.
It seems that the best explanation of our conflicting intuitions
in David's birds examples is that their informal characterizations are
misleading because they misrepresent the facts about actual birds, while
we find it difficult to fully suspend our intuitions about actual birds
in evaluating these cases. Thus, I argue that the circumscription
formulations work properly for all such cases, although the problematic
examples are misleading. This leaves us with the general conclusion that
circumscription theories have no difficulties with this type of case,
although some autoepistemic and default logic theories have, as evidenced
quite clearly by the broken arm case.
McCarthy's suggestion that the content of the example might not reflect
commonsense knowledge or commonsense communication conventions identifies
one source of misrepresentation in the examples. Surely, we do not have
such conventions about all the distinctive features of the many different
types of birds.
David's observation that most natural types of individuals will be
distinctive with respect to some characteristic is reasonable enough, but
it does not follow that there are ANY normality assumptions about such
characteristics in their super-classes. While birds in general will
not normally have the distinctive characteristics of their subclasses,
it does not follow that birds will normally have the complement of those
characteristics. A fact that "P's are not normally Q's" does not entail
that "P's are normally non-Q's." The fact that parrots normally
have brilliant plumage, in no way requires that birds in general normally
do not, nor that we have any general communication conventions to the effect
that a bird doesn't have brilliant plumage unless told otherwise.
Birds are a very mixed bag with respect to their colouring, and some
very common birds have bright distinctive plumage. Thus, part of the
confusion in these cases may be due to confusion over the scope of negations
in default relations.
Another, more obvious, misleading feature of the original example
is the exclusion of many rather ordinary birds from the simplified list
of bird types. Inclusion of sparrows, robins, crows, wrens and pigeons on
the list would make the circumscriptive conclusion less surprising --
Tweety would just be one of the ordinary birds -- a sparrow, a robin, a crow,
a pigeon, a wren, ..., or a canary. This exclusion might have been justified
if the implicit premise that nearly all birds are abnormal in some respect
were true. But, recognition that subclasses may be distinctive without being
abnormal destroys any plausibility such an assumption might have had.
Thus, if we reconsider a more accurate informal rendering of the general
facts about birds and their normal characteristics, we find that
circumscriptive theories yield the results preferred by commonsense:
there are many classes of normal birds and if all we know about Tweety
is that he is a bird then we know that he is a member of one of those
normal classes.
If we reconsider taxonomic cases in which assumptions analogous to the
birds examples actually hold, our intuitions, will clearly conform with
the circumscriptive conclusions. For example, a theory that asserts all birds
to be either emus or non-emu-birds, and all emus to be abnormal with respect
to flying, with no abnormalities asserted for non-emu-birds, will
entail that Tweety is a non-emu-bird, as expected, when given only that
Tweety is a bird. Nor would it matter if there were a hundred abnormal
subclasses and only one normal one -- such cases, were they to exist,
would simply reflect the communication convention that birds (or whatever)
are assumed to be of the one normal type, unless otherwise specified.
And, if every one of an exhaustive set of subclasses were abnormal, this
would reflect the convention that further qualification was always
required of members of that class before any conclusions were possible
about their subclass membership.
While circumscription would provide the appropriate conclusions in
all such cases, it is doubtful that there exists many natural cases of
these latter types.
REMAINING CHALLENGES
Many challenges remain in providing an intuitively correct treatment
of arbitrary genuine alternatives (e.g., "Tweety could be either an
emu or a canary.") both in consistency-based and minimization-based
formalisms. These cases, rather than the ones David raised, seem
to present the most interesting problems with disjunction for existing
formulations.
Circumscription theories have special difficulties representing genuine
alternatives (e.g., Tweety could be an emu and he could be a canary),
wherein the intended interpretation is that any one of the alternatives is
possible, i.e., that one of them is true but it is not known which.
In cases of this type when some of the alternatives create abnormalities
and others do not, circumscription of abnormalities typically forces the
exclusion of those that do (e.g., ~ Emu(Tweety), hence Canary(Tweety)).
The difficulties formalizing such cases might be subsumed under what Scott
Goodwin has termed the "knowledge independence problem," since they require
allowing a relation (e.g., Emu(Tweety)) to have some sort of independence of
our knowledge and default expectations. It would be interesting to see if
Scott's treatment in terms of fixing relations could be applied to such cases,
if it would work, or if it could work within circumscription-based theories.
While cases of genuine alternatives bear a superficial similarity to David's
birds examples, they differ in their intended informal interpretations.
Definitions of birds in terms of all their subclasses are NOT intended
to assert that any particular bird COULD be in any one of the subclasses.
Thus, the most straightforward formulations of genuine alternatives in
circumscriptive theories can fail to support the intended interpretations,
while other types of disjunctions with different informal interpretations
(e.g., David's examples) yield valid results under circumscription.
There are some promising approaches to representing such alternatives
in both auto-epistemic and circumscriptive theories. Autoepistemic
theories support direct assertions that facts are unknown, so that
ignorance about the truth of genuine alternatives can be directly
expressed, for example:
[Canary(Tweety) v Emu(Tweety)] &
~ L Canary(Tweety) & ~ L Emu(Tweety)
In autoepistemic theories with positive introspection, such axioms
will block any conclusion that Tweety is a Canary, and support
genuine indifference between alternatives. Addition of clarifying
information will become more complex in such theories, however.
Adding the new knowledge that Tweety is an emu would require either
retracting the previous indifference axiom or temporalizing it -
the nonmonotonic machinery will no longer handle such updates.
Temporalizing such information is clearly the most thorough approach,
since such updates do not alter the fact that the information was
not known previously.
Representing genuine alternatives in circumscription-based theories
appears more difficult, but might be achieved by creating some sort
of exceptions to the abnormalties being minimized (e.g., minimize
abnormalities, except those that would be created by genuine
alternatives). A general approach to formalizing this doesn't look
easy to me, though.
While it is now apparent that a broad range of disjunctive inheritance
theories (including David's examples) are easily accommodated by all the
basic non-monotonic formalisms, the remaining problems with genuine
alternatives demonstrate a need for deeper investigations before we can
be confident of any general treatment of disjunction in nonmonotonic
inheritance theories.
Brian
∂28-Jun-88 1800 unido!gmdzi!gmdxps!brewka@uunet.UU.NET broken arms example
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 88 17:55:20 PDT
Received: from unido.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14) with UUCP
id AA05689; Tue, 28 Jun 88 20:52:51 EDT
Received: by unido.uucp with uucp;
Tue, 28 Jun 88 15:01:29 +0100
Received: by gmdzi.UUCP id AA12386; Tue, 28 Jun 88 13:03:55 -0200
Message-Id: <8806281103.AA12386@gmdzi.UUCP>
Received: by gmdxps (4.12/4.7) id AA02825; Tue, 28 Jun 88 12:05:23 -0100
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 88 12:05:23 -0100
From: unido!gmdxps!brewka@uunet.UU.NET (Gerd Brewka)
To: KurtKonolige@ai.sri.com, cv00@utep.BITNET, ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu,
jmc@sail.stanford.edu, val@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: broken arms example
David,
I just thought about your broken-arms example for a while.
Doesn`t the example even suggest a redefinition of the logics?
I translated it to Default Logic (that`s the one I`m most familiar
with). What if we change the definition of extension in the following
way:
it is not sufficient that each of the consistency conditions of
an applied default for itself is satisfied, but the conjunction of all
consitency conditions of all defaults used in an extension. In your
example the extension with usable(LA, Matt) and
usable(RA, Matt) would then disappear, since not ab(LA, Matt) &
not ab(RA, Matt) is not consistent with this extension. We
would instead get two extensions, as is expected.
I didn`t have time yet to think about possible weird consequences
of this redefinition (semantics etc.). Is it ad hoc again?
It seems to correspond better to my intuitions of how we use
consistency checks in default reasoning than the original definition
does.
Hope to hear from you
Gerd
P.S. After I had written down this note I wanted to write down
the necessary formal definitions quickly. It seems to be not as easy
as I thought. Reiter`s Gamma operator - as far as I can see - has to
be replaced by a two place operator. I hope this one works:
Let (D,W) be a closed default theory. For a set of formulas S and a
subset of D R we define Gamma(S,R)=(S`,R`) such that
S` is the smallest set with
W subset of S`,
S` closed,
If A:B1,...,Bn/C in D, A in S`, none of the Bi in
Th(S u consistency-conditions(R))
then C in S`.
R` is the set of defaults A:B1,...,Bn/C in D, such that
A in S`, none of the Bi in Th(S u consistency-conditions(R))
E is an extension if there exists R such that Gamma(E,R)=(E,R).
u stands for union here. I think the above definition works.
∂28-Jun-88 1855 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: broken arms example
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 88 18:55:25 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA20569; Tue, 28 Jun 88 18:54:58 PDT
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 88 18:54:58 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806290154.AA20569@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: KurtKonolige@ai.sri.com, cv00%utep.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu,
ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
unido!gmdxps!brewka@uunet.UU.NET, val@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: broken arms example
I must confess that I do not find this example all that compelling.
After all, I know that it's my left arm that's messed up.
Matt
∂28-Jun-88 2351 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU congratulations
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 88 23:51:14 PDT
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.59/1.1)
id AA28465; Tue, 28 Jun 88 23:53:29 PDT
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 88 23:53:29 PDT
From: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8806290653.AA28465@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: congratulations
on your prize, which I read about in the paper. I guess this makes you
the most famous person I know.
∂29-Jun-88 0000 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU "Contexts"
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 88 23:59:05 PDT
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.59/1.1)
id AA28615; Wed, 29 Jun 88 00:01:27 PDT
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 88 00:01:27 PDT
From: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8806290701.AA28615@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: "Contexts"
Once you gave a lecture and described a formalism for proofs with things
like "ENTER <context>... LEAVE <context>". Here's an example for you
to try your formalism on. (from Anderson and Belknap). Either Napoleon
was born in Corsica or the number of the beast is prime. (The facts
are, that he was born there and the number (666) is not prime.) So this
is a true statement. But what if he HADN'T been born in Corsica?
Would that make the number of the beast prime? And if not how do we
reconcile that with the law of logic (A or B) & not(A) -> B?
∂29-Jun-88 0006 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU I sent you a paper
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 88 00:06:53 PDT
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.59/1.1)
id AA28643; Wed, 29 Jun 88 00:09:10 PDT
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 88 00:09:10 PDT
From: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8806290709.AA28643@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: I sent you a paper
which I just wrote. It's about a theorem-proving program called
GENTZEN. In that paper there is nothing about its relevance to AI,
but I think it has some. I think McCarty had a good idea in using
the combination of negation-by-failure and intuitionistic negation to
express "normally" in writing default rules. The point is that
GENTZEN works on all of first-order logic, not just on some fragment,
so we can write default rules using any logical operations. It would
be easy to implement a system based on GENTZEN that would work properly
on many simple examples of default reasoning. (But I don't have time
to do it now.)
Are there any examples of problems in default or non-monotonic
reasoning which it is really not clear at all how to automate? except
ones which are hard because of the frame problem?
∂29-Jun-88 0759 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU formfeed today -- don't forget!
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 88 07:58:58 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA25386; Wed, 29 Jun 88 07:58:33 PDT
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 88 07:58:33 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8806291458.AA25386@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: formfeed today -- don't forget!
Just a reminder that formfeed is today, at Rockwell -- 4th floor of 444
High Street. See you all there!
Matt
∂29-Jun-88 1046 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [Dick Gabriel: Qlisp Meeting Tomorrow ]
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 88 10:46:24 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00559; Wed, 29 Jun 88 10:44:32 PDT
Message-Id: <8806291744.AA00559@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Cc: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: [Dick Gabriel: Qlisp Meeting Tomorrow ]
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 88 10:44:28 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
I was under the impression that we agreed to talk to lucid about
their priorities in improving qlisp performance (versus new features,
etc) so I am rather surprised to see this message from Dick.
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01507; Tue, 28 Jun 88 18:13:33 PDT
Message-Id: <kqv1O@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 28 Jun 88 1813 PDT
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Qlisp Meeting Tomorrow
To: rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
Ron and I have insufficient interest in the proposed agenda, and neither
JMC nor CLT has expressed an interest in it either (I asked them), so we
will not be there tomorrow.
-rpg-
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂29-Jun-88 1102 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Congratulations John McCarthy
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 88 11:02:36 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA16168; Wed, 29 Jun 88 11:02:18 PDT
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1988 11:02:16 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: cab@sail, binford@coyote, buchanan@sumex-aim, cheriton@pescadero,
gail@sol-margaret, dill@amadeus, feigenbaum@sumex-aim, rwf@sail,
genesereth@score, goldberg@polya, golub@patience, guibas@dec.com,
ag@amadeus, jlh@amadeus, dek@sail, latombe@coyote, zm@sail, mayr@score,
jmc@sail, ejm@sierra, jcm@navajo, oliger@pride, pratt@polya,
shoham@score, ullman@score, wiederhold@sumex-aim, winograd@csli,
wheaton@athena
Subject: Congratulations John McCarthy
Message-Id: <CMM.0.86.583610536.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
A reminder....of the celebration in honor of John McCarthy Friday, July 1,
4-6 p.m. at Psyc. patio in rear of MJH460. If you haven't already done so,
please RSVP as soon as possible. Hope to see you all there.
∂29-Jun-88 1135 MPS Susan
Susan would like you to call her at home.
Pat
∂29-Jun-88 1157 Qlisp-mailer JMC Celebration
To: qlisp@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
You are invited to join in a celebration to honor John McCarthy upon his
being awarded the Inamouri Foundation's 1988 Kyoto Prize.
Date & time: Friday, July 1, 4:00 - 6:00 PM
Place: Lower level patio behind MJH.
RSVP: Joyce Chandler (chandler@Polya) by Thrusday mid-morning (6/30)
∂29-Jun-88 1300 CLT
Simpson, June 1 start date
∂29-Jun-88 1334 MGardner.pa@Xerox.COM AI Board letter
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 88 13:33:45 PDT
Received: from Salvador.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 29 JUN 88 13:17:09 PDT
Date: 29 Jun 88 13:16 PDT
Sender: MGardner.pa@Xerox.COM
From: Daniel G. Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
Subject: AI Board letter
To: Amarel@USC-ISI.ARPA, spar!barrow@decwrl.DEC.COM, DUDA@Polya.Stanford.EDU,
Barrow@FLAIR-20.ARPA, Hans.Berliner@PT.CS.CMU.EDU,
bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca, rjb.allegra.btl@RELAY.CS.NET,
Brown.pa@Xerox.COM, BUCHANAN@sumex-aim.stanford.EDU,
bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@nss.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK, CARBONELL@C.CS.CMU.EDU,
DAVIS%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU, deKleer.pa@Xerox.COM,
FEIGENBAUM@sumex-aim.stanford.EDU, LErman@TEKNOWLEDGE-VAXC.ARPA,
Generserth@sumex-aim.stanford.EDU, grosz%babbage@harvard.HARVARD.EDU,
Hayes.pa@Xerox.COM, Lehnert. UMASS@RELAY.CS.NET, VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
McCarthy@sumex-aim.stanford.EDU, JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
Tom.Mitchell@C.CS.CMU.EDU, NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU, judea@CS.UCLA.EDU,
rperrault@SRI-AI.Arpa, reiter%ai.toronto.edu@RELAY.CS.NET,
SRIDHARAN@CEL.FMC.COM, Stefik.pa@Xerox.COM, walker@mouton.bellcore.com,
unido!sbsvax!fb10vax.sbsvax!wahlster@uunet.UU.NET, wahlster@uunet.UU.NET,
Yorick%nmsu.CSNet@relay.cs.net, Winograd@sumex-aim.stanford.EDU,
Woods@harvard.harvard.edu, adafd%icnucevm.bitnet@ICNUCEVM.CNUCE.CNR.IT,
zenon%deepthot.uwo.ca@CORNELLC.CCS.CORNELL.EDU, zenon@deepthot.uwo.ca
cc: MGardner.pa@Xerox.COM, Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
Message-ID: <880629-131709-3006@Xerox>
>>CoveringMessage<<
----- Begin Forwarded Messages -----
Date: 28 Jun 88 10:42 PDT
From: Bobrow.pa
Subject: AI Board letter
To: MGardner
cc: Bobrow.pa
Please send both by E-Mail and Post.
Dear Board Member:
This letter is to update you on the current status of the AI Journal, and to
invite you to the annual meeting of the Editorial Board at the AAAI conference.
We will meet for breakfast at 7:30 AM on Wednesday morning, 24 August 1988 in
the Hotel Radisson in Saint Paul. Please let me know if you will be able to
attend so I can arrange for the proper number of chairs and breakfasts.
Response by E-mail is fine (bobrow@xerox.com).
The principal topic for discussion will be how the board can be more effective
in promoting rapid turnaround of reviews of submitted papers. The journal
receives over 100 papers a year, and we are planning to start publishing 12
issues a year, starting in 1989. This is a significant load for editorial board
members, as indicated by turnaround times that can run as long as six to eight
months, after repeated reminders. This long response time is unfair to authors
(that's us too), and hurts the quality of the journal by making it less timely.
One suggestion is to organize the board into area review panels, and have them
suggest reviewers outside the board if not enough of the panel wish to review a
particular paper themselves. Another suggestion is to have area editors whose
job it would be to find reviewers who would act promptly. In either case, a
board member might check over external review(s). Other suggestions are
welcome. We also need to consider guidelines for papers, especially size, but
also style (amount and applicability of mathematics, etc.).
This past year we received a letter expressing some concern about the reviewing
process for revised versions of conference prize papers published in the
journal. The only final review had been by the editor-in-chief. There was some
worry that the expanded version of the prize paper might contain significant
errors that were not liable to be caught by this process. To improve our
quality control, we have asked each program committee that recommends a prize
paper to also specify a technical person from the committee who will agree to
provide a final technical review of the paper.
The journal is doing well, with about 2500 individual and 2500 institutional
subscriptions. We currently have about 50 papers in the review pipeline, and
enough papers accepted to fill out AIJ issues through the early part of 1989. A
special issue on Geometric Reasoning is due out at the end of this calendar
year. It is this flow of good papers that is motivating us to increase from
nine to twelve issues. In increasing the number of issues per year, North
Holland has asked us to increase the rate for a personal subscription. It is
currently $50, as it has been for the past four or five years. We are
considering prices from $60 to $75. Even the highest is still a real bargain
for the number of journal pages received. Should we consider the higheest price
for regular subscribers, and try to maintain the $50 price for students, or
should we look to simplicity. If we choose the highest price in the range, we
should be able to maintain it for a number of years despite inflation. What do
you think?
It is time to update our interest lists for reviewers, and to make sure that we
have the correct address and affiliation for all of you. At the end of the
letter is a form you can fill out indicating your areas of expertise and
interest. Mike Brady and I are looking forward to seeing you at the breakfast
meeting in St. Paul. Please come promptly, because Raj Reddy's presidential
address starts at 9 AM, and we will want to end the meeting by 8:45. Please
attend if you can, and let us know either way.
Warmest Regards,
Daniel G. Bobrow
!
Please fill in so we can check our address list.
Name Address and affiliation:
---
---
---
---
---
---
Electronic Address:
---
I will (will not) be at the breakfast meeting on August 24.
The areas I feel comfortable (excited about) reviewing papers in are:
(Circle all applicable)
AI and Architectures
AI & Education
Logic and Automated Reasoning
Planning
Cognitive Modeling
Default Reasoning
Knowledge Representation
Machine Learning & Knowledge Aquisition
Engineering Problem Solving
Managing Uncertainty
Expert Systems
Truth Maintenance
Qualitative Reasoning
Vison
Natural Language
Robotics
Speech Understanding
Signal Understanding
Other categories you feel are important (please specify)
----
----
----
I am willing to review each year
1-2 papers
2-4 papers
4-6 papers
and provide a review within two months. Remember, a quick review, even if
negative is better than a slow review that makes lots of suggestions for saving
a bad paper.
I feel my current activities are such that I will not be able to give
appropriate attention to my commitment to the editorial board, and hence am
willing to resign from the board.
Help us extend the set of available refereess. Could you send in a list of five
to ten names of people not on the editorial board whose judgement you trust (and
the areas of thier expertise). Thanks.
.
----- End Forwarded Messages -----
----- mmg:
∂29-Jun-88 1437 CLT Simpson on travel
Considering you will be gone for the following week that is not
good. Is there anyone but Simpson that could help with the AI money?
∂30-Jun-88 0621 boesch@vax.darpa.mil BAA
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 88 06:21:06 PDT
Received: from sun46.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA19080; Thu, 30 Jun 88 09:06:29 EDT
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 09:08:07 EDT
From: boesch@vax.darpa.mil
Posted-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 09:08:07 EDT
Message-Id: <8806301308.AA03370@sun46.darpa.mil>
Received: by sun46.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA03370; Thu, 30 Jun 88 09:08:07 EDT
To: noone-special@vax.darpa.mil
Subject: BAA
The BAA was finally in the 20 Jun CBD.
Please get white papers in ASAP. To help with rapid eval.
Brian
∂30-Jun-88 0700 JMC
Schwartz
∂30-Jun-88 0852 CORBATO@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU re: Congratulations!
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 88 08:52:39 PDT
Date: Thu 30 Jun 88 11:42:35-EDT
From: Fernando J. Corbato <CORBATO@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: re: Congratulations!
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: CORBATO@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU, corbato@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <1gqs2I@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12410592840.44.CORBATO@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
John, I tried to look for the item on the Kyoto Prizes in the Saturday
NY Times, but could not find it. I must have been catching up reading either
the Thursday or Friday edition. Regards, Corby.
-------
∂30-Jun-88 0900 JMC
novak,mad
∂30-Jun-88 0934 MPS Phone call
Edward Teller - 5-5664
∂30-Jun-88 0944 novavax!proxftl!tomh@bikini.cis.ufl.edu Re: Ding an sich
Received: from bikini.cis.ufl.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 88 09:44:16 PDT
Received: by bikini.cis.ufl.edu (5.59/2.21)
id AA02671; Thu, 30 Jun 88 12:43:13 EDT
Received: by novavax.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA02904; 30 Jun 88 12:42:40 EDT (Thu)
Received: by proxftl.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA10289; Thu, 30 Jun 88 12:18:07 EDT
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 12:18:07 EDT
From: proxftl!tomh@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (Tom Holroyd)
Message-Id: <8806301618.AA10289@proxftl.com>
To: novavax!uflorida!SAIL.STANFORD.EDU!JMC
Subject: Re: Ding an sich
News-Path: novavax!uflorida!gatech!bloom-beacon!SAIL.STANFORD.EDU!JMC
References: <19880621215411.6.NICK@INTERLAKEN.LCS.MIT.EDU>
I am reminded of planiverse. A 2-dimensional being is observed by
3-dimensional beings. They communicate somehow (I don't have my
copy of the book). Clearly, the 2-dimensional being doesn't have
the sense organs needed to perceive the third dimension, but he
does understand the concept of dimensionality, and can generalize
to three dimensions, just as we can generalize to four (or two).
A two dimensional being can clearly write messages that can be read by
a being looking at the planiverse. To the 3Der, it would look like a
mail message, but to the 2Der, letters would be seen edge on. A careful
2Der would be able to read the message, tho he might have to saw some of
the letters in half to see inside them. (Just glancing around, I can't
see any letters that really need to be taken apart to figure out which
they are, but you get the idea). The 2Der needs to feel the edges of
each letter, anyhow.
So a 2D physicist can theorize about the existence of a third dimension,
and construct an experiment to send messages into this hypothetical third
dimension (sort of like the SETI program).
There are some aspects of our physical world that we cannot perceive
directly, but we can build machines to perceive these things for us.
In order to do this, we have to theorize about the existence of these
aspects/things.
Now, your point in metaepistemology seems to be that there may be things
that we CANNOT build machines to perceive, due to the nature of reality,
but we CAN theorize about them, since there is no fundamental limit on
what we can theorize about (save that somebody has to think of it).
Hmm. Maybe the 2D SETI program is cheating, because I'm embedding a
smaller reality in a larger one.
Anyway, I just feel that once something has been theorized, we can build a
machine to look for it. Maybe the thing we are looking for is totaly
perpendicular to the rest of reality and maybe it isn't, but I can see
no reason why we can't look for it somehow.
Do you think there are any limits on what can be thought of?
If there are things that theoretically cannot be observed by any means
whatsoever, is it possible to use these things for anything? If we could
manipulate them, we might see secondary effects, but that would sort of
count as indirect observation. Does indirect observation of secondary
effects count?
Tom Holroyd
UUCP: uunet!novavax!proxftl!tomh
The white knight is talking backwards.
∂30-Jun-88 1047 ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu DSA
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 88 10:47:46 PDT
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA11256; Thu, 30 Jun 88 10:46:19 PDT
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 10:46:19 PDT
From: ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu (D. Daniel Sternbergh)
Message-Id: <8806301746.AA11256@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: DSA
Thanks much for your reply. I have lucked out and done even better, having
found one of the officers of the DSA Youth Section, and organizers of the
Barnard conference, who is a Stanford alumnus and living locally.
I was also encouraged to have gotten replies from several different people.
It's good to discover that a number of people around have contacts with the
group.
Thanks again.
Daniel
∂30-Jun-88 1139 @Score.Stanford.EDU:jsl@ROCKEFELLER.ARPA Congratulations
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 88 11:39:17 PDT
Received: from rocky2 (ROCKY2.ROCKEFELLER.EDU.#Internet) by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 30 Jun 88 11:36:34-PDT
Received: by rocky2 (5.54/5.17)
id AA02256; Thu, 30 Jun 88 14:36:40 EDT
Received: by rocky3 (5.54/5.17)
id AA10333; Thu, 30 Jun 88 14:36:36 EDT
Message-Id: <8806301836.AA10333@rocky3>
To: mccarthy@score.stanford.edu
Subject: Congratulations
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 14:36:30 -0500
From: jsl@ROCKEFELLER.ARPA
on the Kyoto prize. Sorry about the company.
josh
∂30-Jun-88 1511 RPG Historians
Is there any historian you recommened or disrecommend that I talk to
at Stanford to help with the History of Lisp conference? ACM suggests
I hire one, and a local one is better for me.
-rpg-
∂30-Jun-88 1603 RPG CPL
The CPL money is apparently on the way. What do we have to do to
sign me up? I propose 20% time (1 day a week) at $90k per year
rate. No benefits. Alternatively, we could use my rate at Lucid, which
is higher.
-rpg-
∂30-Jun-88 1640 RPG CPL
Will Betty have a stroke? We could play off percentage time versus
dollars, but I don't want to become de-valued.
-rpg-
∂30-Jun-88 1644 RPG CPL
Good. See you tomorrow.
-rpg-
∂30-Jun-88 1701 RPG Consulting...
Maybe you don't have to do anything. Let's wait for Betty.
-rpg-