perm filename W83.IN[LET,JMC] blob
sn#706845 filedate 1983-04-01 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00340 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00036 00002 ∂03-Jan-83 1410 YOM
C00039 00003 ∂04-Jan-83 0012 Rodger Cliff <RAC at SU-AI> Auditing CS226
C00040 00004 ∂04-Jan-83 0138 Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
C00041 00005 ∂04-Jan-83 0834 CSD.LENAT@SU-SCORE (SuNet)
C00042 00006 ∂04-Jan-83 1105 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE (SuNet) Boeing agreement
C00043 00007 ∂04-Jan-83 1815 ME Prancing Pony Bill
C00045 00008 ∂07-Jan-83 1148 CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SCORE (SuNet) British Museum
C00046 00009 ∂07-Jan-83 1427 YOM
C00047 00010 ∂07-Jan-83 1556 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE (SuNet) Meeting
C00048 00011 ∂07-Jan-83 1942 CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SCORE (SuNet) Re: British Museum
C00049 00012 ∂08-Jan-83 1300 JMC*
C00050 00013 ∂09-Jan-83 2355 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Tuesday PM Visitors
C00067 00014 ∂10-Jan-83 2010 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE (SuNet) Reports
C00069 00015 ∂11-Jan-83 0000 JMC*
C00070 00016 ∂11-Jan-83 0054 ATP.BLEDSOE@UTEXAS-20 (SuNet) PV-PRIZE
C00074 00017 ∂11-Jan-83 1615 YOM Comp Results
C00075 00018 ∂11-Jan-83 1658 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-KI10 (SuNet) FOI Request from Hochschild
C00078 00019 ∂11-Jan-83 2001 Nilsson@SRI-AI (SuNet) Outline
C00091 00020 ∂12-Jan-83 0032 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
C00112 00021 ∂12-Jan-83 0058 JCMa@MIT-OZ
C00114 00022 ∂12-Jan-83 0116 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
C00115 00023 ∂12-Jan-83 0116 GAVAN @ MIT-MC phil-sci file
C00117 00024 ∂13-Jan-83 0119 Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC> shuttle
C00119 00025 ∂13-Jan-83 0836 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-KI10 (SuNet) FOI Request from Hochschild
C00122 00026 ∂13-Jan-83 1000 JMC*
C00123 00027 ∂13-Jan-83 1400 JMC*
C00124 00028 ∂13-Jan-83 2028 William A. Kornfeld <BAK at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
C00126 00029 ∂13-Jan-83 2046 pratt@Navajo (SuNet)
C00129 00030 ∂14-Jan-83 0201 GAVAN @ MIT-MC theories of truth
C00137 00031 ∂14-Jan-83 0340 GAVAN @ MIT-MC consensus
C00138 00032 ∂14-Jan-83 0443 JCMa@MIT-OZ Approximation Theory of Truth: Re: Theories Of Truth
C00141 00033 ∂14-Jan-83 0445 JCMa@MIT-OZ Subject and In-Reply-To fields in messages
C00142 00034 ∂14-Jan-83 0952 DAM @ MIT-MC Consensus Theory of Truth
C00147 00035 ∂14-Jan-83 1000 JMC*
C00148 00036 ∂14-Jan-83 1000 JMC*
C00149 00037 ∂14-Jan-83 1022 ME things to do when can't open file
C00154 00038 ∂14-Jan-83 1354 ME
C00156 00039
C00165 00040 ∂14-Jan-83 1519 DAM @ MIT-MC consensus theory of truth
C00170 00041 ∂14-Jan-83 1728 SHAPIRO at SRI-AI Talk
C00173 00042 ∂15-Jan-83 0007 KDF @ MIT-MC heat and temperature
C00175 00043 ∂15-Jan-83 0042 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE (SuNet) Meeting
C00176 00044 ∂15-Jan-83 1248 CLT
C00178 00045 ∂15-Jan-83 1322 DAM @ MIT-MC Consensus theory of truth
C00190 00046 ∂15-Jan-83 1326 PAT F1
C00191 00047 ∂15-Jan-83 1526 MINSKY @ MIT-MC correspondence theory of truth
C00195 00048 ∂15-Jan-83 1617 DAM @ MIT-MC correspondence theory of truth - Circumscription and Occam
C00206 00049 ∂15-Jan-83 1726 LGC ATREAS is up
C00208 00050 ∂15-Jan-83 2150 KDF @ MIT-MC
C00216 00051 ∂16-Jan-83 1643 HEWITT @ MIT-OZ theories of meaning
C00221 00052 ∂16-Jan-83 1727 ME mail
C00222 00053 ∂16-Jan-83 1856 KDF @ MIT-MC theories of meaning
C00231 00054 ∂17-Jan-83 1059 JJW 206 grading
C00243 00055 ∂17-Jan-83 1321 KDF @ MIT-MC "When Heat and Temperature were One"
C00244 00056 ∂17-Jan-83 1507 BATALI @ MIT-MC correspondence theory of truth
C00259 00057 ∂17-Jan-83 2140 DCL ARPA proposal briefing Wed. Feb. 2nd
C00273 00058 ∂18-Jan-83 1500 JMC*
C00274 00059 ∂18-Jan-83 1515 Gavan Duffy <GAVAN at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC> Lakatos and Solomonoff
C00276 00060 ∂18-Jan-83 1526 ME accidental "chain letter"?
C00279 00061 ∂18-Jan-83 1549 GAVAN @ MIT-MC correspondence theory
C00285 00062 ∂18-Jan-83 2340 KDF @ MIT-MC Correspondence theory & GAVAN
C00286 00063 ∂19-Jan-83 0203 GAVAN @ MIT-MC Putnam, Life Worlds, Real Worlds, Natural Language, and Natural Numbers.
C00296 00064 ∂19-Jan-83 0250 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Re-Arrangements
C00298 00065 ∂19-Jan-83 1158 MINSKY @ MIT-MC The smallest description of the past is the best theory for the future?
C00302 00066 ∂19-Jan-83 1536 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Arrangements
C00312 00067 ∂19-Jan-83 2349 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Meeting
C00313 00068 ∂20-Jan-83 0051 SHAPIRO at SRI-AI My schedule
C00327 00069 ∂20-Jan-83 1607 YOM Concepts paper
C00328 00070 ∂21-Jan-83 1109 CLT
C00329 00071 ∂21-Jan-83 1354 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
C00334 00072 ∂21-Jan-83 1507 Nilsson at SRI-AI AAAI and On-line literature
C00340 00073 ∂21-Jan-83 1911 LGC ANALYST Information for ARPA
C00346 00074 ∂21-Jan-83 2211 MINSKY @ MIT-MC correspondence theory
C00354 00075 ∂22-Jan-83 0032 Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC> You and Clarke...
C00355 00076 ∂22-Jan-83 0034 ADMIN.LIBRARY@SU-SCORE (SuNet) thursday talk
C00356 00077 ∂22-Jan-83 1040 MINSKY at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC Theory of A Priori
C00358 00078 ∂22-Jan-83 1254 RPG ARPA
C00363 00079 Carl: I keep getting these messages, although I think my messages get
C00365 00080 ∂23-Jan-83 0304 Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC> Marconi
C00367 00081 ∂23-Jan-83 0410 GAVAN @ MIT-MC correspondence theory
C00370 00082 ∂23-Jan-83 0515 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
C00378 00083 ∂23-Jan-83 0822 Charles Rich <RICH @ MIT-MC> AAAI and On-line literature
C00380 00084 ∂23-Jan-83 1149 DAM @ MIT-MC Corrospondence Theory
C00382 00085 ∂23-Jan-83 1546 CLT
C00388 00086 ∂24-Jan-83 1019 CG proposal for arpa
C00392 00087 ∂24-Jan-83 1240 Don Walker <WALKER at SRI-AI> Re: AAAI and On-line literature
C00409 00088 ∂24-Jan-83 2332 DEK mathfile equations
C00410 00089 ∂25-Jan-83 1100 JMC*
C00411 00090 ∂25-Jan-83 1400 JMC*
C00424 00091 ∂25-Jan-83 1400 JMC*
C00425 00092 ∂25-Jan-83 1425 JJW Thesis proposal
C00431 00093 ∂25-Jan-83 1813 John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC> Objectivity, ad nauseum
C00437 00094 ∂25-Jan-83 1855 CSD.WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE (SuNet) ARPA contract
C00438 00095 ∂26-Jan-83 0722 John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC> Ad nauseum
C00441 00096 ∂26-Jan-83 1343 JK
C00446 00097 ∂26-Jan-83 1355 JK
C00451 00098 ∂26-Jan-83 1453 LEDERBERG@SUMEX-AIM (SuNet) Re: afghanistan
C00452 00099 ∂26-Jan-83 2117 MINSKY @ MIT-MC AAAI and On-line literature
C00457 00100 ∂26-Jan-83 2142 RPG
C00458 00101 ∂27-Jan-83 0904 PKANERVA@SUMEX-AIM (SuNet) This week's Campus Report, p. 11
C00459 00102 ∂27-Jan-83 1151 CLT ARPA Feb 83
C00466 00103 ∂28-Jan-83 0937 Nilsson at SRI-AI Corporate Memberships
C00470 00104 ∂28-Jan-83 1003 JK
C00478 00105 ∂29-Jan-83 1326 (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) uw-beaver!ubc-vision!reiter at Lbl-Csam n.m. reasoning
C00486 00106 ∂29-Jan-83 1808 ARK The Fifth Party on the Fifth
C00488 00107 ∂29-Jan-83 2051 Carl Hewitt <Hewitt at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC> protection?
C00493 00108 ∂01-Feb-83 0000 JMC*
C00494 00109 ∂01-Feb-83 0033 GAVAN @ MIT-MC criticism of coherence and consensus
C00500 00110 ∂01-Feb-83 0223 GAVAN @ MIT-MC narrowness
C00502 00111 ∂01-Feb-83 0316 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
C00503 00112 ∂01-Feb-83 0648 John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC> Paper
C00504 00113 ∂01-Feb-83 1029 MAS Meeting with ARPA
C00505 00114 ∂01-Feb-83 1502 YOM term project
C00506 00115 ∂01-Feb-83 1528 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA> Re: Corporate Memberships
C00514 00116 ∂01-Feb-83 1622 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI at SRI-AI> AAAI and On-Line Abstract and Bibliographic Service
C00520 00117 ∂01-Feb-83 1622 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI at SRI-AI> [DOYLE@CMU-CS-C: Old Proposal]
C00557 00118 ∂01-Feb-83 1840 LGC Tomorrow at 9am?
C00558 00119 ∂01-Feb-83 1903 LGC Please Check...
C00560 00120 ∂01-Feb-83 2019 RPG tomorrow
C00562 00121 ∂02-Feb-83 0732 GAVAN at Mit-Mc
C00563 00122 ∂02-Feb-83 0754 (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) uw-beaver!ubc-vision!reiter at Lbl-Csam message received
C00565 00123 ∂02-Feb-83 0951 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI at SRI-AI> AAAI Membership Roster
C00566 00124 ∂02-Feb-83 1207 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
C00567 00125 ∂02-Feb-83 1442 HAP Modem
C00569 00126 ∂03-Feb-83 0030 JCMa@MIT-OZ loneliness
C00571 00127 ∂03-Feb-83 0121 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
C00572 00128 Please prepare grade change forms accordingly.
C00573 00129
C00597 00130 ∂04-Feb-83 0201 Phil-sci-request@MIT-MC Sending mail to JMC
C00599 00131 ∂04-Feb-83 0316 JCMa@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
C00600 00132 ∂04-Feb-83 0316 JCMa@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC OZ account
C00601 00133 ∂04-Feb-83 1022 GAVAN @ MIT-MC Does Robby need the predicate true?
C00604 00134 ∂05-Feb-83 0212 ME Prancing Pony Bill
C00614 00135 ∂05-Feb-83 1415 JJW Prolog
C00615 00136 ∂05-Feb-83 2029 Christopher C Stacy <CSTACY@Mit-Mc> this is a test
C00618 00137 ∂05-Feb-83 2217 JCMa.mit-oz at UDel-TCP loneliness
C00629 00138 ∂06-Feb-83 0133 ME oz
C00630 00139 ∂06-Feb-83 1854 LGC EMP
C00633 00140 ∂06-Feb-83 2037 JCMa@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC garbled message
C00634 00141 ∂07-Feb-83 0232 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Sharing The Wealth
C00643 00142 ∂08-Feb-83 0100 JMC*
C00644 00143 ∂08-Feb-83 0129 KDF @ MIT-MC axioms for blocks?
C00645 00144 ∂08-Feb-83 1801 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Reminder
C00655 00145 ∂09-Feb-83 0336 ARK For Your Information
C00664 00146 ∂09-Feb-83 1115 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE Folders
C00665 00147 ∂09-Feb-83 1315 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Memo to Hastorf
C00669 00148 ∂09-Feb-83 1620 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA PROPOSAL
C00672 00149 ∂10-Feb-83 0026 ME tty20 speed
C00674 00150 ∂10-Feb-83 0517 GAVAN @ MIT-MC Review of JMC's review of Habermas
C00693 00151 ∂10-Feb-83 0900 JMC*
C00694 00152 ∂10-Feb-83 0949 ullman@Diablo Martin Brooks
C00695 00153 ∂10-Feb-83 1106 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE ARPA Proposal
C00697 00154 ∂10-Feb-83 1413 CSD.OHMAN@SU-SCORE Teaching Assignments 83-84
C00702 00155 ∂10-Feb-83 1753 CLT
C00703 00156 ∂10-Feb-83 1900 JMC*
C00704 00157 ∂10-Feb-83 1910 CLT
C00705 00158 ∂10-Feb-83 2051 RPG Martin Brooks
C00707 00159 ∂11-Feb-83 1000 JMC*
C00724 00160 ∂11-Feb-83 1300 JMC*
C00725 00161 ∂11-Feb-83 1751 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Suggested memo
C00728 00162 ∂12-Feb-83 1135 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA Proposal
C00729 00163 ∂12-Feb-83 2033 RPG
C00731 00164 ∂13-Feb-83 1125 CLT tonight
C00732 00165 ∂13-Feb-83 2000 JMC*
C00733 00166 ∂13-Feb-83 2054 GAVAN @ MIT-MC Bogosity of possible worlds
C00736 00167 ∂14-Feb-83 1059 DFH Richard Fujimoto
C00737 00168 ∂14-Feb-83 1449 CLT
C00739 00169 ∂14-Feb-83 1515 CLT Arpa Proposal
C00741 00170 ∂14-Feb-83 1539 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA Proposal
C00742 00171 ∂14-Feb-83 1529 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA Proposal
C00744 00172 ∂14-Feb-83 1741 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI@SRI-AI.ARPA> AAAI-83 Tutorial Program
C00755 00173 ∂14-Feb-83 2000 JMC*
C00756 00174 ∂15-Feb-83 0850 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA Proposal
C00759 00175 ∂15-Feb-83 1011 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA Proposal
C00760 00176 ∂15-Feb-83 1033 TOB
C00792 00177 ∂15-Feb-83 1400 MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM Follow-up information on Richard Fujimoto and any future candidates
C00794 00178 ∂15-Feb-83 1427 CSD.DORIO@SU-SCORE pmessage
C00795 00179 ∂15-Feb-83 1430 ullman@Diablo Re: Follow-up information on Richard Fujimoto and any future candidates
C00797 00180 ∂16-Feb-83 1030 CLT beeson
C00798 00181 ∂16-Feb-83 1556 CLT
C00799 00182 ∂16-Feb-83 1712 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI@SRI-AI.ARPA> [FEINLER at SRI-NIC: AI reference tool for network]
C00810 00183 ∂17-Feb-83 1334 RPG Martin Brooks
C00811 00184 ∂17-Feb-83 1653 YOU@UTAH-20 interested in your new paper.
C00813 00185 ∂17-Feb-83 2243 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA Proposal
C00814 00186 ∂17-Feb-83 2257 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA Proposal
C00816 00187 ∂17-Feb-83 2322 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA Proposal
C00818 00188 ∂18-Feb-83 0900 JMC*
C00819 00189 ∂18-Feb-83 1347 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Industrial Lectureships.
C00821 00190 ∂19-Feb-83 1000 JMC*
C00822 00191 ∂19-Feb-83 1537 Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon) answer from Ithiel Pool
C00831 00192 ∂20-Feb-83 1352 CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE Next meeting
C00832 00193 ∂22-Feb-83 1016 CSD.MSK@SU-SCORE Re: mailing list
C00833 00194 ∂22-Feb-83 1322 Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon) mail
C00835 00195 ∂22-Feb-83 1822 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Total Scope Document
C00837 00196 ∂22-Feb-83 1842 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE The file
C00847 00197 ∂23-Feb-83 0845 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: The file
C00848 00198 ∂23-Feb-83 1504 DFH admissions folders
C00849 00199 ∂26-Feb-83 1738 CSD.RESTIVO@SU-SCORE Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover system
C00851 00200 ∂26-Feb-83 2353 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Proposed SCOPE for 1983-1986 ARPA proposal
C00862 00201 ∂28-Feb-83 2015 CL.BOYER at UTEXAS-20
C00864 00202 ∂28-Feb-83 2300 JMC*
C00865 00203 ∂28-Feb-83 2351 AAM Text
C00866 00204 ∂01-Mar-83 0619 Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon) sample session
C00868 00205 ∂01-Mar-83 0619 Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon) ENIAC memo
C00890 00206 ∂01-Mar-83 1624 DFH
C00891 00207 ∂01-Mar-83 2128 CSD.BRODER@SU-SCORE Winter course evaluations
C00893 00208 ∂02-Mar-83 1652 RPG Your part
C00894 00209 ∂03-Mar-83 0826 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM Re: COMTEX PUBLICATIONS
C00896 00210 ∂03-Mar-83 0917 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM Re: COMTEX PUBLICATIONS
C00898 00211 ∂03-Mar-83 0954 DFH
C00899 00212 ∂03-Mar-83 1442 CT CS 293
C00900 00213 ∂03-Mar-83 1500 JMC*
C00901 00214 ∂03-Mar-83 2050 CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SIERRA my thesis proposal
C00903 00215 ∂03-Mar-83 2107 ME Prancing Pony Bill
C00905 00216 ∂03-Mar-83 2256 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Artificial Hearts
C00906 00217 ∂04-Mar-83 0035 CLT
C00907 00218 ∂04-Mar-83 1031 JMC*
C00908 00219 ∂04-Mar-83 1111 DFH
C00909 00220 ∂04-Mar-83 1324 CLT Theorem proving Meeting
C00910 00221 ∂04-Mar-83 1528 vardi@Diablo Bob Doyle
C00911 00222 ∂04-Mar-83 1628 DFH
C00913 00223 ∂07-Mar-83 1217 RICH@MIT-MC [RICH: TimeSharing]
C00915 00224 ∂07-Mar-83 1308 RPG Proposal
C00916 00225 ∂08-Mar-83 0641 Charles Rich <RICH @ MIT-MC> time-sharing history
C00917 00226 ∂08-Mar-83 1000 JMC*
C00918 00227 ∂08-Mar-83 1336 DFH Chicago conference presentation
C00919 00228 ∂08-Mar-83 1500 JMC*
C00920 00229 ∂09-Mar-83 0812 DFH Student support/Marlie' memo
C00921 00230 ∂09-Mar-83 0955 lantz@Diablo industrial lectureships
C00923 00231 ∂09-Mar-83 1109 lantz@Diablo
C00924 00232 ∂09-Mar-83 1659 CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE meeting
C00925 00233 ∂09-Mar-83 2257 ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode) [ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode): EMACS effect on overloaded computer systems]
C00929 00234 ∂09-Mar-83 2330 JMC*
C00930 00235 ∂10-Mar-83 0337 MRC@SU-SCORE Re: lunch on Tuesday
C00932 00236 ∂10-Mar-83 0700 ATP.BLEDSOE@UTEXAS-20 Centenial Lecture at UTEXAS
C00935 00237 ∂10-Mar-83 0851 DFH meeting
C00936 00238 ∂10-Mar-83 1245 JMC*
C00937 00239 ∂10-Mar-83 1500 JMC*
C00938 00240 ∂11-Mar-83 0931 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM 1984 AAAI Projects
C00940 00241 ∂11-Mar-83 1002 BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM dinner tonight
C00941 00242 ∂11-Mar-83 1009 RPG Arpa Proposal
C00942 00243 ∂11-Mar-83 1618 CT CS 293
C00944 00244 ∂13-Mar-83 1647 RPG Proposal
C00945 00245 ∂14-Mar-83 1000 JMC*
C00946 00246 ∂14-Mar-83 1018 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM Tues. Lunch
C00947 00247 ∂14-Mar-83 1018 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA
C00949 00248 ∂14-Mar-83 1130 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE Round2 Scores
C00951 00249 ∂14-Mar-83 1156 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA
C00952 00250 ∂14-Mar-83 1244 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA
C00953 00251 ∂14-Mar-83 1310 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA
C00954 00252 ∂14-Mar-83 1641 JJW Yoram delayed for 2 weeks
C00956 00253 ∂14-Mar-83 1832 JMC*
C00957 00254 ∂15-Mar-83 0227 Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC> Marconi
C00959 00255 ∂15-Mar-83 1030 JJW Hertz application
C00960 00256 ∂15-Mar-83 1100 RPG Martin Brooks
C00962 00257 ∂15-Mar-83 1201 BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM next search committee mtg
C00963 00258 ∂15-Mar-83 1218 RPG Computer Usage
C00964 00259 ∂15-Mar-83 1447 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Ohlanders visit
C00966 00260 ∂15-Mar-83 1601 BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM next meeting
C00967 00261 ∂15-Mar-83 1736 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Arpa proposal work
C00970 00262 ∂15-Mar-83 1846 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI Expanded Scope
C00984 00263 ∂15-Mar-83 2224 CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE Art Samuels
C00985 00264 ∂16-Mar-83 0933 DFH Suppes/Fehling appt.
C00986 00265 ∂16-Mar-83 1100 HPM
C00988 00266 ∂16-Mar-83 1121 CLT
C00989 00267 Diana: Please make out the grade change.
C00990 00268 ∂16-Mar-83 1544 ME phone circuit nbr
C00991 00269 ∂17-Mar-83 0825 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM [OHLANDER at USC-ISI: Re: Proposed SCOPE for 1983-1986 ARPA proposal]
C00995 00270 ∂17-Mar-83 0905 NILSSON@SRI-AI ( Forwarded Mail )
C01015 00271 ∂17-Mar-83 1122 EJS
C01016 00272 ∂17-Mar-83 2347 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI Schedule
C01018 00273 ∂18-Mar-83 1156 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>:]
C01021 00274 ∂18-Mar-83 1449 ME phone line
C01022 00275 ∂18-Mar-83 1454 NILSSON@SRI-AI Expansion of Tutorial Program
C01047 00276 ∂18-Mar-83 1632 JMM IBM fellowship
C01048 00277 ∂20-Mar-83 1408 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM AI Qual
C01051 00278 ∂21-Mar-83 1410 CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE Re: Art Samuel day
C01052 00279 ∂21-Mar-83 1430 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE [Brian Reid <reid at Shasta>: notification status]
C01058 00280 ∂21-Mar-83 1630 Nilsson at SRI-AI Re: meeting with Knuth
C01059 00281 ∂21-Mar-83 2052 NILSSON@SRI-AI.ARPA Irving Brown
C01060 00282 ∂21-Mar-83 2250 JMM IBM fellowship
C01062 00283 ∂22-Mar-83 0945 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI Background
C01064 00284 ∂22-Mar-83 1527 HHB robotics problem
C01065 00285 ∂23-Mar-83 0000 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI a candidate paragraph for the background section
C01066 00286 ∂23-Mar-83 0905 LER s here.
C01067 00287 ∂23-Mar-83 0909 NILSSON@SRI-AI.ARPA Vita
C01086 00288 ∂23-Mar-83 1009 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: [Brian Reid <reid at Shasta>: notification status]]
C01093 00289 ∂23-Mar-83 1111 CLT
C01094 00290
C01095 00291 ∂23-Mar-83 1549 HHB document
C01096 00292 ∂23-Mar-83 1637 DFH
C01097 00293 ∂23-Mar-83 2145 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI The missed paragraph
C01100 00294 ∂23-Mar-83 2210 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI follow-up of todays visit
C01103 00295 ∂24-Mar-83 0827 DFH Travel arrangements
C01105 00296 ∂24-Mar-83 0856 MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM Search committee meeting
C01106 00297 ∂24-Mar-83 1134 EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM [Bud Spurgeon <SPURGEON@SUMEX-AIM>: New Lisp machine]
C01110 00298 ∂24-Mar-83 1530 CSD.TAJNAI@SU-SCORE Forsythe lecture videotape
C01112 00299 ∂24-Mar-83 1834 RSF reply to message
C01114 00300 ∂25-Mar-83 0847 DFH
C01115 00301 ∂26-Mar-83 1551 TOB
C01117 00302 ∂26-Mar-83 1612 TOB
C01118 00303 ∂26-Mar-83 1715 JJW Hertz
C01119 00304 ∂26-Mar-83 2004 RPG Brooks
C01120 00305 ∂27-Mar-83 2027 LGC Home-grown Histories and Worlds
C01121 00306 ∂28-Mar-83 0956 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: MS Readers]]
C01125 00307 ∂28-Mar-83 1600 JMC*
C01126 00308 ∂28-Mar-83 1709 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE Diana Hall
C01127 00309 ∂28-Mar-83 1900 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI Additions to the McCarthy et al Umbrella proposal
C01129 00310 ∂28-Mar-83 2217 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Congratulations!
C01133 00311 ∂29-Mar-83 0755 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM Re: Additions to the McCarthy et al Umbrella proposal
C01135 00312 ∂29-Mar-83 0952 RPG
C01136 00313 ∂29-Mar-83 1306 RJT change of advisor
C01137 00314 ∂29-Mar-83 1740 CLT
C01138 00315 ∂29-Mar-83 1913 Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon) your schedule
C01139 00316 ∂30-Mar-83 0000 TOB proposal
C01140 00317 ∂30-Mar-83 0101 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI Editing notes for the proposal introduction
C01165 00318 ∂30-Mar-83 0935 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM Aborted HPP Task Statement
C01167 00319 ∂30-Mar-83 1009 RPG
C01168 00320 ∂30-Mar-83 1020 DFH
C01169 00321 ∂30-Mar-83 1133 TOB proposal
C01170 00322 ∂30-Mar-83 1148 DFH Travel arrangements
C01171 00323 ∂30-Mar-83 1205 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM
C01172 00324 ∂30-Mar-83 1214 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: proposal
C01173 00325 ∂30-Mar-83 1241 RPG
C01176 00326 ∂30-Mar-83 1326 CT Schedule revisions
C01181 00327 ∂31-Mar-83 1649 ELYSE@SU-SCORE Meeting
C01183 00328 ∂31-Mar-83 1658 OHLANDER@USC-ISI Re: Additions to the McCarthy et al Umbrella proposal
C01185 00329 ∂31-Mar-83 1719 ME lost message returned
C01191 00330 ∂31-Mar-83 1936 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM Re: Meeting
C01193 00331 ∂31-Mar-83 2051 LGC Paper for AAAI-83
C01194 00332 ∂31-Mar-83 2126 ATP.BLEDSOE@UTEXAS-20 [Woody Bledsoe <ATP.Bledsoe@UTEXAS-20>: Centenial Lecture at UTEXAS]
C01198 00333 ∂31-Mar-83 2319 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM AI Qual?
C01200 00334 ∂01-Apr-83 0000 JMC*
C01201 00335 ∂01-Apr-83 0908 ELYSE@SU-SCORE
C01204 00336 ∂01-Apr-83 0923 CSD.LENAT@SU-SCORE Re: AI Qual?
C01205 00337 ∂01-Apr-83 1307 PB computerizing the library
C01211 00338 ∂01-Apr-83 1505 BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM Systems Search Comm. mtg
C01212 00339 ∂01-Apr-83 1559 LGC
C01213 00340 ∂01-Apr-83 1707 PB library data
C01216 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂03-Jan-83 1410 YOM
To: DBL at SU-AI
CC: JMC at SU-AI, VRP at SU-AI, JEF at SU-AI,
csd.mayr at SU-SCORE
Dear Prof. Lenat
After the last meeting of last year's Comp committee you notified
me that you (the committee) had decided to give me extra time (the
figure of 15 more minutes for every hour was the one mentioned) on
this coming exam. It seems that this fact has not been passed on to
the current committee. Could you clarify the matter?
Sincerely
Yoram Moses.
∂04-Jan-83 0012 Rodger Cliff <RAC at SU-AI> Auditing CS226
Mail-from: ARPANET site SU-AI rcvd at 4-Jan-83 0007-PST
Date: 04 Jan 1983 0004-PST
From: Rodger Cliff <RAC at SU-AI>
Subject: Auditing CS226
To: csd.mccarthy at SU-SCORE
I would very much like to audit your course CS226 on Epistemological
Problems of AI.
Rodger Cliff
See bboard for the room number of the first meeting on Jan. 13 at 1:15.
∂04-Jan-83 0138 Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Date: 4 January 1983 04:35-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
To: JMC @ SU-AI
In-reply-to: The message of 02 Jan 1983 0237-PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Thanks. I'd like to have3 been able to talk to that chap.
∂04-Jan-83 0834 CSD.LENAT@SU-SCORE (SuNet)
Date: Tue 4 Jan 83 08:25:43-PST
From: Doug Lenat <CSD.LENAT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
To: YOM@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: DBL@SU-AI.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, VRP@SU-AI.ARPA, JEF@SU-AI.ARPA,
csd.mayr@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 3 Jan 83 14:10:00-PST
Yes, Yoram, that is my recollection as well. Since you
negotiated this far in advance, this year's committee should
honor that agreement.
Doug Lenat
-------
∂04-Jan-83 1105 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE (SuNet) Boeing agreement
Date: Tue 4 Jan 83 11:00:33-PST
From: Betty Scott <CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Boeing agreement
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: CSD.BScott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
John,
Just to keep you informed, Pat Byers in Sponsored Projects has talked with
Mr. Adams, the Buyer at Boeing--she was unable to reach him until yesterday.
Anyway, there are two or three "objectionable" clauses in the proposed
agreement, the most significant one being the restriction on publications.
She will keep us informed as to how the negotiations proceed.
Betty
-------
∂04-Jan-83 1815 ME Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 4 January 1983
Current Charges 0.25 (vending machine)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 0.25
Please deliver payments to Diana Hall, room 358, Jacks Hall.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your Pony account name on your check.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.5% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
∂07-Jan-83 1148 CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SCORE (SuNet) British Museum
Date: Fri 7 Jan 83 11:47:37-PST
From: Richard Treitel <CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: British Museum
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
The British Museum is a very large museum containing a very large
library, one of the three copyright libraries in the U.K. (the others
being at Oxford and Cambridge, of course).
- Richard T.
-------
∂07-Jan-83 1427 YOM
I put the file Turing.tex in your [f82,jmc] directory.
I will leave a copy for you, and if you like it, it
can be copied on monday.
yom.
∂07-Jan-83 1556 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE (SuNet) Meeting
Date: Fri 7 Jan 83 15:54:30-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Meeting
To: Hastorf-group: ;
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
Our meeting with Hastorf et al scheduled for January 11 had to be
cancelled because something came up and Lieberman couldn't make it.
Feb 10 and Feb 15 have been proposed as alternates. Would each of you let
me know which of those dates you can make? The time remains the same;
4-5 pm. Paul
-------
Both Feb 10 and Feb 15 are ok. Do you have any information yet on
what our volume of report material is?
∂07-Jan-83 1942 CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SCORE (SuNet) Re: British Museum
Date: Fri 7 Jan 83 19:40:09-PST
From: Richard Treitel <CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: British Museum
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri 7 Jan 83 11:49:21-PST
... and the library is actually known as The British Library
(not even The British Museum Library)
- R
-------
∂08-Jan-83 1300 JMC*
cards
∂09-Jan-83 2355 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Tuesday PM Visitors
Date: 09 Jan 1983 2353-PST
From: Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A>
Subject: Tuesday PM Visitors
To: jmc at SU-AI
CC: LLW at S1-A
John, this is just a Distant Early Warning that one or both of the
Lab's two Associate Directors at Large (Mike May and possibly Carl
Haussmann) will be seeking an appointment with you this Tuesday
in mid-PM. Lab senior management (virtually none of whom has used
a computer for at least two decades) is rather suddenly getting
quite interested in a wide variety of topics concerning computing,
and you were fingered (by someone other than myself, and unknown to
me) as the most geographically proximate of the Gurus of the Religion.
All I did was to confirm this impression, and to remark that the
S-1 Project had got under way in your AI Lab. (I also inserted a
sponsor's message about how I was still hankering for a clearance
for you, seemingly with quite positive results.)
Forewarned is forearmed!
Lowell
∂10-Jan-83 2010 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE (SuNet) Reports
Date: Mon 10 Jan 83 17:08:26-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Reports
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
Here's some raw data for estimating disc requirements for putting
all CSD reports on line:
Year # of reports # of manuscript pages
1963-77 646 ?
1978 56 4271
1979 80 6344
1980 57 5465
1981 56 3131
1982 65 5171
I'm amazed at the variance in the numbers.
Paul
-------
At 50 lines of 80 bytes per page this comes to about 100 megabytes,
which we can certainly afford - even immediately. I suggest the creation
of directory CSDREPORTS at SCORE maintained by the reports staff. There
should b a notic inviting all writrs of rports to tell how to get
their reports to the area. It looks like the letter E broke on
my Datamedia for about a minute. We'll worry about uniformizing the
format in committee.
∂11-Jan-83 0000 JMC*
diaconis coincidence 7:30 Skilling
∂11-Jan-83 0054 ATP.BLEDSOE@UTEXAS-20 (SuNet) PV-PRIZE
Mail-from: SU-NET host DSN rcvd at 11-Jan-83 0055-PST
Received: From UTEXAS-20 by SU-DSN.ARPA at Tue Jan 11 00:55:22 1983
Date: 10 Jan 1983 1536-CST
From: Woody Bledsoe <ATP.Bledsoe at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: PV-PRIZE
To: jmc at SU-AI
cc: ATP.Bledsoe at UTEXAS-20 at SU-DSN
John,
Raj Reddy has asked me to appoint another committee to select a
winner of a separate prize for Program Verification. This would be for
$2000. every two years, given at the regular IJCAI Meetings. The fist one
would be given this August in Karlsruhe. He (and the Donor)
wants this to be a "current" prize instead of a "milestone" prize.
Also they want it to be called the "McCarthy Prize for Program
Verification". (I agree with this completely).
Raj asked me to confer with you about this, and I'd want to do that
anyway. I have talked this over with Bob and J and have the following
tentative committee:
Karl Levett - SRI (Chairman?)
Rod Burstall - Edinburgh
Sue Gerhart - Wang
Vaughn Pratt - Stanford
J Moore - Univ. of Texas
Richard Platek - Cornell
I have not approached any of these yet, except j .
(Incidently Richard Platek has recently reviewed "all" PV programs,
and has given an ATP course at Cornell, attended by many Math Faculty).
There are, of course, others that could be used on this committee.
I would like your advice on all of this, expecially regarding the comittee.
Since some the proposed committee members would themselves be
candidates for the prize, I would stipulate (at least for this first
prize) that any person on the Committee can win, but must resign before
any substantial vote is taken, and in any case before June 1.
Please call me if you would like to discuss this. I can be reached
here (at the office 512-471-1242) most of this week, but feel free to
call me at home (512-453-1101)
Woody
-------
∂11-Jan-83 1615 YOM Comp Results
... are out. I passed.
∂11-Jan-83 1658 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-KI10 (SuNet) FOI Request from Hochschild
Mail-from: SU-NET host SUMEX-KI10 rcvd at 11-Jan-83 1433-PST
Date: 11 Jan 1983 1426-PST
From: T. C. Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch at SUMEX-KI10>
Subject: FOI Request from Hochschild
To: Feigenbaum, Buchanan, JMC at SU-AI, CSL.JLH at SU-SCORE, ICL.Meindl at SU-SCORE,
Tobagi at USC-ISI, roz at SU-DSN, TOB at SU-AI, Adams at USC-ISI,
Kahn at USC-ISI
cc: Rindfleisch, CSD.Golub at SU-SCORE, CSD.Armer at SU-SCORE
Remailed-date: 11 Jan 1983 1434-PST
Remailed-from: T. C. Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch at SUMEX-KI10>
Remailed-to: McCarthy at SU-SCORE
The Stanford recipients of this msg are PI's on ARPA contracts and will
be getting a request from Duane Adams to fill out "Research and
Technology Work Unit Summary" forms for their contracts. This is to
reply to a set of Freedom of Information Act requests from Peter
Hochschild, a student in CSD. I talked to Hochschild today and showed
him what was happening in responding to his request. He apologized for
the hassle and said that was not the information he thought he would be
getting at all. He wants the ARPA view of the work going on here rather
than the Stanford view, i.e., what does ARPA think this research is
going to do for their military mission.
Hochschild indicated he would call Duane to retract the FOI requests
and would find another approach to getting the information he was after.
Speaking for the HPP, I told him I would show him our view of the goals
and milestones as stated in our proposals whenever he wanted to see
them.
I think we should wait on filling out all these forms until we hear from
Duane.
Tom R.
-------
∂11-Jan-83 2001 Nilsson@SRI-AI (SuNet) Outline
Mail-from: ARPANET site SRI-AI rcvd at 10-Jan-83 1538-PST
Date: 10 Jan 1983 1537-PST
From: Nilsson at SRI-AI
Subject: Outline
To: csd.mccarthy at SU-SCORE
cc: Nilsson
John, Here is a copy of a message that I sent Bonnie Lynn Webber
a few weeks ago. It contains some loose ideas about how to
organize an AI course and the outline that I used for the
Santa Cruz course. -Nils
1-Dec-82 15:13:17-PST,7221;000000000001
Date: 1 Dec 1982 1513-PST
From: Nilsson
Subject: Outline
To: Bonnie.upenn at UDEL-RELAY
cc: Nilsson
Bonnie, I'm attaching to this message a copy of the outline of the
course I taught last summer at UC Santa Cruz. It was a five-day
course--about 6 or 7 hours a day. If you want me to expand on what I
covered in any of these topics, let me know. The approach is a bit
different from that of my book--I need to write the book over from
scratch again.
I've had some additional ideas since the Santa Cruz course on how
I would write a new book. First, I would only attempt to write
a book on that part of AI that deals with Collecting, Representing,
and Using "Sentential" (i.e. propositional, declarative--as opposed
to procedural) Knowledge. This leaves out certain aspects of speech
and image processing and robotics and concentrates on reasoning.
Then I would consider each of those sub-parts, namely Collecting Knowledge
(WHAT is there to know?); Representing Knowledge (HOW do we represent it?);
and Using Knowledge.
Some sub-topics:
COLLECTING
Knowledge acquisition, learning, philosophical and semantical questions
about what we really take certain ideas to mean--ideas like
intention, goals, processes, time, identity of objects, etc.
Much of the problem here concerns the fact that when we try to
be precise about these ideas (in ANY language) we face various
dilemmas and decisions and contradictions. We have to be precise
in a way that is useful for the purpose. Having better knowledge
representation languages (of the kind mentioned below) helps us
to be precise in ways that classical philosophers could not be
using merely English (or Latin, or whatever). But many of the
problems here are philosophical problems revisited.
REPRESENTING
Logic and other knowledge representation formalisms. Certain ideas
can be stated precisely but we have difficulty in capturing them
in current formalisms (e.g. propositional attitudes).
USE
Deduction, Planning, Heuristic Search.
Obviously, these three subjects are not independent. Features
of a language allow us to be precise about WHAT we can say as well
as merely give us choices about HOW to say it. Also features of
some languages allow us to USE knowledge more efficiently than
we could using other languages. So there is much interaction.
I'd like to work these ideas over a bit more to see if they could
be used to paint a reasonable story of what is going on in AI.
Anyway, here's the outline:
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS
X451
August 2-6, 1982
University of California--Santa Cruz
Instructor: Nils J. Nilsson
SRI International
COURSE OUTLINE
Monday, August 2
am: Introduction
Overview of course
homework, panel discussion on Friday
reading materials, handouts, syllabus
Views of AI
Symbolic (vs numeric) manipulation
Science of intelligent and sensory processes
Search processes
Production systems
*Representation and manipulation of "nonmathematical
knowledge"
READINGS: Nilsson "AI: Engineering, Science or Slogan?" (handout);
Nilsson "Principles of AI" ch 1;
Erman, et al.: HEARSAY II in "Readings in AI"
pm: Knowledge representation 1
The knowledge representation problem
Procedural vs declarative representations of knowledge
Importance of logic
Predicate calculus
example "expert system" and reasoning processes
(more on this later)
READINGS: Nilsson "Principles of AI" ch 4;
R. Moore "The Role of Logic" (handout);
HOMEWORK: Nilsson "Principles of AI" probs 4.1, 4.3, 4.12
Tuesday, August 3
am: homework, questions
Knowledge representation 2
semantic networks, units
systems of theories and metatheories
"difficult" representational problems
time, propositional attitudes, processes
commonsense knowledge
(importance to natural language understanding and
generation)
!
READINGS: Nilsson "Principles of AI" ch 9;
Moore "Reasoning about Knowledge and Action" in "Readings
in AI";
McDermott "Temporal Logic" (partial handout);
Weyhrauch "Prolegomena" in "Readings in AI";
Moore "Problems in Logical Form" (handout)
pm: Knowledge manipulation: theorem proving,
rules of inference, resolution refutation procedures,
"nonresolution" theorem proving, forward and backward
reasoning processes, connection graphs, logic programming
READINGS: Nilsson "Principles of AI" chs 5 and 6;
Bledsoe "Non-Resolution Theorem Proving" in "Readings
in AI";
Chang and Slagle "Connection Graphs" in "Readings in AI";
HOMEWORK: Nilsson "Principles of AI" problems 6.2 and 6.3
Wednesday, August 4
am: homework, questions
Knowledge manipulation: search,
backtracking, heuristic search, AND/OR trees
READINGS: Nilsson "Principles of AI" chs 2 and 3;
pm: Implementations: LISP and PROLOG
example: unification procedure
READINGS: Winston "AI" chs 11 & 14 (handout)
Pereira and Warren "Prolog" (handout)
HOMEWORK: Write a LISP program to solve the "Tower of Hanoi" puzzle.
Describe the type of search performed by this program. Does
the search ever have to "backtrack."
Thursday, August 5
am: homework, questions
Expert systems
reasoning with uncertain knowledge, subjective Bayesian
approach, PROSPECTOR
READINGS: Duda, et al. "Subjective Bayesian Methods" in "Readings
in AI";
Duda, et al. "Model Design" in "Readings in AI";
Duda & Gaschnig "Knowledge-Based Expert Systems" Byte
article (handout)
Gevarter "An Overview of Expert Systems" (handout)
Davis "Expert Systems" (handout)
!
pm: Natural Language Processing
parsing, translation into logical form,
speech act theory
READINGS: Hendrix and Sacerdoti "Nat. Lang. Proc." Byte
article (handout);
Cohen and Perrault "Plan Based Speech Acts" in "Readings
in AI";
Grosz "Nat. Lang. Proc. at SRI" (handout)
Robinson "DIAGRAM" (handout)
HOMEWORK: 1. Select a subject in which you are expert and write down
at least 15 "rules" that might be included in an
expert system that deals with that subject.
2. Describe how you would modify the Pereira/Warren
grammar so that it includes adjectives.
Friday, August 6
am: homework, questions
Planning systems
STRIPS, NOAH, SIPE
The qualification and frame problems
READINGS: Nilsson "Principles of AI" ch 7;
pm: AI "culture," literature sources, conferences, major centers
Japanese "fifth generation" project
Philosophical and social implications of AI
READINGS: Searle "Mind Design" article plus commentary (handout)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barr and Feigenbaum, "The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence,"
vols 1-3, William Kaufmann, Inc., Los Altos, 1981-2.
Charniak, Riesbeck, and McDermott, "Artificial Intelligence
Programming," Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1980.
-------
-------
∂12-Jan-83 0032 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
Date: Wednesday, 12 January 1983 03:30-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
cc: jcma @ MIT-OZ, gavan @ MIT-OZ
In-reply-to: The message of 12 Jan 1983 02:58-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
I guess that must have been a suprise. JCMA just added you to the
list. It just started recently, so he's sending you the entire
archive to your JMC-LISTS address (it should be there by now).
Below are enumerated participants in the discussion.
BTW, I'm working with Ithiel Pool on a project (funded by the Sloan
Foundation) to video-tape the reminiscences of computer pioneers.
Right now, we're only up to ENIAC, Whirlwind, IAS, etc., but your name
has often come up as a potential participant in future roundtable
discussions. Would you be amenable to this?
; Discussion of philosophy of science as it pertains to A.I.
PHIL-SCI= PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE
PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE= PHIL-SCI-MIT PHIL-SCI-NET-
*SRC:<COMMON>PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE-ARCHIVES.TXT
PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE-REQUEST= JCMA
PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE-REQUESTS= PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE-REQUEST
PHIL-SCI-REQUEST= PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE-REQUEST
PHIL-SCI-REQUESTS= PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE-REQUEST
; Add your name in the appropriate category
; Local recipients
PHIL-SCI-MIT= DAM JCMA GAVAN DEJONG HEWITT HEWITT-INFO MINSKY BAK-
PAPERT@ML RICKL LEVITT BATALI
; Net recipients
PHIL-SCI-NET= ISAACSON@USC-ISI BrianSmith@PARC-MAXC JMC-LISTS@SU-AI-
FSM.HP-HULK@UDEL-RELAY
∂12-Jan-83 0058 JCMa@MIT-OZ
Date: Wednesday, 12 January 1983, 03:59-EST
From: JCMa@MIT-OZ
To: JMC@SU-AI
Cc: jcma@MIT-OZ
Mail-From: GAVAN created at 12-Jan-83 03:30:14
Date: Wednesday, 12 January 1983 03:30-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
cc: jcma @ MIT-OZ, gavan @ MIT-OZ
In-reply-to: The message of 12 Jan 1983 02:58-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
I guess that must have been a suprise. JCMA just added you to the
list.
Hewitt's idea.
It just started recently, so he's sending you the entire
archive to your JMC-LISTS address (it should be there by now).
We will have to FTP it from OZ:SRC:<COMMON>PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE-ARCHIVES.TXT.1
to your file. You can FTP it or we can do it. We just need to know what file
name you want it to go in.
∂12-Jan-83 0116 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
Date: Wednesday, 12 January 1983 04:12-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
cc: jcma @ MIT-OZ, gavan @ MIT-OZ
In-reply-to: The message of 12 Jan 1983 03:40-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
(human-name 'jcma) ==> John C. Mallery
∂12-Jan-83 0116 GAVAN @ MIT-MC phil-sci file
Date: Wednesday, 12 January 1983 04:15-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Subject: phil-sci file
In-reply-to: The message of 12 Jan 1983 04:06-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Date: Wednesday, 12 January 1983 04:06-EST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
To: gavan at MIT-MC
Re: phil-sci file
I would be glad to have it ftped to the file
phil[jnk,jmc].
Too late! JCMA already stuffed it through the mailer.
∂13-Jan-83 0119 Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC> shuttle
Date: 13 January 1983 04:18-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: shuttle
To: JMC @ SU-AI
In-reply-to: The message of 12 Jan 1983 1722-PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
You're probably right about the Shuttle. Artists do have
license though...
Citizen's council is not defunct. Last meeting didn't get a
formal report because most of it was military and we used that
largely in support of Dan Graham's efforts. Grahm wold like a
subset Council meeting soon to providde in pute to Haig and
Clements and other friends on the MX Commission. My problem is
I have very little time to do much.
BUT: I do intend to get out at least an interim report
on Council matters, and see if there's sentiment for another
meeting to assess what we do now. We have had some ipact.
Alas, not enough, and not decisive, but we have done som e
good....
∂13-Jan-83 0836 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-KI10 (SuNet) FOI Request from Hochschild
Date: 11 Jan 1983 1427-PST
From: T. C. Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch at SUMEX-KI10>
Subject: FOI Request from Hochschild
To: Feigenbaum at SUMEX-KI10, Buchanan at SUMEX-KI10, JMC at SU-AI,
CSL.JLH at SU-SCORE, ICL.Meindl at SU-SCORE, Tobagi at USC-ISI,
roz at SU-DSN, TOB at SU-AI, Adams at USC-ISI, Kahn at USC-ISI
cc: Rindfleisch at SUMEX-KI10, CSD.Golub at SU-SCORE, CSD.Armer at SU-SCORE
The Stanford recipients of this msg are PI's on ARPA contracts and will
be getting a request from Duane Adams to fill out "Research and
Technology Work Unit Summary" forms for their contracts. This is to
reply to a set of Freedom of Information Act requests from Peter
Hochschild, a student in CSD. I talked to Hochschild today and showed
him what was happening in responding to his request. He apologized for
the hassle and said that was not the information he thought he would be
getting at all. He wants the ARPA view of the work going on here rather
than the Stanford view, i.e., what does ARPA think this research is
going to do for their military mission.
Hochschild indicated he would call Duane to retract the FOI requests
and would find another approach to getting the information he was after.
Speaking for the HPP, I told him I would show him our view of the goals
and milestones as stated in our proposals whenever he wanted to see
them.
I think we should wait on filling out all these forms until we hear from
Duane.
Tom R.
-------
∂13-Jan-83 1000 JMC*
Call Teller at Livermore.
∂13-Jan-83 1400 JMC*
letters to Takasu and Lee
∂13-Jan-83 2028 William A. Kornfeld <BAK at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
Date: Thursday, 13 January 1983, 23:26-EST
From: William A. Kornfeld <BAK at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
To: Jmc at SU-AI, Genesereth at SU-AI, Lenat at SU-AI, Weyhrauch at SU-AI,
Pratt at SU-AI
Cc: Chowning at SU-AI
I am interested in applying for a faculty or research staff position at
Stanford beginning Sept. '83 if possible. I received a PhD one year ago
in parallel techniques for searching large spaces. See CACM October 82
and last IJCAI for publications related to my thesis. I have since
gotten interested in logic programming and am currently working on a
Prolog variant that incorporates equality theorems to prove functors
equal which would otherwise not be unifiable. Other research interests
include: parallel machine architecture, signal processing, and music
composition algorithms and aids. I'd appreciate knowing the current
situation w.r.t. the availbility of a position.
Thanks,
Bill Kornfeld
∂13-Jan-83 2046 pratt@Navajo (SuNet)
Date: Thursday, 13 Jan 1983 20:45-PST
To: William A. Kornfeld <BAK at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
Cc: Jmc at SU-AI, Genesereth at SU-AI, Lenat at SU-AI,
Weyhrauch at SU-AI, Pratt at SU-AI, Chowning at SU-AI,
golub at Navajo
In-reply-to: Your message of Thursday, 13 January 1983, 23:26-EST.
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt at Navajo>
Mail-from: SU-NET host SAIL rcvd at 13-Jan-83 2028-PST
Date: Thursday, 13 January 1983, 23:26-EST
From: William A. Kornfeld <BAK at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
To: Jmc at SU-AI, Genesereth at SU-AI, Lenat at SU-AI, Weyhrauch at SU-AI,
Pratt at SU-AI
Cc: Chowning at SU-AI
I am interested in applying for a faculty or research staff position at
Stanford beginning Sept. '83 if possible. I received a PhD one year
ago in parallel techniques for searching large spaces. See CACM
October 82 and last IJCAI for publications related to my thesis. I
have since gotten interested in logic programming and am currently
working on a Prolog variant that incorporates equality theorems to
prove functors equal which would otherwise not be unifiable. Other
research interests include: parallel machine architecture, signal
processing, and music composition algorithms and aids. I'd appreciate
knowing the current situation w.r.t. the availbility of a position.
I for one would love to see you here. As is the custom, the first step is
for you to write a letter to the chairman (Gene Golub) applying for a faculty
position.
-v
∂14-Jan-83 0201 GAVAN @ MIT-MC theories of truth
Date: Friday, 14 January 1983 04:58-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: phil-sci @ mit-mc
Subject: theories of truth
In-reply-to: The message of 14 Jan 1983 02:03-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Date: Friday, 14 January 1983 02:03-EST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
To: gavan, phil-sci%mit-oz at MIT-MC
"I'm tempted to ask just what TRUTH is and what makes you think there's
any such thing, but that's a little off the subject. Maybe not. To
me, there is no truth but only consensus. What we call "truth" is
only what we have agreed upon, given certain conventions which we agree
are "rational." It seems to me that the notion of coming to a consensus
brings us back to the problem which motivated the discussion. How do we
in society and mental agents in a society-of-mind consensually validate
our beliefs and theories?"
The above quote from Gavan strikes me as muddled and scientifically
unpromising.
Well, the concept is taken from a social philosopher, Jurgen Habermas
(see his "Theories of Truth"). It may well be "scientifically
unpromising," but that of course depends on what you think science is.
It is similar to the Vienna circle ideas of the 1920s.
A young graduate student named Kurt Godel attended the Circle meetings
and had a different idea. His idea was that truth was one thing conceptually
and what you could prove was another. For his PhD thesis he proved that
in the case of first order logic the two coincided. Later he was able
to show that in the case of the arithmetic of Principia Mathematica and
related systems they could not coincide. Still later he was able to
show that the continuum hypothesis could not be disproved from the
Godel-Bernays axioms of set theory while maintaining his belief that
the continuum hypothesis is false. Another young man named Alfred Tarski
was able to show around 1930 that truth in arithmetic was not arithmetically
definable.
Yes, yes, yes. All this is "true" or "agreed upon" within logic, set
theory, arithmetic, etc., but how do I know that these things are
"true." ON WHAT ARE THE AXIOMS OF MATHEMATICS GROUNDED OTHER THAN ON
SOCIAL CONVENTION? I realize this might seem like heresy to you, and
yes, I do use mathematical techniques from time-to-time. I even
balance my check-book from time-to-time. I can do so because I've
agreed to follow this social convention (so you see I'm not THAT
heretical).
In my opinion, a person who makes a clear distinction between
truth and what is "consensually validated" will have a better chance of
advancing philosophy and/or artificial intelligence than someone who
muddles them. He might, for example, be able to show that the notions
coincide in some cases and differ in others.
I think you might be reacting to an undesirable consequent of the
"consensus theory of truth" if taken from the perspective of the
individual. Since I was speaking from a social perspective, this was
not intended. The consequent for the individual is that, if truth is
what is agreed upon, then there's no room for any individual to
challenge it. Indeed, any individual who believes the consensus
theory of truth at the individual level of analysis cannot possibly
contribute anything new, since it would necessarily not be validated
consensually and would thus be untrue.
At the individual level of analysis, a better theory of truth would be
the "consistency theory of truth," which holds that "truth" for the
individual is what can be incorporated into the web of beliefs with a
minimal amount of damage to that network. (Habermas disputes this,
but I don't. See Hilary Putnam, although the idea probably originates
(in modern times, at least) with Leon Festinger).
Now the consistency theory (at the individual level) and the consensus
theory (at the social level) are by no means incompatible. Some
individual scientist might develop a new theory about something. For
him/her, this theory is true, since it is consistent with many other
of his/her beliefs. But for society, it's not "true" until some sort
of consensus has been reached, at least among the members of the
particular linguistic community concerned with the problem domain.
Perhaps I should have made this distinction earlier, but we (or at
least some of us) were discussing science at the social level, for
pragmatic reasons. Also, I raised the consensus theory to dispute
another theory of truth (the correspondence theory) implicit in some
other remarks about perception. Anyway, I appreciate your making it
clear that I needed to elaborate.
You've stated what you think truth is not, but you haven't stated what
you think it is.
∂14-Jan-83 0340 GAVAN @ MIT-MC consensus
Date: Friday, 14 January 1983 06:33-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: JMC @ SU-AI
Cc: phil-sci @ MIT-MC
Subject: consensus
In-reply-to: The message of 13 Jan 1983 14:38-EST from MINSKY
Apropos of your pooh-poohing of the consensus theory, here's something
(taken out of context) that Marvin sent to phil-sci yesterday.
". . . things are different inside mathematics, where people
deliberately agree to use one another's definitions."
Do you dispute this?
∂14-Jan-83 0443 JCMa@MIT-OZ Approximation Theory of Truth: Re: Theories Of Truth
Date: Friday, 14 January 1983, 07:42-EST
From: JCMa@MIT-OZ
Subject: Approximation Theory of Truth: Re: Theories Of Truth
To: JMC@SU-AI
Cc: phil-sci@MIT-OZ
In-reply-to: The message of 14 Jan 83 02:03-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Date: 13 Jan 1983 2303-PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
To: gavan at MIT-MC, phil-sci%mit-oz at MIT-MC
In my opinion, a person who makes a clear distinction between
truth and what is "consensually validated" will have a better chance of
advancing philosophy and/or artificial intelligence than someone who
muddles them.
I agree emphatically with your assessment. Here are some additional
considerations.
All collective knowledge (knowledge shared by some community of
speaker/understanders, e.g., scientific communities) should be
conisdered from the "consenual perspective." To consider percceptual
Truth as Truth is to forget that our perceptions of truth change over time.
Thus, at any one time, our perception of Truth can only be an
approximation. In principle, it is possible to generate a marginally
better theory (or a substantial better, more general theory which
subsumes the former theory). In this view, our image of the real Truth
that lies out there is the theory which we believe our theories assymtote
towards. However, this is an extrapolation which may or may not hold,
which is contingent on the actual course of the process. This view is
the approxiamtion theory of truth.
The major role of hypothesis formation (abduction) in this view is
generation of new hypothesis which can be tested, and added then added
as axioms to the current theory.
Defining an epsitemology which is guaranteed to get better (debug
itself) is, in my view, what philosophy of Science is (should be) about.
∂14-Jan-83 0445 JCMa@MIT-OZ Subject and In-Reply-To fields in messages
Date: Friday, 14 January 1983, 07:45-EST
From: JCMa@MIT-OZ
Subject: Subject and In-Reply-To fields in messages
To: jmc@su-ai
Cc: phil-sci@MIT-OZ
Everyone:
Please put subject and in-reply-to fields on your messages. It
facilitates tracking conversations in the phil-sci discussion.
∂14-Jan-83 0952 DAM @ MIT-MC Consensus Theory of Truth
Date: Friday, 14 January 1983 12:47-EST
Sender: DAM @ MIT-OZ
From: DAM @ MIT-MC
To: JMC @ SU-AI
cc: phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
Subject: Consensus Theory of Truth
Date: Friday, 14 January 1983 02:03-EST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
To: gavan, phil-sci%mit-oz at MIT-MC
...
In my opinion, a person who makes a clear distinction between
truth and what is "consensually validated" will have a better chance of
advancing philosophy and/or artificial intelligence than someone who
muddles them. He might, for example, be able to show that the notions
coincide in some cases and differ in others.
It seems to me that the right destinction is between
MATHEMATICAL and EMPIRICAL truth. Mathematical truth consists of
DEFINITIONAL TAUTOLOGIES. If I tell you that P implies Q and that Q,
and if I DEFINE the meaning of implies, you must conclude Q. I
disagree with Marvin that mathematical truth is just a convention.
The "conventions" in mathematics are the agreed upon definitions, but
the truths which follow from those definitions are not agreed upon,
they are objectively true. Furthermore I take tautological truth to
be independent of any formalization of mathematics. I actually assume
that there is an innate inference mechanism for determining
tautological truths, and such truths are "objective" in the sense that
we all share the same innate mechanism. I realize that this is an
extreme position to take but I think it is a defendible extreme.
Tarskian truth valued semantics is a very good conceptual tool
in understanding mathematical truth. Note that the Tarskian notion of
truth is a DEFINED notion while I take human tautological truth to be
a real world phenomenon. It seems that the real world phenomenon of
mathematical truth can best be understood today in the conceptual
framework of the defined notion of Tarskian truth.
Empirical truth is completely different. Consider McCarthy's
scientist in a well defined dynamic universe. The only thing the
scientist actual has contact with is behaviour and sense data so it
seems that ultimately we have to define a notion of "truth" in terms
of sense data and behaviour. We might assume that the sense data is
in the form of sentences in some a-priori perceptual language, but
this is a big assumption. It seems to me more likely that the
scientist constructs the language itself in response to sense data.
Given these considerations it seems to me that EMPIRICAL truth is more
likely to be achieved by consensus and not objectively present in
sense data (although an Occum's razor argument could be used to define
an objective empirical truth).
My basic point is the diference between DEFINITIONAL truth
and EMPIRICAL or real-world truth.
David Mc
∂14-Jan-83 1000 JMC*
Call Judy about Lerman and appointment.
∂14-Jan-83 1000 JMC*
∂13-Jan-83 1400 JMC*
letters to Takasu and Lee
∂14-Jan-83 1022 ME things to do when can't open file
∂14-Jan-83 0943 JMC on TTY1 0943 can't open message
To: BUG-E
The "can't open file" message gives no indication of what one's options
are. Thus after getting this message after trying to write \BBOARD, I
wanted to take my valuable comments to another file to try again later.
There was no hint of how this might be done and I had to quit. The
writeup in E of the improvement gives no hint either.
ME - I assumed that people knew what to do, since that situation was
occurring previously anyway. You have all of E available to you at
that point, which is the big improvement over the previous situation.
Things to do: (1) use ⊗XSEND to send a message to the other users of the
file asking for unique access to the file, and then write out the file
when you can -- you can just sit there typing ⊗. until it works, if you
expect the other user(s) to get out of the file (e.g., after you've sent
them a message); (2) alternatively, you can attach the text and move it
to another file; this might require either that you use ⊗XCANCEL (after
attaching your text) to prevent an attempt to write out the file when you
are switching files, or that you open the new file in a second window
(again to avoid any attempt to write out the first file).
(1) is the obvious choice, as almost everyone will immediately let you have
unique access so you can write out the file. (2) is basically a last
resort, but another possibility is (3) to KILL or RESET the offending
user's job if he doesn't respond to your message from (1), for instance if
his job has been idle for a while, suggesting that he isn't paying
attention to his terminal. In this case, if the file is the very busy
\BBOARD, then one should feel no compunction against using KILL jb[prj,prg]
or RESET jb[prj,prg] to free up the file (you can use ESC . to get to the
monitor to give the KILL or RESET command, then BREAK . to get back into E).
Of course, with all of E available, there are lots of other things you
could do to save your text, like mail it to yourself, type CALL and
REENTER, etc.
∂14-Jan-83 1354 ME
∂14-Jan-83 1331 JMC Can't open
Perhaps message should be
"Can't open file now. Try ⊗XSEND to other users or ⊗XCANCEL before moving your
changes".
ME - That's a little verbose for an E message, without even saying enough.
∂14-Jan-83 1519 DAM @ MIT-MC consensus theory of truth
Date: Friday, 14 January 1983 18:17-EST
Sender: DAM @ MIT-OZ
From: DAM @ MIT-MC
To: JMC @ SU-AI
cc: phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
Subject: consensus theory of truth
Date: Friday, 14 January 1983 12:54-EST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
I am, as I suppose you suspect, an adherent of the correspondence
theory of truth, both within mathematics and outside it. ....
DAM seems not to have understood that my meta-epistemology proposal
involved the correspondence theory. ...
I am very familiar with the Tarskian notion of truth and in fact
with all of the mathematical results you mentioned in your previous messages.
However I must admit that I am not familiar with this "corrospondence theory
of truth" as it might be applied to the relationship between real-world
beliefs and the ACTUAL world. Are your REALLY proposing that the ACTUAL
world is a first order structure. If so what is the signature of that
structure (i.e. what set of symbols does this structure provide an
interpretation for)? I am indeed perplexed, this position seems very
strange to me. Could you please explain.
David Mc
Subject: Consensus theory of truth
Replying to: DAM message of 1983 Jan 14, 18:17-EST
I am not very familiar with the present courses on philosophy, so perhaps
I was mistaken in supposing that "correspondence theory of truth"
has a generally accepted informal meaning. However, I now recall that
Tarski explains it by saying that "Snow is white" is true provided
snow is white. Thus it is assuming that there is a real world with
certain properties and sentences are true provided the propositions
to which they refer hold in the world. Of course, this is circular,
so a theory of true propositions has to be like, for example, a theory
of electrons. Naturally, this doesn't assume any particular set of
symbols. This now leads me to suppose that perhaps you are not as
familiar as you think with Tarski's ideas about truth, since his work
included in the collection "Logic, semantics and metamathematics"
contains informal philosophy of truth as well as notions applicable
to first order theories.
In my view, a theory of truth need not begin with a definition
of truth. As in science, generally other parts of the theory are often
more stable than the definitions of the basic concepts. This is even
true of mathematical definitions such as those of natural number. A
theory of truth must live with the necessity of treating the truth
of sentences that aren't defined in terms of the basic physics of the
world, and this will be complicated. Nevertheless, besides particular
variants of the correspondence theory of truth, there is a stable
general idea that has many adherents besides the afore-mentioned Godel.
∂14-Jan-83 1728 SHAPIRO at SRI-AI Talk
Date: 14 Jan 1983 1719-PST
From: SHAPIRO at SRI-AI
Subject: Talk
To: jmc at SU-AI
cc: shapiro at SRI-AI
Hi, I am looking forward to visiting Stanford. When should I come?
Is there anything I need to know?
I have some fancy demo's of Concurrent Prolog, that run under Prolog.
But I need a VT100 or VT125 or some compatible Terminal. Can this be arranged?
I would prefer to give the demo's during the talk, but if there are no
facilities in the lecture room, could some demo time and place be set?
If this works out, I would like to come sme day during next week, before the
talk, to test the demo.
Udi.
-------
The talk will be Wednesday noon, so reserve that. I'll be back to you on
the other matters.
∂15-Jan-83 0007 KDF @ MIT-MC heat and temperature
Date: Saturday, 15 January 1983 03:08-EST
Sender: KDF @ MIT-OZ
From: KDF @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Subject: heat and temperature
In-reply-to: The message of 14 Jan 1983 17:56-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Carey and Wiser's will be a chapter in a book called "Mental
Models", edited by Gentner and Stevens, coming out in a few weeks from
Erlbaum. I can scare up a copy if you want it sooner than that.
I'm interested in similar issues, in particular just what is
in a Naive Physics (looking at protocols, I think investigating
ambiguity tolerant reps. is the right sort of thing) and how it can be
learned. Dedre Gentner and I are beginning to think about learning in
physical domains, using her Structure Mapping theory to provide the
needed comparisons and Qualitative Process Theory to provide the
domain theories. At the moment I'm pushing QP theory farther, in
particular what measurement interpretation must look like.
Ken
Is the book as whole worth buying? If it won't cost you money, and
the chapter exists in memo form, I'd like a copy. Also any new naive
physics material.
∂15-Jan-83 0042 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE (SuNet) Meeting
Date: Fri 14 Jan 83 14:42:14-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Meeting
To: Hastorf-group: ;
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
we are now scheduled to meet with Hastorf,Lieberman, Wessells, Quate
on Feb 10 from 4-5pm in Hastorf's office. Paul
-------
∂15-Jan-83 1248 CLT
Flavors of fringe -- definitions and facts
Defining equations
fringe[x] <- if{ATOM x, cons[x,NIL], append[fringe[CAR x],fringe[CDR x]]}
flat[x,v] <- if{ATOM x, cons[x,v], flat[CAR x, flat[CDR x,v]]}
fl[u,v] <- if{NULL u, v,
if{ATOM[CAR u], fl[CDR u,cons[CAR u,v]]
fl[cons[CDAR u,cons[CAAR u,CDR u]],v]}
fr[u,v] <- if{NULL u, v, fr[CDR u,append[fringe[CAR u],v]]
Facts:
(1) ∀{x:`SEXP}∃{u:`LIST}fringe[x] ~ u
(2) ∀{x:`SEXP}{v:`LIST} append[fringe x,v]~flat[x,v]
(3) ∀{x:`SEXP}{v:`LIST} fl[u,v]~fr[<x>,v]
e.g.
∀{x:`SEXP} flat[x,NIL]~fringe[x]
∀{x:`SEXP} fl[CONS[x,NIL],NIL]~fringe[x]
Proof(1) by simple `SEXP induction using properties of `LIST,append,
∂15-Jan-83 1322 DAM @ MIT-MC Consensus theory of truth
Date: Saturday, 15 January 1983 16:19-EST
Sender: DAM @ MIT-OZ
From: DAM @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: phil-sci%mit-oz @ MIT-MC
Subject: Consensus theory of truth
In-reply-to: The message of 14 Jan 1983 15:49-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
I must tell you that I consider myself to much more of a
mathematician than a philosopher and therefore I an more familiar
with the mathemaitcal results of Godel, Tarsky, Kripke, etc. than
with there philosophical positions. The "corrospondence theory"
of truth as you describe it is interesting and I certainly don't
want to force you into definitions too early (there are lots of
real world things that I know about but can't define, the human
notion of truth is one such thing). However I think there are
enormous complexities in understanding how we arive at empirical
truth. I do not believe that there is some a-priori language of
perception (or symbols directly interpreted by the world). Furthermore
it seems to me that any understanding of how we OBTAIN truth must
explain how truth is derived from sense data. It seems to me that
the most fruitful approach is to assume that the language we use
in understanding and percieving the world develops along with our
understanding. Furthermore I have found no alternative
to some version of Occum's razor for describing how anyone OBTAINS
truth.
In summary I don't believe that any simple corrospondence
theory can explain how humans obtain truth. Of course to really
argue such a point we would need a more constrained notion of
the "corrospondence theory" of truth, and perhaps a more precise
account of an "Occum's razor" theory. I don't like the Solomonoff
version for the simple reason that it ignores "sentences", "truth",
and "entailment".
David Mc
Subject: correspondence theory of truth
Replying to: DAM message of 1983 January 15, 16:17
David Mc, I think I agree with what I regard as your main points,
but let me reformulate them. A correspondence theory of what truth is,
whether formal or informal, doesn't say how truth is to be obtained.
Indeed what we obtain are beliefs, some of which are true. The
correspondence theory of truth consciously and flagrantly
does not satisfy the positivist or pragmatic criterion
that truth should be defined in terms of how it is obtained.
Thus my meta-epistemology judges truth of the "scientist"'s
statements their correspondence with the facts of the "world"
part of our meta-epistemological model. It would be a theorem
of meta-epistemology that truth cannot be obtained without
experiment in certain epistemological systems.
The biggest part of epistemology indeed concerns how
truth is obtained from sense data. I also agree that Occam's razor
is essentially involved, and my proposed circumscription method
of non-monotonic reasoning can be used for formalizing Occam's
razor arguments. (There are two common spellings: Occam and Ockham.
This discussion is the first place I've seen Occum, and I tentatively
regard it as a spelling error.)
I share your doubts about the utility
of the Solomonoff, Kolmogorov, Chaitin approach, the neatest version
of which seems to be Chaitin's. Asymptotically, the approach is correct,
in that the length of the shortest program for describing the facts
is independent of the initial programming language apart from an
additive constant. However, I believe that all common sense facts
and all scientific theories produced up to the present are too short
for the asymptotic virtues of the Solomonoff approach to dominate.
I'll call it the Solomonoff approach, although I haven't read his
papers, since Minsky correctly complains that his presentation precedes
those of Kolmogorov and Chaitin, and was regrettably neglected.
Example: Suppose we have a sequence of 0's and 1's produced by a family
of rules which I will shortly give, and we wish to describe them compactly.
Solomonoff correctly points out (at least Chaitin did) that we can
start with whatever programming language L we like and use the length
of the program as a measure of the complexity of a particular rule of
the family. The asymptotic behavior won't depend on the language L, because
if another programming language L' would give shorter programs, we
have only to define an interpreter for L' in L and then use L' for
our programs. Since the interpreter is of fixed length, starting
with the wrong language only adds a constant to the length of the
descriptions of the family of rules.
Suppose the sequences to be formed in the following way. There
is a rectangular area in which a particle moves. The particle moves
with constant velocity but when it hits a wall or an obstruction it
bounces off with the angle of reflection equal to the angle of
incidence. The area in which the particle moves contains rectangular
obstructions and rectangular roofs that the particle can go under
without its motion being affected. However, when the particle is
under a roof, it is invisible. The observable sequence of 0's and 1's is formed
by sampling every second and outputting 1 if the particle is visible
and 0 if it is invisible. The different rules for determining
sequences are determined by different initial positions and velocities
and different collections of obstacles and roofs. We suppose that
the rectangle, the particle, and the obstacles and roofs are not
directly observable; all that the scientist can see directly is the
sequence of 0's and 1's.
I use this example for a variety of purposes but mainly to
argue that the heuristic or AI
essence of science cannot be summarized as the extrapolation
of the sequence of sense data. For the present purpose the point is
this. The initial programming language may be one well suited to
describing rules giving sequences of 0's and 1's. However, it
probably won't be convenient to give these sequences directly except
for very simple collections of obstacles and roofs. Instead it
will be necessary to build an interpreter for "obstacle-and-roof language"
and use that to go back to sequences. As scientific domains go,
the obstacle-and-roof world is very simple, but someone confronted
with the sequences of 0's and 1's would probably have to invent
obstacles and roofs in order to explain them. In fact, I'll almost
bet that if an important physics phenomenon produced such sequences,
and there were no a priori reasons to suggest the obstacle-and-roof
model, the problem might persist for years, and the ultimate
inventor of the obstacle-and-roof theory would rate a Nobel prize.
The fact that the Solomonoff model gives theories of the
obstacle-and-roof world that are asymptotically optimal as the
number of obstacles and roofs goes to infinity wouldn't be mentioned
in the Nobel citation, although in the acceptance speech, the
inventor would thank the programmers who generated the sequences
he compared with observation.
This is already too long, and I'll discuss the
use of circumscription to formalize Occam's razor later.
∂15-Jan-83 1326 PAT F1
Could you call Fenaughty to find out about the F1? Thanks.
∂15-Jan-83 1526 MINSKY @ MIT-MC correspondence theory of truth
Date: Saturday, 15 January 1983 18:25-EST
Sender: MINSKY @ MIT-OZ
From: MINSKY @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: DAM @ MIT-OZ, phil-sci%mit-oz @ MIT-MC
Subject: correspondence theory of truth
In-reply-to: The message of 15 Jan 1983 14:26-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
In fact, I'll almost bet that if an important physics
phenomenon produced such sequences, and there were no a priori
reasons to suggest the obstacle-and-roof model, the problem
might persist for years, and the ultimate inventor of the
obstacle-and-roof theory would rate a Nobel prize.
I agree. In fact, when I mentioned that Levin was working on
approximations to Solomonoff's theory, that might make it
heuristically computable, I forgot to say that I do not believe this
can succeed in general. In fact, I think JMC and I probably agree
that this amount to finding heuristics that would solve AI problems in
general, and it seems unlikely that there are clean schemes that find
"simplest hypotheses" reliably with modest calculations. (I haven't
decided whether to consider the computations done by Nobelists to be
within the class of "modest" they probably are, in the sense sense
that computers may do such calculations within the next millenium.)
By the way, many of the germs of the Solomonoff-Kolmogoroff-Chaitin
ideas are in the obscure paper by McCarthy in "Automata Studies",
since in that paper he introduces the idea of making shortest
descriptions by compositions, etc., of previously shortest
descriptions. As I recall, he proposes to introduce a novel code for
the Turing machine to test only after exhausting compositions of prior
ones. (But I forget whether there is a weighting on whether the other
short descriptions have been "useful". Sadly, I can't find a copy of
Automata Studies.)
I agree with what you think I would agree with. Which Levin is this?
∂15-Jan-83 1617 DAM @ MIT-MC correspondence theory of truth - Circumscription and Occam
Date: Saturday, 15 January 1983 19:14-EST
Sender: DAM @ MIT-OZ
From: DAM @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: phil-sci%mit-oz @ MIT-MC
Subject: correspondence theory of truth - Circumscription and Occam
In-reply-to: The message of 15 Jan 1983 14:26-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
I have spent some time studying circumscription and am
interested in your ideas concerning the relationship between this and
Occam's razor (I do indeed spell poorly). By the way I view
circumscription as a special case of the mu-calculus (I have forgotten
the reference). The basic idea is to construct sentences of the form
(min P Q) where Q is a second order predicate (a predicate on
predicates) and P is a predicate. (min P Q) is true just in case Q(P)
is true and there is no subset P' of P such that Q(P'). The statement
(min P Q) can be assumed, proven false, or proven true, just as any
other statement of logic. However such statements can be used to
define the natural numbers (let P be the predicate "natural number"
and let Q be (lambda (P) P(0) and P(x) implies P(S(x)))). Therefore
there can be no complete inference procedure.
In the mu-calculus Q is required to be of the form:
(lambda (P) (forall (x) Phi(x) implies P(x)))
where Phi is required to be syntactically monotonic in P (i.e. P
occurs inside an even number of negations). This ensures the
existence of a unique minimum.
The mu-calculus can express the general notion of a well
founded order, something not expressible in first order logic or even
in L-omega1-omega. On the other hand the mu-calculus can not directly
express the notion of its model being finite, something which is
expressible in constructive L-omega1-omega (but not first order logic).
David Mc
P.S. I like your example of the object in the roofed box. It indeed
demonstrates the need for ontological development as well as the
answering of open "questions" which are formulated in a pre-existing
language. Does your model of Occam's razor handle ontological
development (i.e. changes in the "basic" language in terms of which
theories are formulated and in terms of which raw "perceptions"
are converted to statements)?
Subject: correspondence model of truth
In reply to: DAM of 1983-jan-15 19:14
I wonder if you would make an effort to find the reference to
mu-calculus. As you have described it, it is more general than the
circumscription of my paper in one respect - allowing more general
Q's - and less general in another. I do not restrict the way P
appears in Q. On the one hand, I cannot guarantee that a model
exists, but that circumscription allows non-unique minimal models
as when I circumscribe the predicate isblock in the sentence
"isblock(a) or isblock(b)". Such models are important in some of
the proposed AI applicaions. The new version of circumscription
allows minimizing an arbitrary formula, and therefore may equal
mu-calculus in this respect. I'm still writing the paper but let
me offer the following formula (modifying the notation so as not
to make presumptions about the reader's character set).
Q'(P) iff Q(P) and (P')(Q(P') and (x)(E(P',x) implies E(P,x))
implies (x)(E(P,x) implies E(P',x))
Here Q is a defined second order predicate and E is a formula
in a predicate and a variable. Q'(P) then requires that P
minimize E(P,x) subject to the condition Q. The ordering in
which the minimization occurs is then given by
R1 lesseq R2 iff (x)(R1(x) implies R2(x).
Writing the two formulas with more characters (for those with reasonable
displays) gives
Q'(P) ≡ Q(P) ∧ (∀P'.Q(P') ∧ ∀x.(E(P',x)⊃E(P,x)) ⊃ ∀x.(E(P,x) ⊃ E(P',x))
and
λx.R1(x) ≤ λx.R2(x) ≡ ∀x.(R1(x) ⊃ R2(x)).
From your hints, I would imagine that there is an important
difference of motivation, since I believe that for AI, the finite
cases are much more important than the use of the formalism to
define concepts like well ordering.
The new circumscription doesn't handle "ontological development"
by itself, but I am trying to use it to design what I have been
calling "elaboration tolerant" formalisms. Here is the example
problem I am now working on. I have written down the problem,
but I haven't yet written down my idea of a solution. If anyone
else regards this as an interesting problem, i.e. the problem of
generalizing a predicate to take an increased number of arguments
without losing information not refuted, I'd be glad to see what
they come up with.
Consider at(Stanford, California) in view of the fact that,
although it is unlikely, the trustees could decide to move Stanford
to New Jersey. In a sufficiently wide context, we might therefore
write at(Stanford,California,s). Our objectives are the following:
1. We want to include at(Stanford,California) in a database without
even imagining that it might be movable.
2. We want to be able to generalize to wider contexts. In these
such a generalization, it should be conceivable that Stanford is
movable.
3. When such a generalization is made, it is a non-monotonic conclusion,
that at(Stanford,California) is still the appropriate expression -
unless the movability of Stanford is considered.
4. Merely considering the possible movability of Stanford doesn't
prevent at(Stanford,California) from being said. However, we can
also say something like at(Stanford,California,s).
5. When we are forced to at(Stanford,California,s), the usual
properties of Stanford go along with it by suitable non-monotonic
reasoning.
6. The reasoning may force the splitting of the concept into
several. Some refer to the University, which may move and some
refer to purely geographical features like Lake Lagunita which
continues immovable. There is also the post office.
In the above we have used s as a situation but perhaps
also as a context. Pat Hayes and Bob Moore do things this way,
but I have always been dubious though without convincing objections.
We'll see whether we need distinct concepts.
Here's a try at solving the problem:
1. We reify at(Stanford,California) so the alternate
formulations are now holds(at(Stanford,California)) and
holds(at(Stanford,California),s).
...
∂15-Jan-83 1726 LGC ATREAS is up
A small initial version of the commonsense reasoner that I've been working on
is now up and runnable. The file ATREAS.DOC[AT,LGC] provides documentation
and other explanations. Your comments, advice, etc. on the program and/or
documentation will be welcome. The passive-mode demo isn't yet as clean as it
could be, but you'll probably prefer to run the active-mode self-demo anyway.
-- Lew
P.S. RPG is currently working on a different reasoner; we plan at some
appropriate point to merge our efforts.
∂15-Jan-83 2150 KDF @ MIT-MC
Date: Saturday, 15 January 1983 21:32-EST
Sender: KDF @ MIT-OZ
From: KDF @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
In-reply-to: The message of 15 Jan 1983 14:30-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Whether the book is worth it depends on how interested you are
in psychology - Bundy and I are the only AI chapters, I think. I
should be able to mail off the chapter this coming week. I'm working
on a new QP theory paper, which will be submitted to the AI journal,
that Ill send when it is in shape. It is an expansion of the one I
gave you at AAAI, although it should be more readable and many
typos/bugs are fixed.
∂16-Jan-83 1643 HEWITT @ MIT-OZ theories of meaning
Date: Sunday, 16 January 1983 19:41-EST
From: HEWITT @ MIT-OZ
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: gavan%mit-oz @ MIT-MC, Hewitt @ MIT-XX, phil-sci%mit-oz @ MIT-MC
Reply-to: Hewitt at MIT-XX
Subject: theories of meaning
In-reply-to: The message of 16 Jan 1983 11:54-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Date: Sunday, 16 January 1983 11:54-EST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
To: gavan%mit-oz at MIT-MC
cc: phil-sci%mit-oz at MIT-MC
Re: correspondence theory of truth
Before Godel, it was possible to believe in a correspondence
theory and to hope that the truth about every question would
eventually be determined. If you don't separate the notion of
truth from the procedures for determining it, then you find yourself
unable to accept a proposition as meaningful unless you have
some advance assurance that it is decidable. This is contrary to
common sense practice, which makes conjectures without prejudice
to being able to settle them.
(Alas for people inclined to constructivist wishful thinking,
I fear it is going to be necessary to have theories
that allow discussing propositions without prejudice to whether
they are meaningful - let alone decidable.
In the above theory of meaning, a sentence would be meaningless if there
were no partial procedures for establishing or refuting the sentence.
Does this cause a problem?
Subject: theories of meaning
Replying to: Hewitt's of 1983 Jan 16 19:41est
"I don't believe that your argument quite settles the debate. Suppose
that the meaning of a sentence is taken to be the (partial) procedures
for establishing or refuting the sentence. Then there is no requirement
that the sentence be decidable. Does this theory of meaning have a
standard name? Any good citations?"
I don't see what the partial procedures would be in either the
case of the continuum hypothesis in mathematics or the question of
whether Napoleon died of arsenic poisoning. I believe 18th or early
19th century references can be found claiming that the geography of
the far side of the moon and the composition of the sun are both
meaningless, because there were no procedures for determining them.
So I suppose the question of whether another question is meaningful
may be meaningful, but again it may not be clear whether there is
a procedure for deciding whether a question is meaningful.
I don't know about citations. Try the Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
∂16-Jan-83 1727 ME mail
∂16-Jan-83 1703 JMC mail
Is anyone taking steps to have the mailer know about routings?
Thus the mailer should be able to translate MAIL FOO%MIT-OZ into
MAIL "FOO%MIT-OZ"%MC.
ME - Yup, it can already handle mail to OZ. Coming shortly is mail
to the TCP world.
∂16-Jan-83 1856 KDF @ MIT-MC theories of meaning
Date: Sunday, 16 January 1983 21:53-EST
Sender: KDF @ MIT-OZ
From: KDF @ MIT-MC
To: HEWITT @ MIT-OZ <Hewitt @ MIT-XX>
Cc: gavan%mit-oz @ MIT-MC, John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>,
phil-sci%mit-oz @ MIT-MC
Subject: theories of meaning
In-reply-to: The message of 16 Jan 1983 19:41-EST from HEWITT at MIT-OZ <Hewitt at MIT-XX>
I belive what you were discussing ("meaning being determined by
the (partial) procedures for establishing or refuting the sentence")
is what Bill Woods calls "Procedural Semantics". Bill has reports
availible.
∂17-Jan-83 1059 JJW 206 grading
I have final exams from TV students, and several term projects that were
turned in late.
Also, several students have said that they don't plan to turn in a project,
or would like to know what their grade would be without one. When can you
look at these and determine their grades?
∂17-Jan-83 1321 KDF @ MIT-MC "When Heat and Temperature were One"
Date: Monday, 17 January 1983 15:57-EST
Sender: KDF @ MIT-OZ
From: KDF @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Subject: "When Heat and Temperature were One"
In-reply-to: The message of 15 Jan 1983 14:30-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Sue Carey is sending you a xerox of the page proofs. I'll
ship you a copy of my new QP paper when it has gone through this
cycle of comments (a few weeks, probably).
Ken
∂17-Jan-83 1507 BATALI @ MIT-MC correspondence theory of truth
Date: Monday, 17 January 1983 18:04-EST
Sender: BATALI @ MIT-OZ
From: BATALI @ MIT-MC
To: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
Cc: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>, phil-sci%mit-oz @ MIT-MC
Subject: correspondence theory of truth
In-reply-to: The message of 17 Jan 1983 17:36-EST from GAVAN
Date: Monday, 17 January 1983 17:36-EST
From: GAVAN
Yet it also seems apparent that the correspondence
theory requires a dualist metaphysics. That's my problem with it.
I'm an internalist.
If this is the main problem with the correspondence theory, it would
be nice to see an explanation of how the a dualistic metaphysics is
required.
∂17-Jan-83 2140 DCL ARPA proposal briefing Wed. Feb. 2nd
To: TOB@SU-AI
CC: DCL@SU-AI, ZM@SU-AI, JMC@SU-AI, wiederhold@SRI-AI,
wiederhold%SUMEX-AIM@SU-SCORE, bscott@SU-SCORE, MAS@SU-AI
Col. Duane Adams (ARPA) and John Machado (NAVALEX) are visiting Stanford
on Wednesday February 2nd. Duane Adams has requested that a meeting be
set up so that he can discuss with us the next ARPA proposal.
The best time seems to be 9.00am - 11.00am.
Please let me know ASAP if you can make it, or the better part of it; if not
please suggest an alternative time Wednesday morning if possible.
In order to reduce the processing time for the next contract Duane wants
each PI on the proposal to produce an overview abstract of his new research
proposal for FY84, FY85, and FY86. It should state the main goals, milestones,
expected deliverables, and should be about 2 pages total length.
ALSO, the abstract should give the total budget figure for each fiscal year;
itemization of the budget is NOT requested at this time.
I think the proposal abstract will be used to set the bureaucratic wheels
moving while we are writing the proposal and negotiating the details with
the various project managers.
- David
∂18-Jan-83 1500 JMC*
dinner with Sten-Ake
∂18-Jan-83 1515 Gavan Duffy <GAVAN at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC> Lakatos and Solomonoff
Date: Tuesday, 18 January 1983, 17:50-EST
From: Gavan Duffy <GAVAN at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
Subject: Lakatos and Solomonoff
To: JMC at SU-AI
Cc: phil-sci at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Date: Monday, 17 January 1983 14:23-EST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
To: gavan
cc: dam, phil-sci
Re: Lakatos and Solomonoff
Lakatos, if Proofs and Refutation is the book in question is concerned
with the social process whereby the mathematical community comes to
accept a theory. Perhaps it also supposes that the meaning of a theorem
and its truth is also socially determined.
The work in question is "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific
Research Programmes," in Lakatos and Musgrave, eds., *Criticism and the
Growth of Knowledge* (Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 91-196. An
FTP-able summary (which excludes Lakatos' evidence drawn from the
history of the physical sciences) is on OZ. Hmmm... Since OZ is on the
wrong network for you, I'll put a copy on AI. It will be FTP-able
from AI:JCMA;LAKA TOS
∂18-Jan-83 1526 ME accidental "chain letter"?
ME - I don't know if (any part of) this message really came from, or was
intended for, you, but it mentions you in the first header below. Perhaps
you've already received another copy. It's pretty funny anyway, with
things like "reason: '(Reason not known)'" and no From: line in the
original message.
∂18-Jan-83 0942 CSNET MEMO SERVICE (MMDF) <mmdf.hp-labs@UDel-Relay> Failed mail
Date: 17 Jan 83 23:13:28-PST (Mon)
From: CSNET MEMO SERVICE (MMDF) <mmdf.hp-labs@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Failed mail
To: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) at Mit-Mc, JMC.SU-AI.UDel at UDel-Relay
Via: HP-Labs; 17 Jan 83 23:41-PDT
Via: rand-relay; 18 Jan 83 6:39-EST
Your message could not be delivered to 'intelqa!omsvax!pmw'
for the following reason: '(Reason not known)'
Your message follows:
Date: 16 Jan 83 22:24:44-EST (Sun)
From: MEMO SERVICE (MMDF) <mmdf@udel-relay>
Subject: Failed mail
To: intelqa!omsvax!pmw@HP-Labs@rand-relay
Via: UDel; 16 Jan 83 21:25-PDT
Via: UDel; 17 Jan 83 23:13-PDT
Your message could not be delivered to 'sri-unix!goldfarb at Ucf-Cs'
for the following reason: 'Unknown address "sri-unix!goldfarb@Ucf-Cs"'
Your message follows:
Date: Thu Jan 13 08:55:51 1983
To: intelqa!hplabs!sri-unix!goldfarb@ucf-cs
Subject: 8086 cross assemblers
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
Via: HP-Labs; 14 Jan 83 19:15-PDT
Via: rand-relay; 15 Jan 83 0:45-EST
have you tried Intel Corp.
3065 Bowers Ave.
Santa Clara, CA ??
they support a VAX resident cross development environment that should
include ASM86.
Patrick Walsh
Intel Corp.
5200 Elam Young Pkwy.
Hillsboro, OR
∂18-Jan-83 1549 GAVAN @ MIT-MC correspondence theory
Date: Tuesday, 18 January 1983 18:39-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: batali @ MIT-OZ, phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
Subject: correspondence theory
In-reply-to: The message of 18 Jan 83 1500 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Date: 18 Jan 83 1500 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
To: gavan, batali
cc: phil-sci at MIT-OZ
Re: correspondence theory
Subject: correspondence theory
In reply to: GAVAN of 1983 jan 18
I don't have a design for a life-world physicist. The point is the
definition of truth. Suppose we have such a physicist program
in the life-world, and it generates certain sentences in the
configuration of life cells we call its memory, and we have
an interpretation of these sentences ask making assertions about
the life world. Then, we say that a sentences is true provided
what it asserts about the life world is true. For example, the
life physicist may produce sentences interpretable as a theory
of cellular automata. There may be another sentences in the
same language asserting that the particular world is a certain
cellular automaton. If it asserts that its world is the life
automaton, we have the desired CORRESPONDENCE between the sentence
and the world.
Which is it? A correspondence between a sentence and the world or a
correspondence between two sentences? The latter is trivial, and
would not seem to have much to do with "truth" at all. The former is
impossible, since the world and words and sentences in a language
aren't coextensive. Not only are there be multiple ways of expressing
the same thing, but there are also some things that are ineffable.
Some people have private languages for expressing certain things.
Some people mean different things by the same utterances. There is no
correspondence, not one you can describe, anyway.
See Putnam's "The Meaning of `Meaning'" in volume I of his
Philosophical Papers.
Subject: Correspondence theory
In reply to: GAVAN of 1983 Jan 18 1549
A last try: If the life automaton writes in its memory a sentence
asserting in the language we suppose it to be using that the physics
of its world is life, i.e. writes it in a sense similar to that in which
our physicists write that our universe satisfies the genral theory of
relativity, then we
say that the sentence is true, because what it says corresponds to
the structure of its world. This is the sense in which Russell,
who invented the term "correspondence theory" and the other advocates
of the theory, going back to the ancient Greeks meant to define truth
by correspondence. Defining truth by such correspondences is distinct
from defining it by coherence or by consensus.
Volume 1 of Putnam's Philosophical Papers doesn't include one called
"The Meaning of Meaning", but Putnam generally characterizes himself
as a realist, both in physics and mathematics, e.g. on page 60 in an
article entitled "What is mathematical truth?", he begins, " In this
paper I argue that mathematics should be interpreted realistically
- that is, that mathematics makes assertions that are objectively true
or false, independently of the human mind, and that SOMETHING answers
to such mathematical notions as 'set' and 'function'."
I can't find Volume 2 at the moment.
∂18-Jan-83 2340 KDF @ MIT-MC Correspondence theory & GAVAN
Date: Wednesday, 19 January 1983 02:35-EST
Sender: KDF @ MIT-OZ
From: KDF @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Subject: Correspondence theory & GAVAN
In-reply-to: The message of 18 Jan 83 2231 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Your patience and tolerance is remarkable.
Ken
∂19-Jan-83 0203 GAVAN @ MIT-MC Putnam, Life Worlds, Real Worlds, Natural Language, and Natural Numbers.
Date: Wednesday, 19 January 1983 04:56-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: batali @ MIT-OZ, shooting-gallery @ MIT-OZ
Subject: Putnam, Life Worlds, Real Worlds, Natural Language, and Natural Numbers.
In-reply-to: The message of 18 Jan 83 2231 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Date: 18 Jan 83 2231 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
To: gavan, batali
cc: phil-sci at MIT-OZ
Re: Correspondence theory
Subject: Correspondence theory
In reply to: GAVAN of 1983 Jan 18 1549
A last try: If the life automaton writes in its memory a sentence
asserting in the language we suppose it to be using that the physics
of its world is life, i.e. writes it in a sense similar to that in which
our physicists write that our universe satisfies the genral theory of
relativity, then we say that the sentence is true, because what it says
corresponds to the structure of its world.
I understand what you're saying, I just disagree.
This is the sense in which Russell,
who invented the term "correspondence theory" and the other advocates
of the theory, going back to the ancient Greeks meant to define truth
by correspondence. Defining truth by such correspondences is distinct
from defining it by coherence or by consensus.
The coherence theory is both distinct from and incompatible with the
correspondence theory. The consensus theory is distinct from both but
not incompatible with either. The consensus theory is posited at a
different (social) level of analysis. The mathematical "truths" would
not be "true" if mathematicians did not consent to them. Perhaps they
consent to them because they think they correspond to something,
perhaps not. But either way, they consent to them nevertheless.
Volume 1 of Putnam's Philosophical Papers doesn't include one called
"The Meaning of Meaning", but Putnam generally characterizes himself
as a realist, both in physics and mathematics, e.g. on page 60 in an
article entitled "What is mathematical truth?", he begins, " In this
paper I argue that mathematics should be interpreted realistically
- that is, that mathematics makes assertions that are objectively true
or false, independently of the human mind, and that SOMETHING answers
to such mathematical notions as 'set' and 'function'."
I can't find Volume 2 at the moment.
Well, I probably did mix the volume numbers. "The Meaning of
`Meaning'" has a nice critique of the correspondence theory, whichever
volume it's in.
Please remember that physics and mathematics are not everything! Not
every theory in every discipline can be stated mathematically. when
making a truth-claim about a theory of truth, you have to be very
careful that your range of application is not too narrow.
Putnam does not commit himself in the quotation you present. He says
that mathematics should be INTERPRETED realistically, but it doesn't
necessarily follow that he is therefore a realist. Asserting that
"mathematicians make assertions that are objectively true or false,
independently of the human mind" is not the same as asserting that
human minds have independent access to the objective truth or
falsehood of those assertions. Even if Putnam is a realist in physics
and mathematics (he's probably more of a pragmatist), need he also be
a realist in, say, metaphysics? He is in fact, neither a metaphysical
realist nor a metaphysical idealist. As long as we're quoting, here's
a brief passage from *Reason, Truth and History*, page xi.
"I shall advance a view in which the mind does not simply `copy' a
world which admits of description by One True Theory. But my view is
not a view in which the mind makes up the world, either . . . . If
one must use metaphorical language, then let the metaphor be this: the
mind and the world jointly make up the mind and the world."
Here's two more, from page 73.
"The trouble . . . is not that correspondences between words or
concepts and other entities don't exist, but that too many
correspondences exist. To pick out just one correspondence between
words or mental signs and mind-independent things we would have
already to have referential access to the mind-independent things.
You can't single out a correspondence between two things by just
squeezing one of them hard [or doing anything else to just one of
them); you cannot single out a correspondence between our concepts and
the supposed noumenal objects without access to the noumenal objects."
"To an internalist this is not objectionable: why should there not
sometimes be equally coherent but incompatible conceptual schemes
which fit our experiential beliefs equally well? If truth is not
(unique) correspondence then the possibility of a certain pluralism is
opened up. But the motive of the metaphysical realist is to save the
notion of the God's Eye Point of View, i.e., the One True Theory."
Perhaps you could interpret this one for me. It's on pages 68-69.
"First of all, there is the question of finitism: human practice,
actual and potential, extends only finitely far. Even if we say we
can, we cannot `go on counting forever.' If there are possible
divergent extensions of our practice, then there are possible
divergent extensions of even the natural number sequence -- our
practice, or our mental representations, etc., do not single out a
unique `standard model' of the natural number sequence. We are
tempted to think they do because we easily shift from `we could go on
counting' to `an ideal machine could go on counting' (or, `an ideal
mind could go on counting'); but talk of ideal machines (or minds) is
very different from talk of actual machines and persons. Talk of what
an ideal machine could do is talk WITHIN mathematics, it cannot fix
the interpretation OF mathematics."
∂19-Jan-83 0250 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Re-Arrangements
Date: 19 Jan 1983 0248-PST
From: Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A>
Subject: Re-Arrangements
To: jmc at SU-AI
CC: LLW at S1-A
∂19-Jan-83 0057 John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI> previous committment
Date: 18 Jan 83 2156 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
Subject: previous committment
To: llw@S1-A
I forgot that I have to be at a seminar at noon and so couldn't get
to LLL before 2:30 but can stay into the evening. If I hear from you
that we could still interact, I'll come; otherwise I'll phone and
arrange another time.
[John: The later arrival time is fine with me, but I have a dinner
engagement commencing at 1800 with out-of-town folks which I expect will
chew up most of the middle evening. What's your pleasure? Lowell]
∂19-Jan-83 1158 MINSKY @ MIT-MC The smallest description of the past is the best theory for the future?
Date: Wednesday, 19 January 1983 14:52-EST
Sender: MINSKY @ MIT-OZ
From: MINSKY @ MIT-MC
To: DAM @ MIT-OZ, MINSKY @ MIT-OZ, JMC @ SAIL
Cc: Hewitt @ MIT-OZ, phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
Subject: The smallest description of the past is the best theory for the future?
In-reply-to: The message of 19 Jan 1983 14:13-EST from DAM
I guess no one has actually read Solomonoff.
The idea of a "small change" is just as obscure as that of "similar
theories", when you think about it.
As for hill-climbing, no one seems to grasp the full power - and the
full horror - of Solomonoff's idea!!!
For example, if a good basis for theory formation were "hill-climbing",
then, somewhere in the aggregate of relatively short Turing machine
programs would be one that
(i) describes a formalism and a procedure for "hill-climbing" with it.
(ii) describes some guidelines and/or exceptions.
(iii) perhaps supplies some compactly-described "number" that tells
how long to run that procedure before finding the allegedly
good theory.
(This idea is also deeply embedded in Chaitin's thinking.)
As for "similar theories, I should add another, more siubtle point.
Solomonoff himself observed that a "single theory" might be brittle
and subject to sudden jumps with regard to reformulations. ( I am not
even sure that this is a serious concern, but he is.) So Solomonoff
proposes that the way to do induction is NOT to use only the simplest
- that is, the shortest - description of the data. Instead he considers
the ensemble of procedures that "account" for the data, and then
weights their predictions inversely with their lengths. (The
weighting, he argues, corresponds to 2**(- length). This appears to
give the method mor stability.
Finally, it is worth noting that this idea - that induction is based
on the ENSEMBLE of prediction methods that account for the data,
weighted by their complexity - seems to have been overlooked by
philosophers. It makes that OCCAM idea seem laughably silly, to me,
at least in retrospect. Why does everyone assume that there has to be
just one theory at a time.
∂19-Jan-83 1536 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Arrangements
Date: 19 Jan 1983 1532-PST
From: Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A>
Subject: Arrangements
To: jmc at SU-AI
CC: LLW at S1-A
∂19-Jan-83 1507 John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
Date: 19 Jan 83 1509 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
To: llw@S1-A
Would next Wednesday be suitable?
[John: Unfortunately, I have to be at a working dinner in Washington next
Wednesday evening, and thus must take the morning flight there. I'll be
there Thursday and possibly Friday. How about earlier in the week, or
sometime the following week? Lowell]
∂19-Jan-83 2349 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Meeting
Date: 19 Jan 1983 2346-PST
From: Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A>
Subject: Meeting
To: jmc at SU-AI
CC: LLW at S1-A
∂19-Jan-83 1549 John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
Date: 19 Jan 83 1551 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
To: llw@S1-A
How about Monday Jan 31 or Friday Feb 4?
[John: The 4th is less previously-cluttered-up for me. Lowell]
The fourth it shall be.
∂20-Jan-83 0051 SHAPIRO at SRI-AI My schedule
Date: 19 Jan 1983 2141-PST
From: SHAPIRO at SRI-AI
Subject: My schedule
To: jmc at SU-AI
Lats week of January: MIT, Shimon Ullman (617)-253-5033
and harvard, Jan Komorowski, (617)-495-5817
First two weeks of February: IBM Yourktown, Walter Wilson (914)-463-1153
Third week of February: Digital Hudson, Michael Poe (617)-486-6098
also poe@dec-marlboro.
I will occasionally check my mail at SRI-AI.
-- Udi.
-------
∂20-Jan-83 1607 YOM Concepts paper
To: JMC
CC: DFH
You have two copies of the Concepts paper, one in [E76,JMC], and the
other in [F78,JMC]. The second one is one page longer, although it
seems quite similar. I gave Dianna the 78 version, assuming it is an
updated version of the older.
-yom
∂21-Jan-83 1109 CLT
Adrian Walker
IBM Research Division
5600 Cottle Road
SanJose CA 95193
408-256-6999
CSNET ADRIAN@IBM-SJ
∂21-Jan-83 1354 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
Date: Friday, 21 January 1983 14:38-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
In-reply-to: The message of 20 Jan 83 1123 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
With regard to giving emergent research programs sufficient time,
my group is expecting a visit on February 2 from Colonel Adams of DARPA
and John Machado of the Office of Naval Research. I don't know whether
they are adherents of Popper, Kuhn or Lakatos in determining how much
time they should give emergent research programs.
Why don't you ask them? While you're at it, ask them what they think of the
role of metaphor and analogy in hypothesis formation. Chuckle.
More seriously, I
am not aware, perhaps I should be, of research programs that have
retained or lost adherents as a direct result of Popper's advocacy.
Hmm, perhaps the mistaken (in my opinion) abandonment in the 1960s
of much language translation research was a result of Popperian ideology.
There you go.
In reply to my arguments that the world may well be such that the
truth cannot always be ascertained, you ask why I still uphold the
correspondence theory. My point was that whether a statement is
true depends on the world and not on the methods available to the
truth seeker for guessing the truth or confirming his guesses.
What world? The one that's "really" there or the one you guess is there?
To put the matter sharply, if a British museum monkey types "The earth
is round", then it has typed a true sentence of English, while if it
types "The earth is flat" it has typed a false sentence of English.
The monkey's state of mind, if any, is irrelevant.
If a monkey randomly types "the earth is round", then he has type as
random a string as "bdr hwt beebdhmet". "The earth is round" is a
true sentence of English only if there's an English-interpreter around
to interpret it and this interpreter believes the string to represent
something true. Then the string refers to something true for the
interpreter. Yes, the monkey's state of mind is irrelevant. What's
not irrelevant is the state of the mind which is interpreting the
string. Suppose you counter that the monkey randomly types the string
"the earth is round" in a possible world that had no
English-interpreters. What then? Does the statement represent
something true? For whom?
Subject: correspondence theory
In reply to: Gavan of 1983 jan 21
Gavan: Indeed! Even if there were no English interpreters, the statement
"The world is round" would still be a true sentence of English. As far
as I can tell, this would be the position of all the supporters of the
correspondence theory including Tarski. A sentence in a language
is an abstract object existing mathematically independent of whether
anyone ever interprets it or even exists to interpret it.
∂21-Jan-83 1507 Nilsson at SRI-AI AAAI and On-line literature
Date: 21 Jan 1983 1505-PST
From: Nilsson at SRI-AI
Subject: AAAI and On-line literature
To: Amarel at RUTGERS, bobrow at PARC, buchanan at SUMEX-AIM,
To: BEngelmore at SRI-KL, LErman at SRI-KL,
To: csd.genesereth at SCORE, grosz at SRI-AI, hart at SRI-KL,
To: jmc at SU-AI, mcdermot at YALE, minsky at MIT-AI,
To: nilsson at SRI-AI, reddy at CMU-10A, rich at MIT-AI,
To: aaai-office at SUMEX-AIM, stan at SRI-AI, gjs at MIT-AI,
To: tenenbaum at SRI-KL, walker at SRI-AI, dwaltz at BBNG,
To: bonnie.upenn at UDEL
cc: Kahn at USC-ISI, Denicoff at USC-ISI
I recently received the following suggestion from Mike Genesereth.
The AAAI office is also enthusiastic about the idea. Before making
any specific proposal to the Excom, I'd like them to see Mike's
suggestion and forward any comments, suggestions, modifications to
me (cc AAAI@sri-ai). A specific proposal might then arise out of
this dialog--in the not-too-distant future. I'm also sending a
copy of this msg to Bob Kahn and Marvin Denicoff in case they have
advice on the matter. Regards, Nils
Nils,
This is a written version of the suggestion we discussed
at Leesburg concerning the creation of an online abstract service
for AI.
As the amount of AI literature grows, the difficulties of
keeping track of it all are becoming more pronounced. It's time
we exploited our computer systems and networks in facilitating our
research. Although a number of commercial online abstract services
already exist, these services are inconvenient to use and their
listings are not really up-to-date.
It's my opinion that the AAAI can benefit the research community
by establishing an online abstract service accessible via arpanet. The
majority of the research community has access to the net or can get
access. Even if it turns out that commercial facilities like telenet
must be used, I'd encourage some sort of automatic link for those of
us on arpanet machines.
The service I'm recommending would include a complete and
up-to-date catalog of abstracts of AI papers. The software to do
keyword, author, title, and word searches should be fairly simple to
generate or acquire. As you suggested, the facility might also
include a standardized bibliographic reference and automatic
order forms. Eventually, the service might even grow into an
online publishing facility.
In order to set up the service, we would need (1) a machine
(possibly ISI or SUMEX), (2) maintenance personnel to ensure standard
format and to make entries for people without arpanet access, (3)
initial personnel to get past abstracts online and write the necessary
software. Funds to support the service could come from AAAI, ARPA, or
maybe commercial subscribers.
I strongly believe that there is a need for such a service
and a demand (witness Doyle's call for a hardcopy publication of the
same sort). I'd be willing to help out a bit on the organization,
but I'd hope that the AAAI staff could make most of the arrangements
to set up the service and manage it. Let me know what you think
we should do next.
Mike Genesereth
P.S. Please distribute this to the exec committee if you think it
appropriate.
-------
-------
∂21-Jan-83 1911 LGC ANALYST Information for ARPA
Appended below is a list of accomplishments and goals of the Advice-Taking
ANALYST project that RPG and I have constructed for your use in communicating
with ARPA prior to submitting the formal proposal later this spring.
If you haven't yet seen accomplishments 2. and 3., and would like to take an
easy first look at them, the passive-mode demo in ATREAS.DOC[AT,LGC]/9p has
been cleaned up, and is now very easy to run. -- Lew
------------------------------------------------------------
**** Advice-taking ANALYST (Lewis Creary, Richard Gabriel)
Accomplishments (June 1982 - January, 1983)
1. Detailed epistemological studies were made of some of the commonsense factual
reasoning involved in plan production, and of the interaction of this reasoning
with the planning process. This reasoning was found to be quite complex.
2. A prototype commonsense-reasoning module for the ANALYST was implemented
and tested, utilizing the new representation-language, NFLT, and a very
general reasoning graph capable of supporting both forward and backward
reasoning. Active development and extension of this reasoner continues.
3. An interactive research environment for the commonsense reasoner mentioned
in 2. was implemented and tested, consisting of an interactive program control
and four coroutined sub-programs (three of them new) for the convenient
exercise of the reasoner and examination of its results.
4. A second commonsense reasoner was implemented and tested that is used to
explore reasoning techniques in a highly experimental and rapidly changing
fashion. This reasoning program currently comprises 18 reasoning experts
ranging from tautology checkers through various forms of circumscription.
This reasoner uses a simplified representation language and reasoning-graph,
and a somewhat different reasoning algorithm than the one mentioned in 2.
It is intended as an additional experimental tool for the study of proposed
reasoning methods. The successful results of experiments with this reasoner
are incorporated into the more stable reasoner mentioned in 2.
Objectives (February 1983 - December 1986)
1. Further detailed epistemological studies of the commonsense reasoning
involved in planning and plan recognition.
2. Detailed study of the heuristic knowledge employed in commonsense reasoning,
planning, and plan recognition.
3. Further development of and experimentation with the commonsense reasoning
component of ANALYST.
4. Completion, testing, and further development of the plan-producing
component of ANALYST.
5. Design and implementation of a non-trivial memory-indexing scheme for the
ANALYST (the current NFLT discrimination net is not intended for use in
information-retrieval).
6. Transfer of the ANALYST code to a Symbolics 3600 Lisp Machine (for increased
address space and speed).
7. Implementation of an ANALYST capability to recognize an agent's plans,
given his goals and behavior.
8. Implementation of an ANALYST capability to infer an agent's plans and
goals, given his behavior.
9. Implementation of a non-trivial advice-taking capability for the ANALYST.
∂21-Jan-83 2211 MINSKY @ MIT-MC correspondence theory
Date: Saturday, 22 January 1983 01:01-EST
Sender: MINSKY @ MIT-OZ
From: MINSKY @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: gavan @ MIT-OZ, phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
Subject: correspondence theory
In-reply-to: The message of 21 Jan 83 1848 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
McCarthy: Indeed! In fact, when I read Tarski's book on semantics, I
didn't know German, and all the examples were propositions like "Die
Mund ist Blau" and things like that, at whose meaning I could only
guess. I read this when a young student, perhaps as early as high
school, and I believe I missed the point pretty completely. IN fact,
I seem to recall saying to myself - as perhaps GAVAN did - something
like "Well, I guess he's assuming that every educated person
understands German".
The bottom line, unfortunately, was that I decided that if this was
supposed to be a "theory of semantics" then he must be some kind of a
nut. What I thought semantics should be was something like Korzybski
was trying to do, only better. I experienced similar feelings later
when Quine explained to me that "Boston is in Massachusetts" is true
if and only if Boston is in Massachusetts.
Marvin: Indeed! My reaction to Tarski's exposition was the same,
except for reading it in English. The correspondence theory of truth
seems obvious, because it agrees with the common sense notion. It is
only when someone proposes some other theory or denies that there is
any such thing as a true sentence that Tarski's statements seem other
than tautologous, i.e. that there seems to be a need for a theory of
truth. Notice, however, that the correspondence theory requires that there be
something objective to correspond to - a physical world that either agrees or
not with the sentences or mathematical objects such as sets that either
do or don't have the properties asserted. This also is the common
sense view, and hence IS obvious unless challenged. As I understand it,
coherence theories don't require that there be an objective reality, since
they purport only to relate experiences. However, we correspondence
theorists consider that the coherence theorists have been unsuccessful
in relating experiences to one another except in so far as they have
allowed external reality to sneak back into their theories.
In the hopes of eliciting some reaction from someone besides GAVAN, who
seems not to believe in objective reality, I will again
advocate meta-epistemology. We try to get a mathematical
theory of the relation between the strategy of a knowledge
seeker in a world and its success in discovering facts about
the world. This theory doesn't directly involve conjectures
about the real world, because the worlds studied are abstract
mathematical objects. The theory would relate the following
things:
1. The structure of the world. Since we get to postulate the world
or give it any properties we want, it's no mystery to us.
2. The imbedding of the knowledge seeker in the world. He could be
outside it as in Ed Moore's "Gedanken Experiments with Sequential
Machines" in Automata Studies. However, it is more interesting
and gives theories more transferable to ourselves if he is built
as part of it, as in the Conway life world. The imbedding also
includes his input-output relations to the rest of the world.
3. The language used by the knowledge seeker to express his
conjectures about the world. Let's assume that we have an
interpretation of at least part of this language as expressing
assertions about the world.
4. His philosophy of science - what assertions he considers
meaningful and what he regards as evidence.
5. Finally, what he succeeds in discovering about the world, i.e.
the true sentences he generates in the language we interpret as
expressing assertions about the world. Some knowledge seekers,
of course, might generate expressions that could be regarded
as assertions about the world in some other language, but we
won't count them.
The issues that arise include the following:
1. If its language only includes input-output relations, will it
even discover as many input-output relations as someone with
a more liberal philosophy of science?
2. Can we make a good one using the Solomonoff strategies, or rather,
in what kinds of worlds will the Solomonoff strategies be effective?
3. What about mathematics? Lenat's AM worked with numbers and
properties of numbers, but I don't think it had any richer
ontology - if it was formal enough to be said to have an ontology.
∂22-Jan-83 0032 Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC> You and Clarke...
Date: 22 January 1983 03:29 EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: You and Clarke...
To: POURNELLE @ MIT-MC, JMC @ SU-AI
As I said in the copy I sent you, I have put your name
up as a nominee for the Marconi Fellowship. Howefver, they need
a BIO. I can send, or you can, but I have to have it anbd a
bibliography. Or, Of course, we can forget the whole thing,
since I didn't consult you first. Nothing is likely to come of
it any way.
Best,
JEP
∂22-Jan-83 0034 ADMIN.LIBRARY@SU-SCORE (SuNet) thursday talk
Date: Fri 21 Jan 83 08:37:10-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <ADMIN.LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: thursday talk
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Enjoyed your talk very much yesterday. Unlike you warned me in the morning,
I thought you had a lot to say.
Harry Llull
-------
∂22-Jan-83 1040 MINSKY at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC Theory of A Priori
Date: 22 Jan 1983 1333-EST
From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Subject: Theory of A Priori
To: jmc at SU-AI
cc: minsky at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
I sent a several page theory to PHIL-SCI. I didn't send you a copy
because I assume you read that list and it would clutter to have two copies.
However, I value your opinion far beyond the rest of them, so I'll MAIL
it if you're not on PHIL-SCI list normally.
-------
Yes, I prefer not to receive two copies of notes to phil-sci. If this
is also your preference, I won't again send copies of phil-sci messages
to you.
∂22-Jan-83 1254 RPG ARPA
Did you look at that draft of the Common Lisp ARPA proposal I put
on your terminal the other day? If you lost it, it is ARPA.PRE[COM,LSP].
-rpg-
Carl: I keep getting these messages, although I think my messages get
through to phil-sci. Could you pass the problem to the responsible actor.
∂22-Jan-83 2312 The Mailer Daemon <Mailer at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC> Message of 22-Jan-83 01:50:32
Date: 23 Jan 1983 0207-EST
From: The Mailer Daemon <Mailer at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
To: JMC at SU-AI
Subject: Message of 22-Jan-83 01:50:32
Message undelivered after 1 day -- will try for another 2 days:
*PS:<hewitt>maiphilosophy-of-science.txt.1 at MIT-OZ: Append access required
------------
Date: 21 Jan 83 2249 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
To: minsky@MIT-OZ, gavan@MIT-OZ
CC: phil-sci@MIT-OZ
-------
∂23-Jan-83 0304 Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC> Marconi
Date: 23 January 1983 06:03 EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Marconi
To: JMC @ SU-AI
In-reply-to: The message of 22 Jan 83 1502 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
It may not work, (almost certainly will not for THIS year) but
the idea is to get them thinking about computer people and
information in general, rather than the more narrow definitions
of communications they were using.
My assistant can do a lot of the work. Send away.
I'll also enlist Rolf Sinclair on this.
Jerry
∂23-Jan-83 0410 GAVAN @ MIT-MC correspondence theory
Date: Sunday, 23 January 1983 07:06-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
Subject: correspondence theory
In-reply-to: The message of 21 Jan 83 1848 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Date: 21 Jan 83 1848 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
To: gavan
cc: phil-sci at MIT-OZ
Re: correspondence theory
Subject: correspondence theory
In reply to: Gavan of 1983 jan 21
Gavan: Indeed! Even if there were no English interpreters, the statement
"The world is round" would still be a true sentence of English. As far
as I can tell, this would be the position of all the supporters of the
correspondence theory including Tarski. A sentence in a language
is an abstract object existing mathematically independent of whether
anyone ever interprets it or even exists to interpret it.
What, then, is an "abstract object"? Do any of these exist
independent of an interpreter? Does mathematics exist independent of
an interpreter? How do you know? Also, do you believe that all
sentences in all languages can be transformed into mathematical
expressions?
If there were no English interpreters, the statement "the world is
round" would be as random a string as any other typed out by your
British Museum monkey.
∂23-Jan-83 0515 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
Date: Sunday, 23 January 1983 08:06-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: minsky @ MIT-OZ, phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
In-reply-to: The message of 21 Jan 83 2249 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Date: 21 Jan 83 2249 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
To: minsky, gavan
cc: phil-sci at MIT-OZ
Marvin: Indeed! My reaction to Tarski's exposition was the same,
except for reading it in English. The correspondence theory of truth
seems obvious, because it agrees with the common sense notion. It is
only when someone proposes some other theory or denies that there is
any such thing as a true sentence that Tarski's statements seem other
than tautologous, i.e. that there seems to be a need for a theory of
truth. Notice, however, that the correspondence theory requires that there be
something objective to correspond to - a physical world that either agrees or
not with the sentences or mathematical objects such as sets that either
do or don't have the properties asserted. This also is the common
sense view, and hence IS obvious unless challenged.
Consider it challenged. A problem is that what's in the sets is
dependent upon the observer who so classifies the objects. Who is to
independently verify whether some scientist's set-classification
algorithm (the intension) corresponds to the set which includes the
objects with the asserted properties (the extension)? Well, maybe God
can do this, but no one else. If anyone else does it, then he/she is
only comparing his/her extension with what he/she believes is the
extension of the scientist's intension. Would that get us anything
useful? I don't think so.
As I understand it, coherence theories don't require that there be
an objective reality, since they purport only to relate experiences.
Yes, objective reality is not REQUIRED by coherence theories. But,
then again, it's not PROHIBITED either. But you can ASSUME the
existence of an objective reality. You can't prove it exists, as the
ancient sceptics argued. You also can't say that your perception of
reality is THE objective reality, since you're merely a subject, like
the rest of us.
However, we correspondence
theorists consider that the coherence theorists have been unsuccessful
in relating experiences to one another except in so far as they have
allowed external reality to sneak back into their theories.
A coherence theorist need not deny the existence of "reality." Some
idealists do this, but then a coherence theorist need not be an
idealist. He/she might be what Putnam calls an "internalist." An
internalist does not deny the exist of reality. He/she just denies
the "externality" of reality.
In the hopes of eliciting some reaction from someone besides GAVAN, who
seems not to believe in objective reality, I will again
advocate meta-epistemology.
I certainly DO "believe in" reality. But I don't presume to take this
belief as anything more than an article of faith on my part. I feel
that if I did, I'd be setting myself up as God (who of course, if
he/she exists, can be the only being with a meta-epistemology). The
only access I have to reality is the access I have by way of my
beliefs. My beliefs are often confounded by other factors, such as my
desires and the language games I play, so much so that I cannot allow
myself to belief that the reality I "believe in" is an "objective"
one. I don't simply "copy" the world, so I don't presume that what
can be taken for a correspondence is "really" a correspondence.
There's always a residue of doubt, no matter how sure I am (at least I
think so). No OBJECTIVE reality can be known by any subject, only
SUBJECTIVE reality can (unless you can show me a foolproof way to be
objective).
We try to get a mathematical
theory of the relation between the strategy of a knowledge
seeker in a world and its success in discovering facts about
the world. This theory doesn't directly involve conjectures
about the real world, because the worlds studied are abstract
mathematical objects. . . .
As I said earlier, this project might prove useful for some purpose
within mathematics, but I can't see how it could be applied to
anything more empirical than that. Do you? If so, how could you
interpret your results to have meaning outside the domain of pure
mathematics? How could it be applied, say, to the social sciences?
∂23-Jan-83 0822 Charles Rich <RICH @ MIT-MC> AAAI and On-line literature
Date: 23 January 1983 11:19-EST (Sunday)
Sender: RICH @ MIT-OZ
From: Charles Rich <RICH @ MIT-MC>
To: Nilsson @ SRI-AI
Cc: aaai-office @ SUMEX-AIM, Amarel @ RUTGERS, BEngelmore @ SRI-KL,
bobrow @ PARC, bonnie.upenn @ UDEL, buchanan @ SUMEX-AIM,
csd.genesereth @ SCORE, Denicoff @ USC-ISI, dwaltz @ BBNG,
gjs @ MIT-AI, grosz @ SRI-AI, hart @ SRI-KL, jmc @ SU-AI,
Kahn @ USC-ISI, LErman @ SRI-KL, mcdermot @ YALE,
minsky @ MIT-AI, reddy @ CMU-10A, stan @ SRI-AI,
tenenbaum @ SRI-KL, walker @ SRI-AI
Subject: AAAI and On-line literature
In-reply-to: The message of 21 Jan 1983 18:07-EST from Nilsson at SRI-AI
Sounds like an excellent idea. I suggest however that we look
into simply buying some existing software for this purpose (of
which there are myriad -- I can give you name of someone at
MIT who knows all about this area if necessary) rather
than writing a homebrew.
-CR
∂23-Jan-83 1149 DAM @ MIT-MC Corrospondence Theory
Date: Sunday, 23 January 1983 14:38-EST
Sender: DAM @ MIT-OZ
From: DAM @ MIT-MC
To: JMC @ SU-AI
cc: Phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
Subject: Corrospondence Theory
Date: 21 Jan 83 2249 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
In the hopes of eliciting some reaction from someone besides GAVAN, who
seems not to believe in objective reality, I will again
advocate meta-epistemology.
I tend to agree with Gavan in that "I do not believe in" a
single objective reality. I do believe in objective empirical truth
accessible through sense data via Occam's razor. Furthermore I think
that the corrospondence theory of truth is an extremely important
paradigm and analytic tool for epistemology. I plan to give a
detailed response to your message after the discussion of the
objectivity of mathematics has died down a bit.
David McAllester
∂23-Jan-83 1546 CLT
i am going to play music for a while (at the knoll)
∂24-Jan-83 1019 CG proposal for arpa
The obvious thing for me to do with respect to the ARPA proposal
is to canibalize my recent NSF proposal. Would you like a new
(hard) copy of that proposal? In any case, here's the proposal abstract:
Automatic Construction of Special Purpose Programs, with Applications
to Computer Graphics and Computer Vision
In software development, the aims of efficiency and generality are often
in conflict. It is common that specialized programs, which take into
account complex details of the situation in which they are used, can be
made much faster than cleaner and more general methods. The conflict can
be eased through the use of a kind of automatic programming in which fast
specialized programs for a collection of related tasks are constructed
automatically. This style of automatic programming enterprise - which may
be referred to as special purpose automatic programming - differs in
several respects from the better known variety in which programs are
automatically derived from logical specifications. First, the primary aim
of special purpose automatic programming is efficiency rather than
replacement of human programming effort, although there is of course
substantial overlap between these aims. Second, special purpose automatic
programming is far more tractable at the current stage of knowledge than
the other variety, since the class of programs to be generated by any one
synthesizer of special purpose programs is comparatively small. We
propose to continue our current efforts in special purpose automatic
programming, with emphasis on applications to computer graphics and
computer vision. The problems in graphics and vision which will be
attacked take the form of automating the generation of programs which are
specialized to the task of rapidly displaying - or recognizing -
particular three dimensional objects.
∂24-Jan-83 1240 Don Walker <WALKER at SRI-AI> Re: AAAI and On-line literature
Date: 24 Jan 1983 1142-PST
From: Don Walker <WALKER at SRI-AI>
Subject: Re: AAAI and On-line literature
To: Nilsson at SRI-AI
cc: Amarel at RUTGERS, bobrow at PARC-MAXC, buchanan at SUMEX-AIM,
BEngelmore at SRI-KL, LErman at SRI-KL, csd.genesereth at SU-SCORE,
grosz at SRI-AI, hart at SRI-KL, jmc at SU-AI, mcdermot at YALE,
minsky at MIT-AI, reddy at CMU-CS-A, rich at MIT-AI,
aaai-office at SUMEX-AIM, stan at SRI-AI, gjs at MIT-AI,
tenenbaum at SRI-KL, dwaltz at BBNG, bonnie.upenn at UDEL-RELAY,
Kahn at USC-ISI, Denicoff at USC-ISI, Amsler at SRI-AI
In-Reply-To: Your message of 21-Jan-83 1508-PST
Nils,
The on-line literature proposal is a good one; Amsler and I have
been talking about something like it for some time. What follows is a more
expansive statement from him, but very much to the point, and then a recent
notice that appeared on the Rutgers BBoard, which specs out some interesting
elaborations.
Don
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: Re: [Nilsson at SRI-AI: AAAI and On-line literature]
Certainly something whose time has come. I have the following suggestions.
Abstracts are the vision of the past. The vision of the future is full-text
of documents. I would suggest that plans be made for eventually going to
storage and transmission of the full-text of documents. The requirements
for this might lead to a research project which ARPA could support. The
most likely target of such a project would be a set of sites that
exchanged documents via interchangeable phototypesetting systems; such
as Canon Laser Printers (or more advanced machines) and SCRIBE or TeX
file formats.
CMU has the most highly developed bibliographic files, built up as a part
of the BROWSE system. However, I would propose that each site on the net
that produces documents be responsible for submitting SCRIBE bibliographic
descriptions of their documents and abstracts. That is, SRI, MIT, BBN,
SDC, RAND, CMU, UTEXAS-20, RUTGERS, YALE, etc would be responsible for
creating a SCRIBE bibliographic entry for each publication by their
site's members which they wanted to be in the National AI Bibliographic
Database. Hopefully, on-line space for these would be provided as well
as a local address to which to msg in order to get the full-text versions
of the documents when those were available (probably from local site
archives).
Citations should be included as well as standard bibliographic information.
Software for manipulating this data could be developed as part of a
research program--but more than that, a standard for the entry of the
bibliographic data should be established. SCRIBE offers such a standard
and would be the least difficult for each site to start using (since they
very likely already have much material in SCRIBE format, including the
full-text of documents).
It is possible SRI could have something to do with this. We already have
the NIC located on the premises and are near ONE of the focal points
(i.e. Silicon Valley). I believe Berkeley has a library school? One nearby
would be an assett.
FROM THE RUTGERS BBOARD:
Date: 21 Jan 1983 1620-EST
From: STICKLEN@RUTGERS
Subject: BIBLIO SYSTEMS
To: bboard
Does anyone know of a bibliographic system that runs
on 20/60s that remotely fills the following:
1) keeps a user defined conceptual hierarchy for the concepts
around which the user organizes his thinking about some
area of the literature. eg
CS
|
-----------------------------------
| | |
AI Operating Systems Architecture
| ... ...
---------------....
| |
Expert NL
Systems ...
....
2) keeps a list of authors who have publications in the
set of publications
3) keeps a publication set with pointers from both the
author set and the conceptual structure
4) provides easy entry of new publications
5) allows retrival to be done for all the publications
pointed to by a node in the concept tree OR by a node
in the concept tree and by all the nodes under the stated node.
6) allows retrival from a given author
7) allows retrival querries to be conjunctions or disjunctions
on concepts and authors
8) allows a "browzing" mode of operation
eg: tell me all the publications dealing with Expert Systems
and NL processing
...
synopsis of a paper comes up
...
now let me see other papers by this author
etc
9) supports automatic generation of biliographic sections for
inclusion in papers to be submited
10) the system should support storage for at least 5,000 publicaitons
and preferable 10,000
These are the things (roughly) i'd like to see in the system. But ANY
20/60 systems that comes close i'd like to know about.
Thanks,
---jon---
-------
∂24-Jan-83 2332 DEK mathfile equations
from what I saw, there's no decent way to print such equations,
since there is no delimiter to distinguish formulas from the text.
quite a disappointment to me.
∂25-Jan-83 1100 JMC*
Lunch at 11:45 with Elliott.
∂25-Jan-83 1400 JMC*
Hook
∂25-Jan-83 1400 JMC*
indecision, Takasu, Lee
∂25-Jan-83 1425 JJW Thesis proposal
Please look at THESIS.TXT[1,JJW].
∂25-Jan-83 1813 John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC> Objectivity, ad nauseum
Date: Tuesday, 25 January 1983, 20:47-EST
From: John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
Subject: Objectivity, ad nauseum
To: GAVAN at MIT-MC, BATALI at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Cc: JMC at SU-AI, phil-sci at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
In-reply-to: The message of 25 Jan 83 19:56-EST from GAVAN at MIT-MC
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
I can deal effectively with my own
goals without believing that my image of reality is objective, thank you.
In fact, I can deal with my own goals more effectively precisely because I
recognize that my image of reality is subjective.
I'm not claining that anyone believes or ought to believe that his image
of reality is not subjective. Obviously not. (I HAVE been reading your
messages!) But what is is that you have an image OF, when you have an
image of reality? Do you have:
1. A subjective image of a subjective reality, or:
2. A subjective image of an objective reality?
If the first case, what is the point of the idea of reality at all? Why
is it useful for anything? It would seem that you would have a muddled
view of something that is itself muddled by its very nature. Now I know
that this sort of attitude was very popular among German philosophers
for a while, but really, what use is it? For example: a technical
problem: what is the use of the two levels of subjectivity? And what
is at the bottom, just a subjective construct, or do the levels continue
forever? How is an agent ever to decide between looking for water and
convincing itself that it is not thirsty? At lease in case 2, it can
consider the possibility that it might REALLY BE thirsty.
And please: I am NOT denying that our view of reality is subjective. I
am claiming that it is useful to think of that subjective view as being
of something objective. That is why we worry about making and testing
theories -- to build our view of reality.
In the second case, we admit that we are clouded by our subjectivity,
but act as if there is something through the clouds. I understand the
arguments against ever "knowing" objectively. But I can have an idea of
what sort of thing objective reality is -- of course so would someone
who doesn't believe in it. The tree either makes a noise or it doesn't,
I admit, I don't know which. But just in being able to phrase the
question, I suppose that an answer exists. What use is it to suppose
that the question is, in principle, meaningless because there is no way
for me to know the answer? Certainly, in these contrived examples (or
quantum mechanics) I must admit that there are problems. But in the
real world, it seems always useful to supose that there are ways to find
out if statements are true. And this is just a statement of the belief
that reality is something real we can get a "better" view of.
Note that I am arguing for the practicality of belief in an objective
reality -- not "proving" the existence of objective reality. My earlier
message was an argument for the reality of beliefs that are practical
necessities. I was essentially "defining" reality as the set of beliefs
it is of practical necessity to hold. One of those beliefs is that
there are non-subjective facts.
∂25-Jan-83 1855 CSD.WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE (SuNet) ARPA contract
Date: Tue 25 Jan 83 10:57:13-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <CSD.WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: ARPA contract
To: dcl@SU-AI.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: csd.rathman@SU-SCORE.ARPA, csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, sagalowicz@SRI-AI.ARPA
Ron Ohlander called to remind us that the ARPA contract should be processed by him
in March.
I told him that I will have a draft of my section sent to him over the net
right after the Feb. 2 meeting withe Duane Adams and Machado.
Ron is also trying to reach John McC separatly by phone.
Gio
-------
∂26-Jan-83 0722 John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC> Ad nauseum
Date: Wednesday, 26 January 1983, 10:18-EST
From: John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
Subject: Ad nauseum
To: JMC at SU-AI, batali at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Date: 25 Jan 83 1817 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
Subject: Ad nauseum
To: batali@MIT-OZ
I think it's about time to change the subject. I have no additional
arguments that have any hope of convincing GAVAN, and I fear others
are merely being bored.
That corresponds with my view, oops: our opinions seem to be coherent,
oops: at least we have a consensus. My brain hurts.
I agree. Care to bring up a new subject?
∂26-Jan-83 1343 JK
Ketonen and Weening have been working further development of EKL,
an interactive
proof checker in high order predicate calculus.
EKL has been succesfully
used to prove facts about Lisp Programs in McCarthy's Lisp course at
Stanford.
One of the outgrowths of this development work has been a
formalisation of the underlying logic of EKL.
EKL was based on a high order predicate logic since we felt that it
is important to be able to discuss functionals and lambda abstraction
in a natural way.
At the same time it seemed to us
that the currently fashionable formalisations
of high order logic were stil inadequate for expressing
mathematical facts. Our approach was to gradually
modify the logic of EKL to accomodate intuitively straightforward
extensions without worrying too much about the formal underpinnings.
It is satisfying to note that we have now come a full circle:
Ketonen has shown that the logic of EKL can be formally expressed
(along with its consistency proofs etc.) in very elegant and precise
way - in fact, in a more elegant way than the logics we started out with.
This theory also embodies the way EKL can talk about meta theoretic
entities - to our knowledge one of the first instances of a logical
theory of mathematics that can discuss denotations in a coherent way.
Ketonen and Weening are in the process of writing a paper on this.
A large amount of effort has been spent on the EKL rewriting system -
currently the most powerful and versatile component of EKL.
Ketonen has come up with a new architecture for rewriting systems that
is quite different from the ones currently used, say, by Boyer and Moore.
Accompanying the rewriter there is also a notion of a language for
rewriting - how to control the process thru simple instructions to EKL.
Ketonen is planning to extend the EKL rewriter further; an important
future topic is the use and elimination of definitions. Another
direction for Ketonen's research is the use of high order unification
in rewriting: Ketonen has shown that the high order unification
algorithm of Huet terminates when the unifiable variables come from
only one side; a situation that occurs naturally in rewriting.
As is well known, the termination problem for high order
unification is unsolvable in general.
Ketonen intends to continue his research on logical algorithms.
The paper of Ketonen and Weyhrauch on a natural decidable
fragment of predicate calculus has been submitted for publication.
Many interesting problems remain: For example, the proper use
of equalities in the decision procedure mentioned above and
its correct implementation.
The sentence about the use of EKL in CS206 needs to be revised to
say that EKL has been tested by its use in CS206. DARPA has to
be sensitive about possible charges that it is supporting education
per se. Thus someone might say that the Stanford professors are
using DoD money rather than Educatin department money to support
their classes, and this is unfair both to defense and to Upper
Podunk College, which doesn't have DoD money.
∂26-Jan-83 1355 JK
Ketonen and Weening have been working further development of EKL,
an interactive
proof checker in high order predicate calculus.
EKL has been tested by its use in CS206, a course on Lisp programming
at Stanford. As homework assignments,
students used it to prove facts about Lisp programs.
One of the outgrowths of this development work has been a
formalisation of the underlying logic of EKL.
EKL was based on a high order predicate logic since we felt that it
is important to be able to discuss functionals and lambda abstraction
in a natural way.
At the same time it seemed to us
that the currently fashionable formalisations
of high order logic were stil inadequate for expressing
mathematical facts. Our approach was to gradually
modify the logic of EKL to accomodate intuitively straightforward
extensions without worrying too much about the formal underpinnings.
It is satisfying to note that we have now come a full circle:
Ketonen has shown that the logic of EKL can be formally expressed
(along with its consistency proofs etc.) in very elegant and precise
way - in fact, in a more elegant way than the logics we started out with.
This theory also embodies the way EKL can talk about meta theoretic
entities - to our knowledge one of the first instances of a logical
theory of mathematics that can discuss denotations in a coherent way.
Ketonen and Weening are in the process of writing a paper on this.
A large amount of effort has been spent on the EKL rewriting system -
currently the most powerful and versatile component of EKL.
Ketonen has come up with a new architecture for rewriting systems that
is quite different from the ones currently used, say, by Boyer and Moore.
Accompanying the rewriter there is also a notion of a language for
rewriting - how to control the process thru simple instructions to EKL.
Ketonen is planning to extend the EKL rewriter further; an important
future topic is the use and elimination of definitions. Another
direction for Ketonen's research is the use of high order unification
in rewriting: Ketonen has shown that the high order unification
algorithm of Huet terminates when the unifiable variables come from
only one side; a situation that occurs naturally in rewriting.
As is well known, the termination problem for high order
unification is unsolvable in general.
Ketonen intends to continue his research on logical algorithms.
The paper of Ketonen and Weyhrauch on a natural decidable
fragment of predicate calculus has been submitted for publication.
Many interesting problems remain: For example, the proper use
of equalities in the decision procedure mentioned above and
its correct implementation.
∂26-Jan-83 1453 LEDERBERG@SUMEX-AIM (SuNet) Re: afghanistan
Date: Wed 26 Jan 83 13:51:44-PST
From: Joshua Lederberg <LEDERBERG@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: afghanistan
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: lederberg%SUMEX-AIM@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue 25 Jan 83 18:58:00-PST
Thank you John. I have the paper and will look for it.
(this is my first mail on the 2060, and I just hope it gets thru.)
Yours, Josh
-------
∂26-Jan-83 2117 MINSKY @ MIT-MC AAAI and On-line literature
Date: Wednesday, 26 January 1983 22:07-EST
Sender: MINSKY @ MIT-OZ
From: MINSKY @ MIT-MC
To: Don Walker <WALKER @ SRI-AI>, MINSKY @ MIT-OZ
Cc: aaai-office @ SUMEX-AIM, Amarel @ RUTGERS, Amsler @ SRI-AI,
BEngelmore @ SRI-KL, bobrow @ PARC-MAXC,
bonnie.upenn @ UDEL-RELAY, buchanan @ SUMEX-AIM,
csd.genesereth @ SU-SCORE, Denicoff @ USC-ISI, dwaltz @ BBNG,
gjs @ MIT-AI, grosz @ SRI-AI, hart @ SRI-KL, jmc @ SU-AI,
Kahn @ USC-ISI, LErman @ SRI-KL, mcdermot @ YALE,
Nilsson @ SRI-AI, reddy @ CMU-CS-A, rich @ MIT-AI,
stan @ SRI-AI, tenenbaum @ SRI-KL
Subject: AAAI and On-line literature
In-reply-to: The message of 24 Jan 1983 14:42-EST from Don Walker <WALKER at SRI-AI>
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI> (Paraphrased) Abstracts are
the vision of the past. The vision of the future is full-text of
documents. This might lead to a research project which ARPA could
support. The most likely target of such a project would be a set of
sites that exchanged documents via such machines as Canon Laser
Printers and SCRIBE or TeX file formats.
I agree with the spirit. However, as always we are in a transition
period of technology, and should have some concern with the issue of
the "haves" and "have-nots". Besides, the need to go to a center,
even near-by, to get your hard-copy is also a vision of the past and
we should not fall into that trap.
There now exist good dot-printers of readable quality that cost
less than $1000.00, and my spies inform me that such corps. as
IBM, HP, and others expect even better ones soon - where soon means
sooner than any group like ours could agree on standard protocols.
Therefore, we should try to set a standard for software that could
run on home dot-printers and reproduce the graphics.
I believe that it would be reasonable for the first pass to reduce
bandwidth to black-and white line-drawings with shaded regions. The
graphics of old documents is problematical, but someone could be
sponsored to make "OCR" systems for such drawings and encode them
efficiently. I am willing to insert simple LOGO programs for my own
drawings, and use predicates to fill in regions when necessary.
Also, there soon will be Huffman-code hardware and software or
document-transmission. This will reduce line loads in many cases.
When semantic Huffman codes become available then most publications
will require only a few bits. The most common abstract/ semantic
summary will mean, of course, "never mind".
- minsky
∂26-Jan-83 2142 RPG
∂26-Jan-83 1248 JMC Common Lisp proposal
To: bscott@SU-SCORE, RPG@SU-AI
Ohlander would like the proposal officially submitted as soon as
possible. I believe both budget and content are ok.
Dick should phone him at earliest convenience.
I was at POPL until tonight. I will call Ohlander tomorrow and
discuss the proposal with him.
-rpg-
∂27-Jan-83 0904 PKANERVA@SUMEX-AIM (SuNet) This week's Campus Report, p. 11
Date: Wed 26 Jan 83 16:49:56-PST
From: Pentti Kanerva <PKANERVA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: This week's Campus Report, p. 11
To: McCarthy@SU-AI.ARPA
Your brother Leo sure looks a lot like you!
-------
∂27-Jan-83 1151 CLT ARPA Feb 83
Here is (the current state of) my ARPA abstract
Carolyn Talcott is
studying formal systems and structures for representing and proving
properties of programs, computations, programming systems and
programming environments.
One objective is to account for and elucidate programming practices
used by the Artificial Intelligence community.
This includes treating the kinds of programs
and structures used in building systems for representing knowledge,
reasoning, and planning. It also includes activity such as
building systems for building systems.
An important aspect of this style of programming is the use of programs
and other complex structures in a variety of ways. Some examples are:
(1) to compute (partial) functions.
This is the `obvious' use of programs. The important point is that
the data structures often represent complex objects of the sort not
usually treated in work on program verification or specification.
(2) as functional arguments.
For example arguments to mapping functions or functions for
generating successor nodes as parameters for search routines.
(3) as functional values.
Specifying some of the arguments of a function by `partially' application
produces a function as a value. Combinators applied to functions return
functions as values -- for example compose(f,g)(x) = f(g(x)).
(4) procedural information.
Information in data bases, knowledge, problem solving strategies etc.,
may be represented procedurally (as a program).
(5) representing infinite or partially completed objects.
For example streams, sets, continuations, co-routines.
Suppose there are many solutions to a problem. One means of
representing the solutions is by a program which when queried
produces a solution and another program representing the remaining solutions.
(6) actors and behavioural description of complex data structures.
(7) as objects that can be constructed, transformed, interpreted, compiled.
Other aspects of this style of programming include:
(8) use of non-local control mechanisms such as catch and throw.
(9) use of macros and metafunctions,
(10) use of `hooks' into the underlying system.
(11) use (often interchangeably) of both compiled and interpreted code.
As part of this work we will identify, formalize and
prove interesting and useful properties of typical programs.
Such properties should reflect naturally the programmers intent.
One task is to develop notions and methods for reasoning both
formally and informally about these objects and their properties.
One goal is to be able to treat the diverse uses of programs
in an integrated system.
Some of particular problems to be solved on the way to accomplishing
the above goals are:
(1) Proving properties of memory structures.
Memory structures are data structures that can be constructed examined,
and updated. For example list structures in LISP.
There is a simple extension to our basic model that
allows treatment of programs operating on such structures. What is needed is to
develop notions and methods that make it practical and useful
to prove properties of these programs.
(2) Defining notions of program equivalence.
When programs are used in the different contexts and variety of interpretations
discussed above, questions such as correctness of program transformations
(compiling, optimising, changing representations, etc.) become complex.
Thus we need to develop means of specifying the intent and correctness
of programs and operations on programs. This generally means
determining in what precise sense two programs are the equivalent.
Notions of equivalence are also important simply to express the fact that
different programs define the same computations or have the same
behaviour.
∂28-Jan-83 0937 Nilsson at SRI-AI Corporate Memberships
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 28 Jan 83 09:37:27 PST
Mail-from: ARPANET site SRI-AI rcvd at 28-Jan-83 0927-PST
Date: 28 Jan 1983 0926-PST
From: Nilsson at SRI-AI
Subject: Corporate Memberships
To: Amarel%rutgers at USC-ECLC, bobrow%parc at USC-ECLC,
To: buchanan%sumex at USC-ECLC, BEngelmore%sri-kl at USC-ECLC,
To: LErman%sri-kl at USC-ECLC, csd.genesereth%score at USC-ECLC,
To: grosz%sri-ai at USC-ECLC, hart%sri-kl at USC-ECLC,
To: jmc%su-ai at USC-ECLC, mcdermot%yale at USC-ECLC,
To: minsky%mit-ai at USC-ECLC, nilsson%sri-ai at USC-ECLC,
To: reddy%cmu-10A at USC-ECLC, rich%mit-ai at USC-ECLC,
To: aaai-office%sumex-aim at USC-ECLC,
To: stan%sri-ai at USC-ECLC, gjs%mit-ai at USC-ECLC,
To: tenenbaum%sri-kl at USC-ECLC, walker%sri-ai at USC-ECLC,
To: dwaltz%bbng at USC-ECLC, bonnie.upenn%udel at USC-ECLC
As you know, AAAI has been discussing the possibility of establishing
a corporate affiliates program whereby AI and computer companies --
for a fee starting at, say, $500 -- could become affiliate AAAI members
in exchange for certain benefits: one or two free AAAI conference
registrations, free (limited) advertising space in the AI Magazine,
editorial mention in the AI Magazine, and so forth.
Such a program was originally suggested by Marvin Minsky at the AAAI
Executive Council meeting at IJCAI-81 in Vancouver.
The AAAI office has undertaken a study in which a number of scientific
and professional societies were queried to determine their corporate
affiliation policy: American Chemical Society, American Institute of
Physics, etc., etc.
Essentially, the study recommends that AAAI follow through on
Marvin's recommendation. I, too, would like to actively pursue this
plan, and need your assistance: Could you suggest a number of
companies that might make suitable AAAI corporate affiliates? Your
leads should probably include names of specific individuals you may
know who could facilitate corporate entree. Replies by U.S. mail or
by net mail (NILSSON@SRI-AI, cc to AAAI@SRI-AI) would be highly
appreciated.
Thanks for your help.
Nils
-------
-------
∂28-Jan-83 1003 JK
Ketonen and Weening have been working on further development of EKL,
an interactive
proof checker in high order predicate calculus.
The emphasis has been on creating a system and a language
which would allow the expression and verification of mathematical
facts in a direct and natural way. The approach taken has been quite
succesful: Ketonen has been able to produce an elegant and eminently
readable proof of Ramsey's theorem in under 100 lines. At the same time
EKL is versatile enough to be able to verify the associativity if the LISP
append function in just one line.
The above results are important in that they indicate that
programs previously thought to be too complex for
mechanical verification are now within the reach of sufficiently powerful
proof checking systems.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
A manual reflecting the state of EKL during Dec 1982 was written
by Weening and Ketonen.
EKL has been tested by its use in CS206, a course on Lisp programming
at Stanford. As homework assignments,
students used it to prove facts about Lisp programs.
One of the outgrowths of this development work has been a
formalisation of the underlying logic of EKL.
EKL was based on a high order predicate logic since we felt that it
is important to be able to discuss functionals and lambda abstraction
in a natural way.
At the same time it seemed to us
that the currently fashionable formalisations
of high order logic were stil inadequate for expressing
mathematical facts. Our approach was to gradually
modify the logic of EKL to accomodate intuitively straightforward
extensions without worrying too much about the formal underpinnings.
It is satisfying to note that we have now come a full circle:
Ketonen has shown that the logic of EKL can be formally expressed
(along with its consistency proofs etc.) in very elegant and precise
way - in fact, in a more elegant way than the logics we started out with.
This theory also embodies the way EKL can talk about meta theoretic
entities - to our knowledge one of the first instances of a logical
theory of mathematics that can discuss denotations in a coherent way.
Ketonen and Weening are in the process of writing a paper on this.
A large amount of effort has been spent on the EKL rewriting system -
currently the most powerful and versatile component of EKL.
Ketonen has come up with a new architecture for rewriting systems that
is quite different from the ones currently used, say, by Boyer and Moore.
Accompanying the rewriter there is also a notion of a language for
rewriting - how to control the process thru simple instructions to EKL.
This has turned out to be a fairly powerful tool in reducing the
lengths of proofs in EKL.
PLANS:
During the next two years Ketonen plans to:
(1) apply the techniques for proof checking that he has
developed to verifying the correctness of the various parsing algorithms
that are currently in fashion.
(2) develop more powerful proof manipulation techniques in order
to study transformations of programs and proofs. This methodology will then be
used to extract computational information out of correctness proofs of
programs and other mathematical facts.
(3) to continue his research on logical algorithms.
The paper of Ketonen and Weyhrauch on a natural decidable
fragment of predicate calculus has been submitted for publication.
Many interesting problems remain: For example, the proper use
of equalities in the decision procedure mentioned above and
its correct implementation. In implementing a new version of this
decision procedure Ketonen intends to use and refine the
notion of postponement developed by McCarthy.
(4) to extend the EKL rewriter further; an important
future topic is the use and elimination of definitions. Another
direction for Ketonen's research is the use of high order unification
in rewriting: Ketonen has shown that the high order unification
algorithm of Huet terminates when the unifiable variables come from
only one side; a situation that occurs naturally in rewriting.
As is well known, the termination problem for high order
unification is unsolvable in general.
∂29-Jan-83 1326 (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) uw-beaver!ubc-vision!reiter at Lbl-Csam n.m. reasoning
Received: from UDEL-TCP by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 29 Jan 83 13:25:33 PST
Date: 28-Jan-83 20:09:54-PST (Fri)
From: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) uw-beaver!ubc-vision!reiter at Lbl-Csam
Return-Path: <ubc-vision!reiter@uw-beaver.UUCP>
Subject: n.m. reasoning
Received: by LBL-CSAM.ARPA (3.284 [1/5/83])
id AA08205; 28-Jan-83 20:09:54-PST (Fri)
Received: from LBL-CSAM.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA (3.284 [1/5/83])
id AA22124; 28-Jan-83 23:33:11-EST (Fri)
Message-Id: <8300290409.8205@LBL-CSAM.ARPA>
To: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) uw-beaver!lbl-csam!JMC at Su-Ai(ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) , uw-beaver!lbl-csam!PJH at Su-Ai
Dear John,
This is a belated response to your message of Dec. 6, which outlined a
typology of uses for n.m. reasoning. For the most part I agree with your
observations, but tend to see 3 categories, and to exclude a probabilistic
reading for defaults. The 3 categories are:
1.Conventions of reasoning
e.g. the closed world assumption in database theory
presuppositions in natural language
Gricean maxims in natural language
2. The representation policy
e.g. Doyle's meeting
innocent unless proved guilty
3. Reasoning about protypes
e.g. the prototypical bird, meal in a restaurant, birthday party
I also think that the laws of common sense physics fall into this
category:
e.g. Typically objects fall when released.
Likewise, common sense psychology as reflected in stereotyping people
and their behaviours:
e.g. Typically Italian men are womanizers.
Normally, when insulted, a person feels angry.
While there is a close relationship between this last category of
prototypical settings and probabilistic reasoning, I think they are distinct
and that n.m. resoning is not applicable in probabilistic settings. Jon
Doyle told me once that some philosophers of language also distinguish
between prototypical and probabilistic statements, but I can't place the
references. You might check with him. Anyway, I don't think that all
statements of the form "Most As are Bs" lead to default reasoning, despite
earlier claims in my default logic paper. In our IJCAI-81 paper, Criscuolo
and I try to clarify this distinction between default and probabilistic
reasoning. We give, as an example, the (false, as it turned out) statement
"Most voters prefer Carter.", from which one would not want to make the
default assumption that Maureen prefers Carter when given that Maureen is
a voter. It seems that statements about prototypes do have a statistical
connotation: "Typical birds fly" and also "Most birds fly" but the voter
example suggests that the converse is not true. In our IJCAI paper, we
sugest that statements in which the word "most" is replaced by the words
"typically" or "normally" are prototypical statements if their replace-
ments "feel right". Otherwise they are statistical statements. Thus
"Typically birds fly" feels right, whereas "Normally voters prefer Carter"
doesn't. Those statements which don't feel right are purely statistical
in nature and do not lead to default assumptions. Not the most rigorous
of criteria but I do believe it reveals an important distinction.
Bob Mercer and I have written a short paper outlining a n.m. theory
of presuppositions in natural language. While couched in the language of
default logic it likely can be reformulated in terms of circumscription.
I'll send you a copy since it seems to bear on your typology.
Do keep me posted on the evolution of your typology and, of course,
anything you write. My new net address is:
"uw-beaver!ubc-vision!Reiter"@lbl-unix
The double quotes are necessary. If that doesn't work try
"uw-beaver!ubc-vision!Reiter"@lbl-csam
With best wishes,
Ray.
This message is mainly a check to see if the path works,
but I've some immediate comments on your typology.
1. I agree that in general circumcription doesn't cover probabilistic
reasoning, although perhaps probabilistic reasoning in its usual
form may well be treated non-monotonically. My intent was to cover
a limiting case. This disparity isn't worth too much attention by
either of us, because it isn't clear that it concerns a substantial
point of how to design systems.
2. Does one of your categories cover Occam's razor? Also, and I'm not
sure this isn't Occam's razor again, does one of them cover a conjecture
that there isn't a bridge when this conjecture is made on the basis of
seeking the simplest model of the facts rather than seeking for a typical
model?
In order to check out the path, please acknowledge receipt even if you
haven't any comments on the substantive matters.
∂29-Jan-83 1808 ARK The Fifth Party on the Fifth
Come help us celebrate our fifth party in this house with a party on the
fifth! We have a complete set of hosts and hostesses for this event,
namely Arthur Keller, Carrie Beets, Doug Appelt, Joe Weening, and Maureen
Tjan. This gala event will be on Saturday, 5 February from 8 p.m. until
dawn at 3400 Kenneth drive, Palo Alto (856-3550), off Greer near Loma
Verde. Maps are posted on most CSD bulletin boards, and extras are by the
receptionist's desk in MJH.
Come prepared for some serious carousing. We will furnish some above
average beer and goodies. Please don't feel inhibited about bringing
your favorite consumables.
Arthur Keller
∂29-Jan-83 2051 Carl Hewitt <Hewitt at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC> protection?
Received: from MIT-MC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 29 Jan 83 20:51:14 PST
Date: Saturday, 29 January 1983, 23:50-EST
From: Carl Hewitt <Hewitt at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
Subject: protection?
To: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Cc: hewitt at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC, Hewitt at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
In-reply-to: The message of 23 Jan 83 03:14-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
John,
It looks OK to me. Are you still getting the messages?
Cheers,
Carl
I think not, but only some of my messages elicited them, and I haven't
sent much to phil-sci recently. Thanks for looking into the problem,
and I'll let you know if it recurs.
∂01-Feb-83 0000 JMC*
Leslie Pack, csd.pack has Haugeland Mind Design
∂01-Feb-83 0033 GAVAN @ MIT-MC criticism of coherence and consensus
Received: from MIT-MC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 1 Feb 83 00:31:18 PST
Date: Tuesday, 1 February 1983 03:11-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Cc: phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
Subject: criticism of coherence and consensus
In-reply-to: The message of 31 Jan 83 2350 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
As I remarked in my long message of 1818PST, which you may not have
got to yet or noticed the aside to you in it, I will give my opinions
of coherence and consensus if you give me a summary of your views,
or if you would rather references to previous messages or the literature.
Yes, that message just came in. I want to print it out so I can read it while
I'm on jury duty today (hopefully the prosecutor or defense attorney won't ask
me about questions of truth, proof, or evidence). But the Dover is down again.
I'll try to print it out elsewhere tonight and respond as soon as I can.
I have read the article on the coherence theory in the Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, but the author of the article doesn't seem much more friendly
to the idea than I am, so I would prefer to criticize a presentation
by a partisan of it.
The index to the Encyclopedia mentions consensus only in
connection with the consensus gentium argument for the existence
of God, so I suppose the "consensus theory of truth" is due to Kuhn
or Feyerabend or someone like that.
The consensus theory is alluded to in Putnam's *Reason, Truth, and
History* and, as you suspected, it lurks in the background of the
debates between Kuhn, Feyerabend, et al. The best explication of it,
however, can be found in Jurgen Habermas' "Theories of Truth."
Unfortunately, it hasn't yet been published in English. I have a copy
of a translation by Tom McCarthy (Philosophy Department, Boston
University). I'll try to mail you a copy within the next few days, if
I'm not sequestered. Meanwhile, McCarthy presents a summary of
Habermas' philosophy in *The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas* (MIT
Press).
I don't promise to pursue
them very far, because, believe it or not, I am trying to cure myself
of being a controversialist, and will go only to limited lengths in
trying to win arguments.
Persuasion is a difficult task. It takes much effort, and offers few
rewards. For me, the point is not to win arguments, but to clarify
the issues.
The little I have read of Kuhn has left me
with the impression that there is unlikely to be anything useful for
AI in what he says. I would, as it happens, find a reference to Putnam
more interesting, and I have found my copy of volume 2.
The Kuhn-Popper-Lakatos-Feyerabend debate was under discussion on this
list because Carl Hewitt is interested in the issue for reasons
relating to his research interests. See Hewitt and Kornfeld's MIT-AI
Lab Memo, "The Scientific Community Metaphor". I really recommend
Putnam's *Reason, Truth, and History*. It relates to the
Kuhn-Feyerabend debate, and also includes a lengthy critique of the
correspondence theory. Putnam wants to replace it with a coherence
theory. I'll argue as best I can, but Putnam might be more persuasive
for you.
∂01-Feb-83 0223 GAVAN @ MIT-MC narrowness
Received: from MIT-MC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 1 Feb 83 02:23:29 PST
Date: Tuesday, 1 February 1983 03:17-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
Subject: narrowness
In-reply-to: The message of 31 Jan 83 2030 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Economists should take the specifics of technology into account, and
linguists should take semantics into account in studying parsing.
The trouble isn't so much that some theories don't take into account
facts that aren't pure economics or linguistics, as the case may be,
but that the fields develop methodologies in terms of which it is seen
as wrong to go outside.
In my (albeit limited) academic experience, I've found that the best
thinkers are those who ignore the artificial boundaries between
disciplines. At my oral examination, one professor commented that I
should think twice before engaging in AI modelling because if I chose
that route no one (in that specific disciplinary cubbyhole) would be
able to understand me.
He likes to perform factor analyses on ordinal and nominal level data
anyway, so . . .
∂01-Feb-83 0316 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
Received: from MIT-ML by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 1 Feb 83 03:16:22 PST
Date: Tuesday, 1 February 1983 06:12-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ SU-AI>
In-reply-to: The message of 01 Feb 83 0040 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Date: 01 Feb 83 0040 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
To: gavan
Is "Reason, Truth and History" a book or paper? If a paper, where?
It's a book. It's out in paperback from the Cambridge University
Press, 1981.
∂01-Feb-83 0648 John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC> Paper
Received: from MIT-MC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 1 Feb 83 06:48:41 PST
Date: Tuesday, 1 February 1983, 09:48-EST
From: John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC>
Subject: Paper
To: JMC at SU-AI
Could you send me a copy of your paper "Ascribing Mental Qualities to
Machines" that you mentioned in your recent message?
Or provide a fecund pointer?
John Batali
MIT AI Lab
545 Technology Square #753
Cambridge, MA 02139
Thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks thanks
∂01-Feb-83 1029 MAS Meeting with ARPA
To: TOB@SU-AI, ZM@SU-AI, JMC@SU-AI, DCL@SU-AI,
wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM
The meeting with ARPA, tomorrow at 9 AM, will be in Rm 220 MJH.
Marianne
∂01-Feb-83 1502 YOM term project
I have been approached by students asking about the term project,
as it is due around Feb. 20th.
yom.
∂01-Feb-83 1528 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA> Re: Corporate Memberships
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 1 Feb 83 15:28:33 PST
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by USC-ECLC; Tue 1 Feb 83 15:13:17-PST
Date: Sun 30 Jan 83 08:55:44-PST
From: Louis G. Robinson <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Corporate Memberships
To: Nilsson@SRI-AI.ARPA
cc: Amarel%rutgers@USC-ECLC.ARPA, bobrow%parc@USC-ECLC.ARPA,
buchanan%sumex@USC-ECLC.ARPA, BEngelmore%sri-kl@USC-ECLC.ARPA,
LErman%sri-kl@USC-ECLC.ARPA, csd.genesereth%score@USC-ECLC.ARPA,
grosz%sri-ai@USC-ECLC.ARPA, hart%sri-kl@USC-ECLC.ARPA, jmc%su-ai@USC-ECLC.ARPA,
mcdermot%yale@USC-ECLC.ARPA, minsky%mit-ai@USC-ECLC.ARPA,
nilsson%sri-ai@USC-ECLC.ARPA, reddy%cmu-10A@USC-ECLC.ARPA,
rich%mit-ai@USC-ECLC.ARPA, aaai-office%sumex-aim@USC-ECLC.ARPA,
stan%sri-ai@USC-ECLC.ARPA, gjs%mit-ai@USC-ECLC.ARPA,
tenenbaum%sri-kl@USC-ECLC.ARPA, walker%sri-ai@USC-ECLC.ARPA,
dwaltz%bbng@USC-ECLC.ARPA, bonnie.upenn%udel@USC-ECLC.ARPA,
AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri 28 Jan 83 09:29:00-PST
Subject: On-Line Abstract and Bibliographic Reference Service
January 29, 1983
To: Jake Feinler, SRI-NIC
From: Lou Robinson, AAAI
Subject: On-Line Abstract and Bibliographic Reference Service
It is my understanding that the Network Information Center at
SRI-International is studying the possibility of providing an on-line
protocol service linked to the Arpanet. It's also my understanding
that NIC will soon make a proposal to Arpa for the funding of that
service. It seems to me that your proposal could be expanded to
include a service that is of vital concern to the AI community.
The American Association for Artificial Intelligence would like to
provide an on-line abstract and bibliographic reference service to the
Artificial Intelligence community. This would be an extension of the
Association's present role of providing a number of AI educational
services including the publishing of an AI magazine, the holding of AI
conferences, the publishing of conference proceedings and the running
of AI tutorial and exhibit programs.
A number of individuals have expressed the need for such a service.
None articulates the need better than Professor Michael Genesereth,
professor of computer science at Stanford University, and Program
Chairman for AAAI-83, the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
being held this year in Washington, D.C. on August 22 to 26:
"As the amount of AI literature grows, the difficulties of
keeping track of it all are becoming more pronounced. It's
time we exploited our computer systems and networks in fascili-
tating our research. Although a number of commercial on-line
abstract services already exist, these services are inconvenient
to use and their listing are not really up-to-date.
"It's my opinion that the AAAI can benefit the research community
by establishing an online abstract service accessible via
arpanet. The majority of the research community has access to the
net or can get access. Even if it turns out that commercial facilities
like telenet must be used, I'd encourage some sort of automatic link
for those of us on arpanet machines.
"The service I'm recommending would include a complete and up-to-
date catalog of abstracts of AI papers. The software to do key-
word, author, title, and word searches should be fairly simple to
generate or acquire. . . the facility might also include a standard-
ized bibliographic reference and automatic order forms. Eventually,
the service might even grow into an online publishing facility."
A number of individual's within AAAI have endorsed Genesereth's proposal.
The International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence supports
the idea as does the Artificial Intelligence Journal which has even made
an offer of funds to support the start up of such a service.
In our talk last Friday, you indicated that the NIC machine, with its
already well-established accessing facility and greatly expanded
storage capacity, could easily handle the kind of service referred to
above. You also indicated that the only truly significant cost factor
involved would be the hiring of the necessary personnel -- most
probably two individuals -- to start and maintain the service.
AAAI would like to continue to explore the possibility of creating an
on-line abstract and bibliographic reference service in conjunction
with the Network Information Center.
-------
∂01-Feb-83 1622 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI at SRI-AI> AAAI and On-Line Abstract and Bibliographic Service
Received: from SRI-AI by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 1 Feb 83 16:21:53 PST
Date: 1 Feb 1983 1554-PST
From: Louis G. Robinson <AAAI at SRI-AI>
Subject: AAAI and On-Line Abstract and Bibliographic Service
To: AAAI-Exeucitive-Committee: ;
cc: aaai at SRI-AI
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
January 29, 1983
To: Jake Feinler, SRI-NIC
From: Lou Robinson, AAAI
Subject: On-Line Abstract and Bibliographic Reference Service
It is my understanding that the Network Information Center at
SRI-International is studying the possibility of providing an on-line
protocol service linked to the Arpanet. It's also my understanding
that NIC will soon make a proposal to Arpa for the funding of that
service. It seems to me that your proposal could be expanded to
include a service that is of vital concern to the AI community.
The American Association for Artificial Intelligence would like to
provide an on-line abstract and bibliographic reference service to the
Artificial Intelligence community. This would be an extension of the
Association's present role of providing a number of AI educational
services including the publishing of an AI magazine, the holding of AI
conferences, the publishing of conference proceedings and the running
of AI tutorial and exhibit programs.
A number of individuals have expressed the need for such a service.
None articulates the need better than Professor Michael Genesereth,
professor of computer science at Stanford University, and Program
Chairman for AAAI-83, the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
being held this year in Washington, D.C. on August 22 to 26:
"As the amount of AI literature grows, the difficulties of
keeping track of it all are becoming more pronounced. It's
time we exploited our computer systems and networks in fascili-
tating our research. Although a number of commercial on-line
abstract services already exist, these services are inconvenient
to use and their listing are not really up-to-date.
"It's my opinion that the AAAI can benefit the research community
by establishing an online abstract service accessible via
arpanet. The majority of the research community has access to the
net or can get access. Even if it turns out that commercial facilities
like telenet must be used, I'd encourage some sort of automatic link
for those of us on arpanet machines.
"The service I'm recommending would include a complete and up-to-
date catalog of abstracts of AI papers. The software to do key-
word, author, title, and word searches should be fairly simple to
generate or acquire. . . the facility might also include a standard-
ized bibliographic reference and automatic order forms. Eventually,
the service might even grow into an online publishing facility."
A number of individual's within AAAI have endorsed Genesereth's proposal.
The International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence supports
the idea as does the Artificial Intelligence Journal which has even made
an offer of funds to support the start up of such a service.
In our talk last Friday, you indicated that the NIC machine, with its
already well-established accessing facility and greatly expanded
storage capacity, could easily handle the kind of service referred to
above. You also indicated that the only truly significant cost factor
involved would be the hiring of the necessary personnel -- most
probably two individuals -- to start and maintain the service.
AAAI would like to continue to explore the possibility of creating an
on-line abstract and bibliographic reference service in conjunction
with the Network Information Center.
-------
∂01-Feb-83 1622 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI at SRI-AI> [DOYLE@CMU-CS-C: Old Proposal]
Received: from SRI-AI by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 1 Feb 83 16:22:08 PST
Date: 1 Feb 1983 1601-PST
From: Louis G. Robinson <AAAI at SRI-AI>
Subject: [DOYLE@CMU-CS-C: Old Proposal]
To: AAAI-Executive-Committee: ;
cc: : ;
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Return-path: <@USC-ECLC:DOYLE@CMU-CS-C>
Received: from USC-ECLC by SRI-AI; Tue 1 Feb 83 10:31:12-PST
Received: from CMU-CS-C by USC-ECLC; Tue 1 Feb 83 10:31:57-PST
Received: ID <DOYLE@CMU-CS-C>; 1 Feb 83 13:26:49 EST
Date: 1 Feb 83 13:26:49 EST
From: DOYLE@CMU-CS-C
Subject: Old Proposal
To: aaai@SRI-AI
cc: doyle@CMU-CS-C
Hello Lou,
I am appending the texts of the proposals you asked about. I am sorry
I failed to pursue them earlier. Who is studying the on-line possibilities?
As the first proposal mentions, I think that on-line systems that are not
also duplicated by paper copy are a very bad idea, since they effectively
rule out participation in the field by researchers not on the Arpanet.
I think it unwise to so discriminate against people, both in North America,
and in Europe and elsewhere, who might otherwise contribute to and benefit
from a central clearinghouse for abstracts etc.
Could you please convey these sentiments to the people studying this matter?
I would be very grateful.
Here follows the texts of the proposals:
January 8, 1981
Executive Council
American Association for Artificial Intelligence
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In forming and nurturing the AAAI, you have taken timely
actions deserving of the field's applause and support. For the first
time, the field has a forum for discussion and presentation of its own
interests. Through your leadership, the field can now take direct
measures to improve itself. In this letter, I submit to you for your
consideration two proposals aimed at improving scientific
communication in artificial intelligence. The first proposal is for
the creation of a monthly newsletter of abstracts and titles. The
second proposal concerns reorganizations of responsibilities for
publications in the field.
For some time, I and others I have talked with have been
troubled by the typical isolation of research groups in artificial
intelligence. Workers in AI seem woefully ill-informed of each
other's work. This problem leads to poor scholarship, excessive
duplication of effort, and worst of all, an inability to build on the
work of others. While we cannot abolish scientific ignorance and
multiple discoveries, we should at least feel bound to investigate
simple steps to reduce ignorance and duplication when possible.
A major contributing factor to this problem of isolation is
that much, even most, of the work in AI is never published except as
local technical reports or as conference papers. When there were only
a few centers of research and only one or two conferences, these media
were tolerable. But currently, there are not only several large
centers of research, but also many smaller centers and numerous
isolated but interested individuals. There are ever-multiplying
conferences and specialty workshops. This growth in the number of
informal and semi-formal repositories for research results spells the
doom of effective scientific communications in AI unless serious
measures are taken. It is now possible to keep track of what is
published only by means of near super-human effort on the part of
researchers, namely hearing of and writing off for all conference
proceedings, and regularly enquiring about technical reports from all
known centers of research.
Fortunately, there is a simple measure taken by many other
scientific societies which makes more feasible keeping track of what
is published. This measure is the publication of a monthly
announcement of abstracts and titles. The purpose of the A/T monthly
is to provide a timely list of all current informal papers, work in
progress, research reports, talks, conference papers, journal
articles, and books, much like the monthly accessions list of an ideal
technical library. The tables of contents would be printed for all
relevant technical journals and conferences of any nationality
appearing in the preceding month, or possibly even from the page
proofs or advance announcements of the journals and conferences. Some
editing may be necessary since the list of journals in which
AI-relevant material occasionally appears is quite long, owing to the
interdisciplinary nature of AI and the multi-disciplinary origins of
its researchers. (E.g. ACM journals and conferences, IEEE journals
and conferences, IFIP conferences, Cognitive Science, IJMMS, Science,
Technology Review, Omni, Biological Cybernetics, ACL, and assorted
other journals in philosophy, logic, education, psychology, etc.) The
abstracts would be limited length, standard format notices of results
or papers prepared and submitted by the authors or their agents. The
content of these abstracts would be completely unrestricted, with only
format and possibly frequency controlled.
For example, the American Mathematical Society publishes three
monthlies towards these ends: Current Mathematical Publications, which
publishes tables of contents from page proofs of journals; Abstracts,
which publishes the standard form abstracts or short notices from
conferences or independent of conferences; and Notices, which, among
other things, prints in advance the titles of papers presented at
conferences.
The AMS Abstracts are made uniform by means of standard
camera-ready preparation forms available free to authors from any
mathematics department or from the AMS. One possible improvement on
their scheme might be to publish a submission form in each issue. In
the abstracts, typographical conventions of capitalized names and
underlined titles makes skimming of the abstracts easy. In addition,
each abstract indicates whether or not the author is willing to supply
preprints or reprints, so that notices can be made of work in
progress. To aid authors, the AMS offers the further service of
typing or re-typing abstracts for a standard fee.
I think it crucial that the ease of submission of abstracts
not be dependent on access to the Arpanet. For the next few years, at
the very least, the population of AI researchers without Arpanet
access will grow substantially, and nothing could sabotage the value
of this publication more than effectively excluding participation by
these people. Those with Arpanet access normally have convenient
runoff facilities, so requiring camera-ready copy for short,
fixed-form abstracts is little burden for them.
AMS Abstracts are also grouped by subject categories under
major headings of the Mathematics Subject Classification. The authors
choose which heading best classifies their abstract. Fortunately, AI
is probably still small enough so that one month's worth of abstracts
can be reduced to managable size with only a rudimentary
classification scheme. As the constant evolution of the Mathematics
Subject Classification indicates, the details of the classification
are rarely crucial. It is worthwhile developing and periodically
revising a standard classification scheme for AI, but I will not
pursue that in this proposal.
In summary, the proposed A/T monthly is easy to use for
several reasons. (A) It is monthly, so authors need never worry about
great delays caused by missed submission deadlines. (B) It is easy to
skim, because simple typographical conventions illuminate the subject
category, author, and title in different ways. (C) Finally, it is
easy to make submissions because of the fixed format and standard
submission forms.
While these reasons show the monthly is easy to use, the two
most difficult tasks lie in making it useful. The lesser task is that
of ensuring regular publication. As the Sigart Newsletter disaster
shows, an irregular publication receives no submissions from authors.
I suggest that regular publication requires a professional (i.e. paid)
editor or producer, rather than an overworked volunteer whose true
duties lie elsewhere. This is, of course, a matter for some study.
But the more important task in ensuring the utility of the monthly is
that of developing habits of near universal submission on the part of
authors. The very parochialism which the abstracts are aimed at
ameliorating makes developing such habits difficult. Once developed,
however, the system is self-regulating, in that authors can see it is
to their advantage to give notice of their work. When everyone finds
out what is going on by reading it in the abstracts, work left out is
work ignored.
This concludes the substance of the first proposal.
Currently, the Sigart Newsletter attempts to fulfil this
purpose, among others. How well does it do? I submit that it is
inadequate for several reasons. (A) Sigart Newsletter is a quarterly
publication, with a month-long ACM lead time for printing and
distribution. This means that an author submitting an abstract can
wait up to 4 or more months before the abstract appears, rather than
up to a month or month and a half in the case of a monthly. (B)
Sigart Newsletter occasionally pre-empts all regular features in favor
of special issues, which can lengthen the delay of abstract appearance
indefinitely. (C) Sigart Newsletter has no standard form for abstract
submissions, thus putting the burden of typing and formatting the
abstracts on a basically elsewhere-committed editorial staff. The
amount of work involved in this makes finding willing and competent
editors very difficult. (D) Sigart Newsletter lacks the respect
needed to ensure universal submissions. This seems partly due to
several reasons: (D1) The admitted ``breezy'' nature of the rest of
Sigart Newsletter encourages serious researchers at the larger centers
to ignore it as worthless. (D2) The fiascos of production in
1977-1979 encouraged ignoring it, since it did not exist for such a
long time. (D3) Finally, some part of its poor reputation may be due
to a hostility to ACM, which will be discussed in the second proposal,
below. In summary, the availability of frequent abstract notices is
too important to depend on the fragility of Sigart Newsletter's
sometimes irregular, sometimes preempted, and always infrequent
publication.
My second proposal in this letter is to suggest that the
principal responsibility for scientific communications in AI lies with
the field's scientific society, namely AAAI, and that accepting this
responsibility requires reorganizing the publication systems of the
field. The most serious defect of the current organization is the
abdication of responsibility properly that of AAAI in favor of a
subsidiary of the professional/scientific society of another
discipline, namely ACM's SIGART.
As an analogy, there is the field of mathematics, and the
field of biology, and a subspecialty of mathematical biology. It does
little harm to have a small mathematical biology field expedite its
communications as subsidiaries of either the mathematical or
biological scientific societies. But it makes no sense to have, for
example, all mathematical abstracts appear in a publication of a
subsidiary of biology. That responsibility belongs to the
mathematical field itself.
It is true that AI developed largely as a subfield of computer
science, but that is no excuse for continuing to restrict the conduct
and communications of our science by obesiance to the ACM bureacracy.
I have seen some of the difficulties in getting ACM's permission to do
things, and those are extra difficulties AI does not need. I have
also known several researchers, and I am sure there are more, who do
not belong to ACM, and have little interest in joining one of its
subsidiaries. Should we require AAAI members to join Sigart or ACM to
get scientific communications properly due from AAAI?
It may be that Sigart has served its purpose. It served as an
organ of the field as best it could until the field recognized itself
with its own scientific society. It may thus be best to dissolve
Sigart. However, that is a drastic step, and there may still be a
role for Sigart, for communicating ideas between the fields of AI and
CS. But this should imply a duplication or paraphrasing of
information disseminated by the two scientific societies, rather than
a supplantation of the main responsibilities of the scientific
societies to their members. Sigart might be for the computer
scientist who wishes to keep up with the main events in AI, or for the
AI worker who wants to stay abreast of developments in CS, but it
should not be the main vehicle for the computer scientist finding out
about CS or for the AI worker keeping track of AI.
If AAAI accepts principal responsibility for scientific
communications in AI, it is prudent to reflect on the sorts of
information communicated by other scientific societies as a way of
sorting out requirements on publications. By an examination of
Science, American Scientist, Artificial Intelligence, CACM, JACM,
Sigart Newsletter, AMS Notices, Abstracts, Bulletin, Current
Mathematical Publications, and Mathematical Reviews, I produced in
Table 1 a list (not necessarily complete) of categories of
communications. Along with each of these categories, I have listed
three publication frequencies: ideal frequencies, tolerable
frequencies, and current frequencies. I have entered M (monthly) and
Q (quarterly) in a conservative fashion for the ideal and tolerable
columns (e.g. monthly scholarly papers wouldn't be bad, and letters
and queries probably should be more frequent than quarterly). On the
other hand, I have been very generous in the current column (e.g.
calls for papers are published in a quarterly, but only once, rather
than with new and previous listings). None of these frequencies are
hard and fast, but I would think it a great hindrance to a field as
rapidly growing as is AI not to have a monthly announcement of at
least current publications and abstracts.
Ideally, I would divide up these categories into publications
as shown in Table 2, subject to revision as the field grows. In
principle, these divisions might be combined. For example, the
Notices and Titles and Abstracts might be one publication, and might
even incorporate the Reviews as well, if reviews of scholarly articles
are shifted to the scholarly Journal.
Currently, as mentioned above, AAAI leaves many of these
categories to the quarterly Sigart Newsletter, and devotes its AI
Magazine (as best I can tell) to the research news/surveys/expository
articles category. While I strongly recommend that AAAI take
responsibility for the monthly publication of those categories
currently left to Sigart, I do not recommend as strongly taking the
scholarly journal responsibility away from Artificial Intelligence.
AAAI should stand ready to begin its own scholarly journal whenever
necessary. The only reason for which I might suggest starting one now
is that too few papers in the field are submitted for scholarly
publication, and that another journal might encourage more
publications and more careful expositions of work that currently ends
up as informal reports.
Together with reflection on the organization of published
scientific communications, AAAI might well reflect on the
organizations of its conferences. At the international level there is
no federation of AI societies (i.e. AAAI, AISB, GI, CSCSI/CECIO,
etc.), but there is an international biennial conference, IJCAI.
There are also numerous specialty conferences, often of international
character. (Computer science analogues of these might be IFIP and its
working group workshops.) At the 0v S'?v 1β3/3↔11π;∃β#∂3∃βSF)αεε Iβπ; h+'S~βπ;;. 1β∂}s≠↔K.s∂∃9αα%βSFK;-β&CπQβ≡{?9α Iβ←'faβ∨K␈9β3π⊗;∃β↔v{W∨ hS≠?I∧
εε%π#=βK.≠?;ON#↔IβO#Mβπ⊗ ;∪?vk↔;Qε{→β''→βπ;w+π1βn+↔S'v9β↔[/∪d4+6{WKSBβg↔π∩βS=αLR∞ε%r↓απQπ##∃β⊗+∨'?v 1β3/3↔11π##↔K*βπK∃εs<4+␈∪∨π;OSπS'}sM1β∞s⊃β;zβ∂?;6+K↔;≡+M9↓¬##∃α jMβ#∂→β≠K/ W↔;"βK↔∨N{;π0hS7↔↔&K;∨Mbβ←#?≡)βS'&c↔Mβ∞s⊃βπ↔≠SKπ∨#Mβπ⊗)β∂?nkW;'≡ S↔⊃π#=β7.k ↔K~β'84V{S#↔∩βK↔∨N{;Mβ↔Iβ7↔∞sMβ?2βS#∃π#'S3/→βπ;"βπ O'∪π∂S~β7?;&C3'↔~q↓αSFKL4+6 ∂'3O#πS↔~β∂?7o+;'∂∂#'?;~β'9β∂∪↔πMπ;#'∂Bβ∪=βv{Qβ∪.kπ;⊃εcπK∨*βSKπ6+04+↔+∪∨↔'→9↓α∨#↔CMεC';SNs≥β?2βS#'~β'9α Iβ#π6)β ↔.qβSπ↑+9β'rβS#∃¬"&:2,r∞ 4Vk↔↔SNs∨Mβ∂!αNJJaβS#*αN&≡e*:∞!εk↔↔SNs∨Mβ∂!αOS∞s≠?K"aβπ;"βS#∃∧
&N:(h+7↔/#';∨~β'9αv+]α↔v;3π;#Qβ';6{K7πbβ7↔↔&K;∨Mε3?Iβ?∪π∪W∂#∃βO'+∪↔;'→β?HhS?S#/∪MβSzβCK↔≡+;Qβ&C↔'Iπ;?K-ε∪K'↔6ce9↓¬β↔K#∂βMαε
%β?.;#Qβ&yβOC}sO?HhSOW∂BβK↔∨N{;π1εk↔↔SNs∨Mβ∞c?;≥εc';↔~βO'7NcπIβ&yβS#*αε6Mbβ'9β>C'∂!ε ;g?v(4+←Fyβ←πw#MβSzβ∂π9π≠W 7O!βπ9ε OS⊗ ∂Qβ∞s⊃βS∞c-β≠␈⊃↓EUεk';W&+M↓#&{Sπ1αh4+C⊗+O↔;& S'?rβπ;⊃π W↔O&K?;MJaβ←'&Aβ;=πβW 3O≠#↔⊃πβK?∂.+∪';?→β?W'≠'∪∃ε{_4+&C∃βSO#3↔Mε ;⊃β∞∪OSK∞≠SMβπ+ 3'≡C↔⊃βNqβS#*β7?;&C3'↔~q↓α%π≠WOC.≠QαεJβ#πLhS∨K?>qβWAε ;⊃β␈+Qβ?2α6&Qbα∞6Ubβπ;⊃¬≠Sπ;6{K⊃β.s?W∨BβS=βn /∃β
β;W7⊗+Iβ?0h+K↔>K?;πbβ7↔↔&K;∨Mπ;?KSG;#'3*β eβ∨#'7Wf S';:βS#∃ε;K?←Ns≥β;.k ↔K~β?_4W∪↔O↔∂∪∂#↔↔→β?W'≠'∪∃π##?O*βS#K.)β∂↔w#↔KMph(4(LK9β∂}s∂3W≡K?91∧IβCK␈β?O∃ε∪?S!π##∃β&+[↔3␈β7↔;"β?→β
β7?;&C3d4V ;;?.s∂↔7.sQβ?2βS'Sf+Mβπv!βπ ∨#Kπ∂'→1βπv!βS#*βπ∂∂/βSπ;≡)β?_hSK↔Oε{;O'⊗K3'SJβ≠?Iπ≠∂'↔w#'≠'~β∂?7o+;'∂∂#'?9εK9αεJβ eα
ε%9αα%βO.(4+3O#S3∃εC?C∃ε{→β'oβK?[Ns≥βSF)βGW∞c'Seε{→β∂}k7W;N≠πS'}sM1β∞s⊃β#.s∂∃β&C∀4+f+[↔1ε ;⊃βε ∂∃β}1βK↔≡+πK∂Baβ←'&C?WQε≠K↔π&K;≥β≡Cπ;;.cMβ↔v≠?WK∞;';≥εKQ84TIβOW⊗k'Qβ&CπQβ&C∃β∂/∪K↔;"β∂?7o+;'∂∂#'?;~β∂#πvs↔3Mε K∃βNsπ∪↔∂+πS∃ε3?H4W##'MπβWKC␈≠∃84Ph($$HJK↔Oε+∂S≠.c3eβN{WKM`h(4(hP4(4PH$$&V{9α∪␈K3∀4Ph($$HJ∪↔C∂∪S7↔w!β?→∧≠?7C/#↔Iα≡≠'↔;≡(4($HH&OS∞s≠?K"αW;'6+KO''H4($HH&OS∞s≠?K"aα∂πfK≠?KvK¬↓e#→AT4Ph)55ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji44(hQ↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓αSπ⊗c∃↓Eph)↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓α∂∂#↔∨?⊗K↔Mβ}1α∂?nkW;'≡ S'?w_4(4T≠πS↔>{Kd$HH$&'&+π0&&{3↔IpJ∂WK⊗+;P4Ri555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555hh*↔∪O#?K'∞cM?7/≠Oπ∨/→β≠K}iβCK/≠'∪↔w $&DMλ&D4Tc↔SS/∪L$$HH$&4Mλ&D4U W↔KN+L$$HH$&4Mλ%44U≠?∂'/#eβ;/;M?K/β?KS~β?9βn+↔S'v;L$&hJD&DhR∂π3.s∪πIε{→β↔6+;SMαC;↔]ε ;⊃βπ∪↔['␈+M$$Lh&D&λh*∂πfcMβ≠␈⊃βCπε+KM?&+π∪3Ns↔M↓Fs↔]β∞s⊃βC⊗+['?/→$&4Mλ&D4T ;;?.s∂↔7.sSM?π∪?≠↔∨≠'?;∞aβπ∂&K['SN+L$&hJD&DhRC↔K≡{;π1εs?S'≡+M?∪. S#LHH$&4Mλ&D4Ts↔←Mε ;⊃β≡{77↔w#L$$HJ4&DMλ4*K/≠↔πK≡Aβ;↔?→?OW↔3↔gM}+cC?≡KS?KJβπKSN≠3↔LLh&D&λh*O∂F{3πKgIβπK&K∂3↔~↓5β3}s≥βπv!βO#␈∪P$&λJD&DhRK↔[N+←Mβ}1βO∂F{3πKgIβπK&K∂3↔_H$&DMλ%44T∪??-π∪↔['/;M↓5π#↔3↔?∪πC#N→βπ;"β∪↔S∞K3↔⊂HJ4&DMλ4* }{/Mβ⊗+∂↔'6+⊂$$HH&D&λI44*∨+KK↔w!βCW⊗c'∂π&K?;LHH$&4Lh&D4T OS⊗ ∂SMε{→βC∂β↔KLHH$&4Lh&D4T ∪[↔↔#'O↔n+;SMαiβ+?↔→1β↔∂+'C7.sQ1β∞s⊃β }{/L&hJD&DhP4)5ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji555ji544Ph)↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓αS∞∪3∃↓⊂h)↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓↓↓↓α↓αCK␈β?O↔"αCW fK∂πSN{;Mβ}1αεε H4(4Ts?S'≡+M↓5εk?;SFcd4(L+∪'S␈∪'π3~{7↔O≡ ∨↔Mε3K?5πβK↔ON#↔;PhP&3↔'#↔KLhP&GW/∪'↔LhP&O?≡K↔Seεs↔←M␈∪↔C?↔#Mβ?rβ7↔↔&K;∨LhP&∂πf+;∪π∩β?→β/3↔;S~↓#;↔:βπ;⊃πβK↔[N{WM$hP&∂πfcMβ≠␈⊃βCπε+KM?&+π∪3Ns↔M↓Fs↔]β∞s⊃βC⊗+['?/→$4(L ;;?.s∂↔7.sSM?π∪?≠↔∨≠'?;∞aβπ∂&K['SN+L4(Mβ↔KO}sπ1βv{S'∂/→?∪↔∂##L4PJ;↔←~βπ;⊃ε≠?77ts
Advertisements - jobs, equipment, and books
Titles and Abstracts - monthly
Current journal contents
Current conference contents
Abstracts of papers and short notices
Reviews - quarterly
Research news/surveys/expository articles
Reviews of scholarly articles
Book reviews - telegraphic and detailed
Books received
Book advertisements
Journal - quarterly
Scholarly articles - long and short
(Reviews of scholarly articles)
***********************************************************
To the Executive Council,
American Association for Artificial Intelligence
April 15, 1981
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In January, 1981 I proposed to you (through Bruce Buchanan) that the
AAAI, as the scientific society of the field of artificial
intelligence, take up its proper responsibility for facilitating free
scientific communication in AI by publishing a monthly announcement of
titles and abstracts of papers. That proposal also mentioned other
possible reorganizations of scientific publications in our field, but
did not attach any urgency to their consideration. In this letter, I
extend my earlier proposal to urge publication of a scholarly journal
by the AAAI.
AI needs a scholarly journal dedicated to the communication of
detailed discoveries. For a decade now, the journal Artificial
Intelligence (henceforth AIJ) has served much of this need. However,
recent experiences of mine have awakened me to the unpleasant fact
that the AIJ is operated principally as an economic venture under the
direction of a private corporation, rather than as a communications
effort under the control of the scientific community it serves. To
illuminate the problem, I will first describe my experience with the
AIJ, point out the problem underlying it, and then show how my current
proposal would go far towards remedying the situation.
My experience was this. Recently, the AIJ granted, without
ever consulting me, exclusive rights to a third party to reprint an
article of mine in an anthology. However much I support the
publication of the anthology, this seems to be professionally
unjustifiable behavior on the part of the AIJ. I bear no grudge
against the editor of the AIJ, one of yourselves (Dr. Bobrow), for I
feel the matter to be more one of the institutional structure involved
than of personal responsibility. The AIJ receives copyright powers
over all papers submitted to it, and this seems to be neither unusual
nor at fault, as this power may often be necessary to protect the life
of the journal. However, as far as I know, there are no public
policies concerning the operation of the AIJ, and any unannounced
policies there may be would seem to be dictated more by the economic
interests of the North-Holland publishing company than by the
community of scholars whom the AIJ ostensibly serves. I would find it
extremely surprising were an organization devoted primarily to
encouraging scientific communication to grant exclusive reprinting
rights to individual articles, unless in exceptional circumstances,
and only after consultation with the authors involved. In most
fields, some fraction of papers worthy of being anthologized are
worthy of being reprinted in several different contexts, as they
sometimes make several different contributions to the field. But
unannounced exclusive delegations of authority to third parties can
only be justified on unusual economic gains to the journal or
anthology publisher.
Unfortunately, I cannot believe that my experience will be the
last such case of private economic interests overcoming public
communication responsibilities in the AIJ, no matter what the
intentions of its editors. The best way I see to avoid this problem
is that of the AAAI publishing its own scholarly journal, a journal
solely under the control of those it serves. Such a journal could of
course demand copyrights, but its policies about reprinting and other
matters could be matters for public discussion and review.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the substance of my proposal.
I feel very stronly about this matter, and would be willing to help in
the effort of establishing such a journal, should you agree to it.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jon Doyle
Computer Science Department
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
415-857-1892
JD@SAIL
-------
-------
∂01-Feb-83 1840 LGC Tomorrow at 9am?
I'm assuming that we should all be there at 9 am for the ARPA meeting tomorrow;
is that right? -- Lew
No, just the principal investigators of whom there seem to be enough to
fill the room. What I do want is a three year proposal, with the
usual goals and milestones. I have been lazy and should have been
after you before, but I was expecting to encounter you. A two page
draft for my own use some time tonight as a message would be helpful.
∂01-Feb-83 1903 LGC Please Check...
∂01-Feb-83 1845 JMC
No, just the principal investigators of whom there seem to be enough to
fill the room. What I do want is a three year proposal, with the
usual goals and milestones. I have been lazy and should have been
after you before, but I was expecting to encounter you. A two page
draft for my own use some time tonight as a message would be helpful.
LGC - Will you check your recent mail to see if you still have my msg with
the following header:
∂21-Jan-83 1911 LGC ANALYST Information for ARPA
To: JMC
I think this msg contains everything you want; if not, let me know right away,
and I'll do my best to supplement it or otherwise fix it up. If you can't find
it, I can easily send you another copy now.
∂01-Feb-83 2019 RPG tomorrow
I will be in Jacks by 9 or so and will be available to discuss
common lisp with Machado or Adams if necessary. Betty Scott has
dealt with the Common Lisp proposal and it should be well on its way.
-rpg-
∂02-Feb-83 0732 GAVAN at Mit-Mc
Received: from UDEL-TCP by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 2 Feb 83 07:31:57 PST
Date: Wednesday, 2 February 1983 09:50-EST
From: GAVAN at Mit-Mc
Return-Path: <@MIT-ML:GAVAN@MIT-MC>
Received: from MIT-ML.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA (3.284 [1/5/83])
id AA00099; 2-Feb-83 10:23:34-EST (Wed)
Sender: GAVAN.mit-oz at UDel-TCP
To: jmc.su-ai at UDel-TCP
Let me know right away whether or not you received this message.
∂02-Feb-83 0754 (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) uw-beaver!ubc-vision!reiter at Lbl-Csam message received
Received: from UDEL-TCP by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 2 Feb 83 07:53:57 PST
Date: 2-Feb-83 00:08:29-PST (Wed)
From: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) uw-beaver!ubc-vision!reiter at Lbl-Csam
Return-Path: <ubc-vision!reiter@uw-beaver.UUCP>
Subject: message received
Received: by LBL-CSAM.ARPA (3.284 [1/5/83])
id AA28963; 2-Feb-83 00:08:29-PST (Wed)
Received: from LBL-CSAM.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA (3.284 [1/5/83])
id AA08132; 2-Feb-83 09:17:53-EST (Wed)
Message-Id: <8301020808.28963@LBL-CSAM.ARPA>
To: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) uw-beaver!lbl-csam!JMC at Su-Ai
Fine. Regards, Ray.
∂02-Feb-83 0951 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI at SRI-AI> AAAI Membership Roster
Received: from SRI-AI by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 2 Feb 83 09:50:54 PST
Date: 2 Feb 1983 0944-PST
From: Louis G. Robinson <AAAI at SRI-AI>
Subject: AAAI Membership Roster
To: AAAI-Executive-Committee: ;
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Membership in AAAI will soon top the 2,200 mark.
-------
∂02-Feb-83 1207 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 2 Feb 83 12:07:38 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Wed 2 Feb 83 12:02:47-PST
Date: Wednesday, 2 February 1983 14:48-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: jmc%su-ai @ usc-eclc
Please let me know if this message reaches you and that it reached you
via usc-eclc. I'm experimenting. When will SAIL convert to the new
protocols?
∂02-Feb-83 1442 HAP Modem
Your Datamedia terminal is now connected and operating over the line to
MJH. It is possible that your problems were caused by an intermittent
patch cord, which I have replaced with a spare from the AI lab. When I
have repaired your old cable, I will return it to you.
The two modems now in use on your line have been tested for two days and
show no signs of malfunction. It seems likely that if you have trouble in
the future its cause may be the leased line itself.
I have rearranged your power cables a bit; when you set things up according
to your own preference, of course, be careful to get everything back in the
correct order.
Good luck.
Henry Pasternack
∂03-Feb-83 0030 JCMa@MIT-OZ loneliness
Received: from USC-ECL by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 3 Feb 83 00:30:26 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECL; Thu 3 Feb 83 00:28:51-PST
Date: Thursday, 3 February 1983, 03:17-EST
From: JCMa@MIT-OZ
Subject: loneliness
To: JMC.SAIL@UDEL-RELAY
Cc: cstacy@mc, phil-sci-request@mc, JMC%SU-AI@USC-ECL
In-reply-to: The message of 2 Feb 83 02:41-EST from JMC at SU-AI
Supersedes: The message of 3 Feb 83 02:43-EST from JCMa at MIT-OZ,
The message of 3 Feb 83 02:49-EST from JCMa at MIT-OZ
Mail-from: ARPANET site SU-AI rcvd at 1-Feb-83 2343-PST
Date: 01 Feb 83 2341 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
Subject: loneliness
To: philosophy-of-science-request%MIT-MC@USC-ECL
I haven't received any mail from phil-sci for a day, and I suppose it
is related to MC dropping NCP. Perhaps the list needs a new routing
to JMC-LISTS@SU-AI. Or perhaps GAVAN going on jury duty has sequestered
all the philosophers.
Even better yet. I'll put the messages in on MC so you can FTP them.
The will be in the files MC:CSTACY;FEB1 PHIL-S and MC:CSTACY;FEB2 PHIL-S
∂03-Feb-83 0121 GAVAN @ MIT-MC
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 3 Feb 83 01:21:31 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Thu 3 Feb 83 01:18:26-PST
Date: Wednesday, 2 February 1983 20:15-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: JMC%SU-AI @ USC-ECLC, Winograd @ PARC-MAXC
Betty Dexter has sent both of you a copy of Habermas' "Theories of
Truth" in today's snail mail.
Please transmit my thanks for Habermas book.
Please prepare grade change forms accordingly.
∂03-Feb-83 1257 JJW 206 grades
I would recommend the following final grades.
Agosta B-
Kopelman B
LeVine A-
Moller B-
I'll get the forms or whatever is necessary to Diana for you to sign.
There are still others who have incompletes; I'll try to contact them
and see how they are progressing on projects.
Now that he is again receiving phil-sci mail, I want to respond to
JMC's exposition on "meta-epistemology" and the various theories of
truth. This message limits itself to asking questions and making
observations directly related to JMC's message. I may later have more
to say about the coherence theory, and its relation both to JMC's
"meta-epistemology" and Minsky's sparseness theory. I think the
coherence theory has more affinity with the latter than with the
former, but I'll reserve my remarks until later.
I take JMC's exposition as an interesting attempt to reconcile the
irreconcilable -- namely, the correspondence and coherence theories --
but, although it's interesting, I don't think he succeeded in reconciling
them. More to the point, he reconciled the correspondence theory with
what he mistakes the correspondence and coherence theories to hold.
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
. . . it is often appropriate to consider model
worlds that are not candidates as theories of the real world.
By studying strategies in abstract worlds, both theoretically and
experimentally, we may develop candidate strategies for application
to the real world. These candidate strategies may discussed as
philosophies of science and imbedded in programs interacting with
the incompletely known physical and mathematical worlds.
I wasn't trying to reconcile the correspondence and coherence theories,
because I still don't understand coherence as a theory of what truth is.
Without disputing the usefulness of your approach within physics
and mathematics, I can't see how you can ever make the incautious
leap from strategies you may find useful in an abstract world to
strategies you would recommend for people in the "real" world. Also,
are you suggesting that the so-called "real" world is, in its
totality, reducible to physical and mathematical explanation? Many
physicists and mathematicians believe this, so I wouldn't be too
shocked if you did too. If you do believe this, I'd ask "how do you
know?" Isn't this just another article of faith? How can any
thinking being ever know whether everything in the world is reducible
to physics and mathematics? If that thinking being exists in the
world (if it's not God), then the world is necessarily more complex
than is the thinking being. So he/she can't ever know for sure.
I believe the world is a physical system, but this doesn't mean that
the physics of flip-flops says much about computer programming.
Even meta-level questions such as the appropriate theory of truth may
be studied in these abstract systems.
Perhaps as theories of truth in an hypothetical world, but as theories of
truth in the "real" world?
Epistemology can benefit from mathematical modelling just as much as
physics. The appropriate mathematics is mathematical logic, although
some extension seem to be required to cover non-monotonic reasoning.
Here are my views on the relations between CORRESPONDENCE, COHERENCE,
and CONSENSUS baldly stated. Arguments are later.
1. The truth of a statement about the world is defined by its
CORRESPONDENCE to the facts of the world. The truth of a statement about
mathematical objects is determined by its correspondence to the facts
about these mathematical objects. Of course, both of these presuppose the
existence of the world and of mathematical objects. Tarski says: "Snow is
white" is true if snow is white. This has an unfortunate but inevitable
circularity, because we use language for talking about the world, and
we're talking about sentences in the same language. The circularity has
the consequence that the definition doesn't itself provide a means of
determining facts about the world. Unfortunate but inevitable.
This seems to be a valid definition of the TRUTHFULNESS of an
utterance, but not of TRUTH itself. The utterer's subjective image
of the world (the only world he/she can know) may be mistaken. If
his/her utterance corresponds to his/her subjective image, than
he/she can be said to have uttered a TRUTHFUL statement. The
statement might still not be TRUE, however.
I don't have an "image of the world", and I don't believe you do either.
I only have a fragmentary collection of beliefs about the world. Now
maybe that's all some people mean by an "image of the world". It seems
that you meant by truthful simply "not lying".
2. Our means of trying to determine the truth involves the COHERENCE
of large collections of statements including reports of observation.
We do not take COHERENCE as the definition of truth, because we always
want to admit the possibility that a collection of statements may
be coherent but wrong. Naturally, we will only come to believe that
it is wrong if some other collection of statements is found to
be more COHERENT, but the new one may be wrong also.
The coherence theory is not about the coherence (or intelligibility)
of statements. It's about the coherence of beliefs within the web of
knowledge. When we ascribe truth to a belief we hold we mean that
the belief coheres within the network of our other beliefs.
I agree with the last sentence, but let me remind you that my ascribing
truth to a belief is not my definition of its being true. Many of my
beliefs are coherent with my web of knowledge but nevertheless mistaken.
Any of these
beliefs might be wrong, of course, and distortions may have been
introduced into the network, which is why we make statements about our
beliefs. The purpose of the act of making a statement is to
inter-subjectively validate the truth of a belief. Why else do we
enter into discussions (this one for instance)? We seek
inter-subjective validation of our beliefs precisely because our image
of the world is necessarily subjective. This is why inter-subjective
discourse is the ultimate arena in which truth is assessed (whatever
our theory of truth at the individual level of analysis). Our
perceptions and conceptions are both fallible.
3. CONSENSUS is a mere sociological phenomenon whereby groups of
people come to more or less agree about the truth of somm collection
statements. . . .
You're sweeping the consensus theory under the rug here. My reason
for espousing it is stated in the paragraph above. A better
justification of it may be found in the Habermas paper. You cannot
dismiss the consensus theory by calling it a "mere" sociological
phenomenon any more than I can dismiss the theory of gravitation by
calling it a "mere" physical phenomenon. This attitude reminds me of
the habit that some physicists and mathematicians have of calling the
social sciences "immature". They do so to cover up the fact that
their methods aren't sophisticated or complex enough to find a wide
range of applicability in domains as complex as those studied by
social scientists. I know this view is radical, unorthodox, or even
heretical, but I'm curious to know your response.
At any given time there may or may not be CONSENSUS in various groups
of people.
So what? "Snow is white" is true because we agree that snow is white.
"Hitler was evil" is true because we agree that Hitler was evil.
"Andropov is evil" is neither true nor false because there's
disagreement. You can't dismiss the consensus theory as a theory of
truth just because there may not be a consensus on some statement.
Some statements may be neither true nor false. So what?
A Toy mathematical example illustrating use of the above concepts:
. . .
As I said above, this abstract toy may produce useful results for the
abstract tinker-toy world of the mathematician, but I'm hard-pressed
to see its usefulness in the concrete world in which the rest of us
live. While it may produce useful findings for mathematics I don't
feel competent to comment on the specifics of your research program.
6. In certain kinds of world, the best strategy for
accumulating beliefs would be a COHERENCE strategy. The strategy
would have collections of assertions about large numbers of aspects
of the world, some of which would be alternatives to each other.
A strategy that put in the list B of official beliefs the
most COHERENT collections of assertions would probably be
most effective in generating beliefs that CORRESPOND to its
world. It would also be most effective in predicting the experiential
consequences of actions.
Again, the coherence theory has NOTHING to do with the intelligibility
of assertions. And an assertion that corresponds to some subjective
image of the world is not necessarily a TRUE assertion (but perhaps a
TRUTHFUL assertion, if it corresponds to the utterer's subjective
beliefs.
7. If the knowledge seeking program were composed of many
semi-independent subprograms, each connected to the automaton world
in a different way, strategies of co-operation might well develop.
Such strategies might involve inter-knower lists of of beliefs
obtained by CONSENSUS. This is especially likely if the individual
knowers were limited by short lives from independent access to the
phenomena and so were forced to develop collective institutions
of science.
Yow! Is this the "real" world yet?
8. So far our epistemological statements have all been at
the meta level. We have discussed the beliefs and truth seeking
strategies of the programs in the automaton world from outside
that world. If the world is complex, and complex worlds are the
primary interest, it will sometimes be effective for the program
itself to have theories of truth and belief and use these theories
in its knowledge seeking strategy. We might, for example, include
sentences expressing such meta-beliefs in the initial supply of
sentences we give the program. We might include the whole general
theory including a CORRESPONDENCE theory of truth, a COHERENCE
strategy of search and a CONSENSUS theory of co-operation
in the initial stock of sentences provided we could formalize
it suitably. We might try out rival theories, suitably formalized.
Alternatively, we might leave out any theories and see if they
develop.
How about this: you could have a CORRESPONDENCE theory of the
truthfulness of statements, a COHERENCE theory of truth which is
fallible since it merely tries to maintain the "elegance" of the
structure of the network of beliefs, thus necessitating
inter-subjective validation by seeking a CONSENSUS on statements that
are truthfully uttered.
Well, that's not so bad. I could agree with that formulation modified
to "COHERENCE strategy of truthfulness-seeking" and "CONSENSUS on
statements that are to be accepted". However, I don't think our views
are really that close together.
. . .
12. It might be interesting for an adherent of the COHERENCE
theory of truth to attempt a meta-epistemological model. I wouldn't
know how to begin.
It might be interesting for a coherence theorist to attempt an
epistemological model, but not a meta-epistemological model. A
coherence theorist would also not how to begin, because he/she finds
the whole idea of taking a God's-eye view to be laughable. Unlike the
correspondence theorist, the coherence theorist recognizes that
his/her view of reality is subjective (since he/she tries to maintain
the elegance of his/her structure of beliefs) and thus subject to
distortion. The coherence theorist would not set HIMSELF up as an
objective observer of the world. He/she would realize that his/her
subjective beliefs are necessarily reified in the model. This is why
he/she (and also the correspondence theorist) tests his/her ideas in
inter-subjective discourse before implementing them. The coherence
theorist understands the meaning of a statement once made by a famous
philosopher: "In the thing, all the characteristics of reflection
recur as existent."
He might start in the same way as I did - consider
systems consisting of a computer program connected to something with
which it interacts. My knowledge seeker attempts to find out the
structure of the something. However, just considering the knowledge
seeker connected to something involves a something, i.e. a world,
and makes the problem one of finding out about the world.
Yes. A coherence advocate might begin this way, but he/she would not
egocentrically call his/her model a "meta-epistemological" one, but
rather just an epistemological one. Coherence advocates do not
consider themselves gods.
Someone who rejects "the world" and an associated correspondence
theory might well consider that these have already been presumed by
connecting the program to something. Well, that's their problem.
Perhaps even Gedanken experiments are inappropriate from their point
of view.
Coherence theorists (or, more precisely, internalists) do not deny the
existence of "the world", only that it can be objectively known. So
Gedanken experiments are appropriate.
Here is another way of putting the question. Are Gedanken
experiments or real experiments with knowledge seeking programs
appropriate from the point of view of any non-correspondence
theory of truth?
Yes.
If so, what is the experimental environment of
the program, and what kinds of sentences does it attempt to ascribe
truth to? Would an obstacles-and-roofs world be appropriate,
or does it presume too much of a "real world"?
All kinds of sentences are appropriate, and all kinds of worlds are
too, although the subjectively-known "real" world would be best. As
for sentences, the coherence theorist/experimenter would want to
devise a system which could make statements about conjectures based
upon the plausibility (potential coherence) of the conjecture. He/she
would want the system to seek inter-subjective validation of these
stated conjectures (even if the only other subject from whom to seek
consensus is the theorist/experimenter) so that bad conjectures can be
spotted and flushed, and so that the system can LEARN not to make
incorrect or untrue conjectures.
∂04-Feb-83 0201 Phil-sci-request@MIT-MC Sending mail to JMC
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 4 Feb 83 02:01:20 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Fri 4 Feb 83 01:57:52-PST
Date: Friday, 4 February 1983, 04:51-EST
From: Phil-sci-request@MIT-MC
Sender: JCMa@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Subject: Sending mail to JMC
To: JMC@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Cc: phil-sci@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
In-reply-to: The message of 4 Feb 83 02:07-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
I set up a name equivalence at oz for you. If someone sends to JMC@OZ,
or jmc at any ITS, the mail will get to you. The OZ mailer knows how to
route messages via USC-ECLC. Please let us know when sail gets TCP up
and running so we can undo the kludge.
∂04-Feb-83 0316 JCMa@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 4 Feb 83 03:16:09 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Fri 4 Feb 83 03:12:45-PST
Date: Friday, 4 February 1983, 04:52-EST
From: JCMa@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
To: JMC@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
In-reply-to: The message of 4 Feb 83 02:07-EST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Mail-from: ARPANET site SU-AI rcvd at 3-Feb-83 2308-PST
Date: 03 Feb 83 2307 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
To: jcma%mit-oz@USC-ECLC
Thanks for transmission of phil-sci segment.
You're more than welcome.
∂04-Feb-83 0316 JCMa@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC OZ account
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 4 Feb 83 03:16:30 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Fri 4 Feb 83 03:12:51-PST
Date: Friday, 4 February 1983, 04:59-EST
From: JCMa@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Subject: OZ account
To: jmc@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
While I was at it, I set up an OZ account for you.
The user name is X.JMC with pw= jmc
When you get around to logging in, be sure to run inquire.
Until OZ gets on the arpa-net, you can get to OZ via either MC or ML,
assuming you can get to one of those.
∂04-Feb-83 1022 GAVAN @ MIT-MC Does Robby need the predicate true?
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 4 Feb 83 10:20:10 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Fri 4 Feb 83 10:05:25-PST
Date: Friday, 4 February 1983 12:59-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ MIT-OZ>
Cc: phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
Subject: Does Robby need the predicate true?
In-reply-to: The message of 03 Feb 83 1908 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
2. In our discussion of Robby's function we may conclude that Robby's
beliefs about what is on the table is COHERENT but not true or that
all the robots have come to a CONSENSUS that snow is black, but they're
all wrong.
We may also conclude that Robby's statement that "snow is black"
CORRESPONDS to Robby's distorted image of the world. Any ascription of
truth might be wrong, no matter what your theory of truth. So what?
3. Question for clarification. Does the CONSENSUS theory of truth
apply to assertions like "The E key on this damn terminal
was sticking for a day last week, and I really should have complained
about it while it was happening, because they can't investigate
a problem that has gone away temporarily"?
Depends on who you're speaking to, and why.
∂05-Feb-83 0212 ME Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 4 February 1983
Previous Balance 0.25
Monthly Interest at 1.5% 0
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 0.25
Please deliver payments to Diana Hall, room 358, Jacks Hall.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your Pony account name on your check.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.5% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
You haven't paid your Pony bill since 12/82.
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.
∂05-Feb-83 1415 JJW Prolog
To: JMC, ZM, FY
Prolog is now running somewhat on SAIL. Say HELP PROLOG for full information.
I will be working to eliminate existing bugs as soon as possible. The manual is
online and can be read by saying READ PROLOG.
∂05-Feb-83 2029 Christopher C Stacy <CSTACY@Mit-Mc> this is a test
Received: from UDEL-TCP by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 5 Feb 83 20:29:05 PST
Date: 2 February 1983 16:15 EST
From: Christopher C Stacy <CSTACY@Mit-Mc>
Return-Path: <CSTACY@MIT-MC>
Subject: this is a test
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA (3.284 [1/5/83])
id AA00723; 5-Feb-83 23:31:09-EST (Sat)
To: JMC.SAIL at UDel-TCP
Cc: JCMA at Mit-Mc, GAVAN at Mit-Mc, CSTACY at Mit-Mc
This should get to you via the kludge relay at UDEL, and you should be
able to reply to CSTACY.MC@UDEL-RELAY if you got it. When do you
expect to have TCP running at SAIL? The Government claims you already
have it up, but obviously they are mistaken. Your machine is, as far
as all but a few remaining sites (none of which are at MIT), gone.
Chris
The person to ask about TCP at SAIL is Martin Frost, known as ME@SAIL.
However, his last response to the question was that we are still waiting
for the TOPS-10 version, which is being done at Wright-Patterson Air Forse
Base, and which will have to be further modified for the WAITS operating
system. I believe his estimate was the middle of March.
Your message took seven hours to get here, since it's now 8:30 pm here.
We are using USC-ECLC as a relay now. I'm not getting the copies of
messages addressed directly to me from OZ, although they are apparently
being correctly transmitted to JMC-LISTS@SU-AI, which is my preferred
address for "junk mail", i.e. all mail addressed to lists. Thanks for
your concern, and death to BBN.
∂05-Feb-83 2217 JCMa.mit-oz at UDel-TCP loneliness
Received: from UDEL-TCP by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 5 Feb 83 22:17:10 PST
Date: Thursday, 3 February 1983, 03:17-EST
From: JCMa.mit-oz at UDel-TCP
Return-Path: <JCMa@MIT-OZ>
Subject: loneliness
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA (3.284 [1/5/83])
id AA01436; 6-Feb-83 01:13:04-EST (Sun)
To: JMC.SAIL at UDel-TCP
Cc: cstacy at Mit-Mc, phil-sci-request at Mit-Mc, JMC%SU-AI at Usc-Ecl
In-Reply-To: The message of 2 Feb 83 02:41-EST from JMC at SU-AI
Supersedes: The message of 3 Feb 83 02:43-EST from JCMa at MIT-OZ,
The message of 3 Feb 83 02:49-EST from JCMa at MIT-OZ
Mail-from: ARPANET site SU-AI rcvd at 1-Feb-83 2343-PST
Date: 01 Feb 83 2341 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
Subject: loneliness
To: philosophy-of-science-request%MIT-MC@USC-ECL
I haven't received any mail from phil-sci for a day, and I suppose it
is related to MC dropping NCP. Perhaps the list needs a new routing
to JMC-LISTS@SU-AI. Or perhaps GAVAN going on jury duty has sequestered
all the philosophers.
Even better yet. I'll put the messages in on MC so you can FTP them.
The will be in the files MC:CSTACY;FEB1 PHIL-S and MC:CSTACY;FEB2 PHIL-S
∂06-Feb-83 0133 ME oz
OK, here's what you can do (I think) to mail to Foo@OZ. The problem
is that MC isn't running NCP, so the previous kludge of relaying OZ
mail through MC isn't sufficient any more. So now say:
MAIL "Foo%OZ"%MC
This will get relayed through ECL (automatically) and then MC to get to OZ.
Let me know if it doesn't work.
∂06-Feb-83 1854 LGC EMP
If you haven't read much about EMP (ElectroMagnetic Pulse), or perhaps even
if you have, you might be interested in an article called "The Chaos Factor"
in the Jan/Feb issue of Science83 magazine. [p. 97 of this issue has references
to 5 earlier articles on the subject in May and June of 1981 in Scence and
Science News, and 1 U.S. Govt. publication.]
EMP is discussed briefly on pp. 19-20 of Kearny's book Nuclear War Survival
Skills, and is described on p. 20 as "an intense burst of radio-frequency
radiation generated by a nuclear explosion." It is believed that the EMP from
one or more high-altitude nuclear explosions could induce transient currents
that would burn out at a single stroke most of the electrical and electronic
equipment in the country, including power grids, communications links,
computers, radars, etc.
∂06-Feb-83 2037 JCMa@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC garbled message
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 6 Feb 83 20:37:49 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Sun 6 Feb 83 20:35:46-PST
Date: Sunday, 6 February 1983, 23:14-EST
From: JCMa@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Subject: garbled message
To: jmc@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Could you please resend you message of 5 FEB which has the subject line
"Knowledge" is useful. The message seems to have been garbled in
transmission. Thanks.
∂07-Feb-83 0232 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Sharing The Wealth
Received: from S1-A by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 7 Feb 83 02:32:25 PST
Date: 07 Feb 1983 0232-PST
From: Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A>
Subject: Sharing The Wealth
To: jmc at SU-AI
CC: LLW at S1-A
∂06-Feb-83 1641 HWC Computing at Texas
∂05-Feb-83 CSD.NOVAK@SU-SCORE 05-Feb-83 JMC Computing at Texas
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 05-Feb-83 21:40 PST
Date: Sat 5 Feb 83 21:27:28-PST
From: Gordon Novak <CSD.NOVAK@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Computing at Texas
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Brian Reid's message on computing at the University of Texas is
misleading. Certainly Texas needs more computer facilities; so does
Stanford, and so do most other universities [Wall Street Journal,
Jan. 14]. In addition to the 2060 mentioned in Brian's message,
Texas has another 2060, dual Cyber-750's, large IBM systems, a terminal
switch network for 1200 terminals, many VAXes, etc. Stanford's CS
department has excellent facilities, but I think the rest of the
campus is no better off than those at Texas.
-------
jmc - I met someone last night who told me that the University of
Texas just spent more than 2 million dollars to buy a Gutenberg
Bible from (I think) the Union Theological Seminary in New York.
It is hard to say that the world of scholarship has been enriched
by two million worth by moving a book from New York to Austin.
A good bargainer like Ralph Gorin could probably get three 2060s
for that price.
[John: I'm shocked by your insensitivity to market forces and your
intellectual bigotry vis-a-vis theological scholarship! The body of UTS
scholars were enriched by $2M at the conclusion of this transaction, and
clearly won't suffer from loss of their Gutenberg--they can always
reference a xerox copy for their research. As for UT, their new Gutenberg
will very likely be worth significantly more than $2M a half-decade hence,
while even Ralph Gorin would be hard-pressed to get $1M for three 2060s in
that era. Tsk, tsk! Lowell]
∂08-Feb-83 0100 JMC*
Carolyn
∂08-Feb-83 0129 KDF @ MIT-MC axioms for blocks?
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 8 Feb 83 01:29:14 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Tue 8 Feb 83 00:36:17-PST
Date: Tuesday, 8 February 1983 03:33-EST
Sender: KDF @ MIT-OZ
From: KDF @ MIT-MC
To: jmc @ oz
Subject: axioms for blocks?
While you are shipping files, would it be possible
to ship over your latest Blocks World axioms? Many thanks.
Ken
∂08-Feb-83 1801 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Reminder
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 08-Feb-83 17:59 PST
Date: Tue 8 Feb 83 17:54:30-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Reminder
To: Hastorf-group: ;
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
This is just to remind everyone that we are scheduled to meet with Hastorf
et al at 4pm on Thursday in Hastorf office in Bldg 10. We are meeting with
Hastorf, Wessells, Quate, and Lieberman to tell our story about how we
need more space, and more billets. It seems to me that we should also
talk about how our enrollments are growing and how the cost of TA's is
bankrupting us. WE might also talk about how we have to limit enrollments
in our classes and how we are facing greater restrictions on enrollments
because of the TA problem. Computer science is probably the fastest
growing discipline at Stanford as well as elsewhere. We're No. 1 but we
are going to need help from them if we are to stay No.1 or even in the
top five schools. Paul
-------
∂09-Feb-83 0336 ARK For Your Information
∂09-Feb-83 0335 ARK Pony and Copiers
To: Pony@SU-AI, REG@SU-AI, CSD.Yearwood@SU-SCORE
There is increased interest in having the Pony operate the copiers. Such
a scheme would involve a terminal by each copier for people identifying
themselves and their project (or personal) and a password. A box would
have to be built that behaves like an auditron.
Components
* One micro computer (plus a spare?) containing the accounts, passwords,
authorization matrix, credit limits, etc. It would approve the
transactions and make temporary records of them. Through an RS-232 port
to a mainframe, it would transmit the transactions when the mainframe
was available (or queue them until the mainframe was up) using coded
timestamped and number sequenced "packets".
* Three auditron interface boxes (for two copiers plus one spare). I
propose a 6 wire interface. One pair for "enable copies", one for "copy
being made", and one for "copier reset" (when the copier is finished and
resets, which is a good time to reset "enable copies").
* Four mini terminals (for two copiers and one spare). RS-232 interface
and 32-character display required. I heard that Televideo may have such
a terminal.
* A vending machine interface. It should talk RS-232 to the computer and
have several interface outputs to support several vending machines.
That is it should have the same output as the board in SAIL and
interface to the board in the Pony VM. I have the schematics for the
middle vending machine, and I will try to get them for the soda machine.
(This does not mean that we would connect to the other machines, only
that we should have the technical ability to do so.)
We might be able to market this idea and implementation. I would like the
software to be written from scratch for all components. The mainframe
implementation should be written in (Hedrick's) PASCAL.
Reports would be produced monthly:
* Total copies made by university budget account. The cost of the copier
rental and maintenance would be proportioned among the accounts based on
number of copies made by supplying the program with the cost value once
a month.
* Individual reports by university budget account detailing individuals
making charges and the number of copies per person (and cost per
person).
* Individual bills (or invoices) for uses of the vending machine or for
personal uses of the copiers.
* Users could run a program on the mainframe to query the database for
status information concurrently with normal operation.
* For copies charged to courses, there could be a breakdown by course if
this information is encoded as a subaccount number. (Subaccount numbers
could be required for specified university accounts and could have
authorization crosschecks against the user as would regular accounts.)
I would expect:
* All hardware except for one terminal and the vending machine interface
would be paid for by the department. Programming costs would be borne
by the department, and computer time for operation would continue to be
provided.
* The Pony would get a surcharge for personal copies made, but not for
copies charged to university accounts. This is because of the work
involved for personal accounts that is not involved for university
accounts. The Pony would not expect any free copies other than those
made in maintenance of the equipment (which would be considered spoiled
copies, see below).
* The department continues its current level of support for Pony
operations (by Diana Hall or her replacement or others as needed). It
may be expected that the workload may increase somewhat, although the
functions will remain the same. The Pony would be responsible for
authorizing personal copies; the department would be responsible for
authorizing individuals to make copies charged to university accounts
(possibly restricting the accounts and subaccounts), and enter the
information in a form usable by the Pony software.
* One-time only accounts facility would exist for enabling people to
pay for copier use "on the spot". I am not sure how this facility
would be implemented, but I expect that you give someone such an
account after collecting a deposit, and issuing a transaction that
returns the number of copies made and invalidates the account. A refund
for the remaining money could then be issued.
* Users who received "spoiled copies" could indicate that problem and
would not be charged for those copies. A report of the total of such
copies would be made available monthly.
* The current scheme of debit and credit accounts would continue.
* Since the Pony revenue is not from government sources, we would appreciate
conversion of the account to an interest-bearing university account.
* The Pony will continue to produce financial reports of its operation, would
reimburse the department for the cost of personal copies made, and would
receive payment for these copies from the individuals.
Arthur
∂09-Feb-83 1115 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE Folders
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 09-Feb-83 11:15 PST
Date: Wed 9 Feb 83 11:08:47-PST
From: Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Folders
To: dfh@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-4365
I would like last weeks folders back and I have a new batch for John to read.
Rita
-------
∂09-Feb-83 1315 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Memo to Hastorf
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 09-Feb-83 13:15 PST
Date: Wed 9 Feb 83 13:11:53-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Memo to Hastorf
To: csd.golub@SU-SCORE.ARPA, admin.gorin@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
csd.reges@SU-SCORE.ARPA, csd.bscott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: csd.ullman@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, dek@SU-AI.ARPA,
jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
DRAFT
Memo to: Albert H. Hastorf
Subject: Problems of the Computer Science Department
From: Gene H. Golub
Copies to: Gerald J. Lieberman, Norman K. Wessells, and Calvin F. Quate
1. CSD needs to grow for two reasons:
A.The intellectual scope of the discipline of computer science
is growing exponentially. (See Memo to Wessells of May 6, 1982.)
B. Enrollments are increasing rapidly (Undergraduate enrollments at
a 12.8% compound annual growth rate; 10.8% overall -- See Memo
to Golub of January 21, 1983.)
2. More billets require more space:
A. Five more billets imply 7500 more sq.ft.
B. Ten more billets imply 15000 more sq.ft.
C. Fifteen more billets imply 22500 more sq.ft.
We need plans for how we are going to meet our needs in the short term
and in the long run.
3. Increasing enrollments are causing other problems:
A. The resulting increase in TA's is bankrupting us. (See Memo
to Golub of November 4, 1982.)
B. Because of the TA situation and the load on LOTS we have
been limiting enrollments. Students are irate and we've
even had phone calls from parents complaining about
what they are getting (or not getting) for their $12,000
per year.
C. We are going to be forced to limit enrollments to an even
greater extent because of TA expenses, the load on LOTS,
the need to limit student to faculty ratios.
Paul
-------
∂09-Feb-83 1620 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA PROPOSAL
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 09-Feb-83 16:20 PST
Date: Wed 9 Feb 83 16:14:56-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA PROPOSAL
To: zm@SU-AI.ARPA, csl.ver.dcl@SU-SCORE.ARPA, tob@SU-AI.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA,
csd.wiederhold@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu 3 Feb 83 09:24:45-PST
Date: Thu 3 Feb 83 09:24:45-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE>
Subject: ARPA PROPOSAL
To: zm@SU-AI, csl.ver.dcl, tob@SU-AI, jmc@SU-AI, csd.wiederhold
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
At the meeting Wednesday afternoon concerning the ARPA Proposal it was
decided that each of you would geneerate for your task area, by Monday
February 7:
A) A general scope research statement about a long paragraph in length
in the form of brief numbered statements. For the five research areas
the total length should be 2 pages. These should be broad enough to
cover anything you might want to do in the next three years.
B) A report on previous work
C) A report on recent major accomplishments
D) References
B) AND C) should be roughly the same length as two years ago which varied
from a few paragraphs to a few pages per research topic.
Make sure your resumes are current.
Copies of what you generate should be sent to John McCarthy and to me.
Paul(csd.armer@SU-Score).
-------
I have scope statements from jmc and gio. I need scope statements from
ZM, DCL and TOB. I need B,C and D (see previous message attached) from
all. HELP HELP HELP HELPHELP. Paul
-------
∂10-Feb-83 0026 ME tty20 speed
I see that apparently you are running your DM over the leased line
at 1200/1200 instead of 1200/1800. The DM WAITS can easily run at split
baud and would of course give you faster output at 1800. The terminal can
be set to default to any speed (split or not) with bit switches inside,
or you can just change the receive and transmit speeds separately. If you
need or want further info, let me know. I think the system still defaults
that line to 1200/1800, so if the system is reloaded, for example, the
speed will change. If you want the system to default it to 1200/1200,
or 150/1200, let me know.
The DM is working fine at 1200/1200, but it would be nicer to have
1800, and I'd like to try. Can we try it now or would it be easier
when you are at the Lab?
∂10-Feb-83 0517 GAVAN @ MIT-MC Review of JMC's review of Habermas
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 10 Feb 83 05:17:44 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Thu 10 Feb 83 05:13:57-PST
Date: Thursday, 10 February 1983 08:04-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John McCarthy <JMC @ MIT-OZ>
Cc: phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
Subject: Review of JMC's review of Habermas
In-reply-to: The message of 10 Feb 83 0105 PST from John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
From: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
At GAVAN's instigation, I have read the translated chapter of
Jurgen Habermas's "Theories of truth", which he kindly supplied, and
Hilary Putnam's chapter "Two Philsophical Perspectives" reprinted in his
book "Reason Truth and History".
The first concerns the consensus theory of truth and the second
concerns an "internal realist" or coherence theory of truth. He hoped
that they would make me reconsider my adherence to a correspondence theory
of truth.
I have no hope of dissuading anyone from their religious convictions.
I read them hoping for information relevant to making computer
program reason about their own knowledge or to helping computer scientists
reason about computer programs.
Remember that this was not precisely the reason the discussion was
broached in the first place. It had more to do with specific
questions Carl Hewitt raised about the interactions of actors in his
actor-oriented system, and NOT about computer programs in general.
As you may remember from previous
messages, I believe that Robby will need the predicate true as applied to
sentences (or more abstract entities called propositions).
No one disputes this. The real dispute is over the meaning of the predicate true,
i.e., when Robby will and will not predicate things as true.
Often I have found theories developed by epistemologists
useful in AI. Examples include the de re - de dicto distinction,
modal logic, and the concept of natural kinds, the latter a subject
to which Putnam has made contributions. Unfortunately, I could
not find anything usable in either of the present papers. I think
AI will have to start almost from scratch in building a theory of
the relation between minds and the world.
Well, all there is about the relation between minds and the world (if
indeed there is any difference between them for any one mind) is not
coextensive with these two contributions. You can't start from
scratch in building a theory of the relation between the mind and the
world precisely because you bring a lot of intellectual baggage with
you when you begin to consider the question. This is why you use the
word "almost". You already have a theory of the relation between the
mind and the world. You've already adopted a philosophical position,
implicitly if not explicitly.
I will begin with Habermas, proceed to Putnam, and then
recapitulate why AI needs a theory of little minds in little
worlds and requires what I would describe as a correspondence
theory.
Habermas:
Habermas offers a consensus theory of truth, the best summary
of which is the following paragraph.
"On this view I may ascribe a predicate to an object if and only if
every other person who could enter into a dialog with me would also
ascribe the same predicate to the same object. In order to
distinguish true from false statements I make reference to the
judgments of others -- in fact to the judgment of all others with
whom I could ever hold a dialog (among whom, contrary to fact, I
include all the dialog partners I could find if my life-history were
coextensive with the history of mankind). The condition of the truth
of statements is the potential agreement of all others. Every other
would have to able to be convinced that I am justified in ascribing
to object x the predicate p and would then have to be able to agree
with me. Truth means the promise of attaining a rational consensus".
- from page 7 of the anonymous translation.
This is certainly different from the common sense notion
of truth, from Tarski, and from my own opinion. According to us,
everyone who ever lived could be mistaken about some question.
According to Habermas, also. His analysis proceeds from a fictional
"ideal speech situation" (see pp. 30-35 of the translation). The
assumption in the ideal speech situation is that all the participants
in the discourse have no internal or external constraints on their
communication. So your rational discourse with any other in the
history of mankind would be with a person who would not be missing the
information which needed to be missing in order for him/her to be
mistaken. If, even though no information was missing, he/she and you
still disagreed about some fact, then that fact could in turn become
the object of rational discourse. You seem to have missed Habermas'
point.
The ideal speech situation, like "possible worlds" and Rousseau's and
Hobbes' very different "states of nature", is a philosophical device.
It has nothing to do with any real situation. Habermas' point is that
truth refers not only to your own beliefs about the world, but also to
the beliefs of all others. Truth is the potential of agreement in an
ideal speech situation -- one with no constraints on knowledge or on
speech.
Moreover, an assertion or proposition or sentence could be true
if no-one ever thought of it, since truth is a relation between
assertions and the world and has nothing to do with whether anyone
ever thinks of it.
This is plainly preposterous and self-contradictory. How could the
statement ever be asserted if someone didn't think of it? How can it
be known that something is in the world if someone doesn't think it
is.
Habermas's notion of truth is imbedded in a theory of
speech acts - a mess for which John Searle of Berkeley bears
a substantial part of the responsibility.
What precisely are your objections to Searle (and Austin and Grice,
for that matter)? Calling his theory "a mess" isn't enough for me to
chuck it.
Exhibiting this mess is the following citation from page 6.
"We can summarize the results of our preliminary deliberations in
three theses, which require further explication.
1. We call truth the validity-claim which we associate with
constative speech acts. A statement is true if the validity-claim of the
speech acts by means of which, in employing sentences, we maintain that
statement is justified.
2. Questions of truth arise only if the validity-claims naively
imputed in contexts of action become problematic. In discourses where
hypothetical validity-claims are tested, utterances about the truth of
statements are therefore not redundant.
3. In contexts of action assertions give information about objects
of experience; in discourses stements about facts are discussed.
Questions about truth are consequently raised not so much in reference to
the inner worldly correlates of action - with discourses that are
experience -- and action -- free. Whether states of affairs are or are
not the case is not decided by experiential evidence, but by the course of
argument. The idea of truth can be unpacked only in reference to the
discursive settlement of validity claims.
From these theses I would like to draw a few provisional
conclusions which suggest a consensus theory of truth."
The above citation contains the following terms all of which are
treated as technical terms of his theory: truth, validity-claim,
statement, justified, naively imputed, contexts of action, utterance,
assertion, discourse, facts, information, inner worldly correlate, action
related cognition, experience, experiential evidence and course of
argument. This is just the beginning; the number of technical terms in
this paper must exceed a hundred. It would be unfortunate but ok if
they were really needed to understand what truth is. However, my opinion
is that Habermas, no doubt with help from other obscurantist philosophers
like Searle, is in a mode whereby he keeps adding terminology in order to
try to get out of complications induced by the preceding terminology.
For me, these terms don't seem so technical or difficult to
understand. I could voice objections to the technical (mathematical)
terms you use in many of your messages to phil-sci and say "JMC must
be wrong, since he seems to be in a mode in which he keeps introducing
obscurantist mathematical jargon to cover up the deficiencies of his
position. I COULD say something like that, but I don't. Why do you?
You haven't treated Habermas' critique of the correspondence theory,
in which he points out that it's not a theory of truth at all, but a
theory of truthfulness.
I fear that GAVAN will feel cheated by the fact that I decline
to make an analysis of this paper and prefer to make a few superficial
remarks about the views expressed and then start over. My reason is
that there isn't time. Each term would require a page of speculation
about what it might mean and each sentence would require another page
of analysis. A whole 500 page philosophy PhD thesis could be written
about this one paper, and many have about similarly obscure writings
of more famous philosophers.
There are already a number of published texts on Habermas' philosophy,
and there are already a number of theses on topics he addresses.
Habermas is the leading contemporary in the so-called "critical
school", whose earlier luminaries include Max Horkheimer
(under-rated), Theodor W. Adorno, and Erich Fromm. I want you to know
that although I take Habermas' theory to be important (and not
necessarily for robot design: I don't know where you got the idea that
it should be), I don't consider it gospel. I'm interested in hearing
people's rational criticisms of it, but I didn't get any this time.
Your use of the term "obscure" does not suffice as a rational
criticism of Habermas' position (just as "it's a mess" does not
suffice as a rational criticism of speech act theory). All it says to
me is that you don't understand it.
No one wants to dispute the existence of a correspondence. The
dispute is over whether the existence of a correspondence has anything
at all to do with truth. Habermas' position is that a correspondence
between a statement and something in the world has more to do with
TRUTHFULNESS (rightness or honesty) than with TRUTH (validity). Robby
the robot may state "There is a block in front of me" and this may be
a TRUTHFUL statement without being a TRUE statement. That is, Robby
may believe there is a block in front of him when actually it's only
an image projected by a slide projector. Robby's utterances may
correspond with his SUBJECTIVE IMAGE of the world (he might be
truthful) without that subjective image having anything at all to do
with the world as it truly is (or that world that all rational agents
would agree exists if they were to enter into discourse in a speech
situation devoid of internal and external constraints on
communication).
Phew! I'm winded now. I'll respond to JMC's review of Putnam later.
∂10-Feb-83 0900 JMC*
homework
∂10-Feb-83 0949 ullman@Diablo Martin Brooks
Received: from SU-HNV by SU-AI with PUP; 10-Feb-83 09:49 PST
Date: 10 February 1983 09:49:36-PST (Thursday)
From: ullman@Diablo
Subject: Martin Brooks
To: csd.golub at score, icl.dutton at sierra, jmc at sail, zm at sail
I just got a call from Brooks in Norway. He is interested in coming to
the Bay area in late march to look for a job, either RA or teaching.
He claims he has gotten into software engineering during the time
he has been there.
Do we have any interest in paying 1/3 of his way (about $300) to interview
here?
∂10-Feb-83 1106 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE ARPA Proposal
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 10-Feb-83 11:06 PST
Date: Thu 10 Feb 83 11:04:05-PST
From: Betty Scott <CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: ARPA Proposal
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA, ZM@SU-AI.ARPA,
Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: CSD.BScott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what you are to be doing
at the present time. I am sure that both Duane Adams and John Machado
expect to receive from each of you a two-page scoping document for ne-
gotiation and comments. After this procedure is complete then the two
page document containing summaries of all five scopes of work is to be prepared, and the rest of the paperwork completed for thetotal proposal.
If you are not in agreement with my understanding, please let me know and
I will check it out.
Betty
-------
∂10-Feb-83 1413 CSD.OHMAN@SU-SCORE Teaching Assignments 83-84
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 10-Feb-83 14:13 PST
Date: Thu 10 Feb 83 14:10:12-PST
From: Donna Ohman <CSD.OHMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Teaching Assignments 83-84
To: feigenbaum@SU-SCORE.ARPA, csd.lenat@SU-SCORE.ARPA, csd.genesereth@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, tob@SU-AI.ARPA, buchanan@SU-SCORE.ARPA, tw@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: ohman@SU-SCORE.ARPA, rindfleisch@SU-SCORE.ARPA, eengelmore@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-4878
I sent a message to each of you in hopes of setting up a meeting to discuss
teaching assignments for next year. This needs to be done as soon as it
is possible to get you all into the same room, for the sake of the catalog
which will be printed (Marilynn Walker needs this info), and for your own
sake in determining your teaching plans for next year. Doug has suggested
that I act as a recorder for the time being and that you tell me what classes
you are willing to teach next year, perhaps making this a semi-electronic
meeting for the time being. The messages that follow are the original ones
that were sent and answered regarding the Feb. 10 meeting, which would have
been cancelled anyways due to another situation that occurred. Please
respond to this second message. I thank you very much!
--Donna
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
2-Feb-83 11:11:16-PST,664;000000000001
Date: Wed 2 Feb 83 11:11:11-PST
From: Donna Ohman-Ducker <OHMAN@SUMEX-AIM>
Subject: Teaching Assignments
To: csd.lenat@SU-SCORE, csd.genesereth@SU-SCORE, jmc@SU-AI,
tob@SU-AI, buchanan, tw@SU-AI, feigenbaum
cc: eengelmore, ohman
Ed has requested that a meeting take place to determine teaching assignments for
next year. The suggested time for this meeting is February 10, Thursday, at
2 or 3 p.m. It is necessary as Marilynn Walker is in need of getting info
for the new catalog that will be printed and her deadline is rapidly approaching. Please notify me (Ohman@sumex) about your attendance at this meeting. Thank
you.
--Donna
-------
2-Feb-83 23:04:52-PST,375;000000000001
Date: Wed 2 Feb 83 23:04:51-PST
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM>
Subject: Re: Teaching Assignments
To: OHMAN, csd.lenat@SU-SCORE, csd.genesereth@SU-SCORE, jmc@SU-AI,
tob@SU-AI, buchanan, tw@SU-AI
cc: eengelmore
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed 2 Feb 83 11:11:12-PST
The time of the AI faculty meeting is flexible between 1:30 and 4....Ed
-------
3-Feb-83 00:14:20-PST,338;000000000011
Mail-from: SU-NET host SCORE rcvd at 3-Feb-83 0010-PST
Date: Wed 2 Feb 83 21:24:29-PST
From: Mike Genesereth <CSD.GENESERETH@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Teaching Assignments
To: OHMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed 2 Feb 83 20:06:26-PST
I can make a meeting on the 10th anytime in the afternoon.
mrg
-------
-------
∂10-Feb-83 1753 CLT
im going to dink to practice a bit
∂10-Feb-83 1900 JMC*
phone Sarah.
∂10-Feb-83 1910 CLT
Im back
∂10-Feb-83 2051 RPG Martin Brooks
He called me this morning and we discussed his interest in the
Common Lisp stuff, particularly the Blue pages work. I may have a
second candidate for some of this work (and maybe the timing project too).
If Martin Brooks could work 1/2 time on my stuff and 1/2 time on
mathematics, I would most likely be satisfied. If this also meant
I could hire the second person full-time, we could do a really
first-class job on these projects. I know Martin Brooks pretty well
and I would be surprised if he did not work out from my end.
I suggest we help pay for flying him out for discussions.
Can you meet with him during the week of March 28 through April 1?
If you can put him on your calendar I will call him and verify his
trip. Also, can I call overseas from Stanford easily?
-rpg-
∂11-Feb-83 1000 JMC*
Roughgarden book, call Suppes.
∂11-Feb-83 1300 JMC*
Paper for Ershov.
∂11-Feb-83 1751 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Suggested memo
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 11-Feb-83 17:51 PST
Date: Fri 11 Feb 83 17:50:00-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Suggested memo
To: Hastorf-group: ;
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
Gene- I suggest that you consider sending a memo along these lines.
Memo to: Albert H. Hastorf, Gerald J. Lieberman, Norman K. Wells, Calvin
F. Quate
From : Gene H. Golub
Subject: Follow-up to Our Meeting
First of all, our thanks for the time you spent with the delegation from
CSD on Thursday -- I thought it quite worthwhile. I had the following thought
as we were breaking up. You will recall that we asked what you all saw
happening to CSD in the future. Along those lines, it would be nice to have
some feedback on the plan we presented in the memo to Wessells of May 6, 1982,
in which we proposed 12 new regular billets in the next six years plus
three research professor billets. Is it totally out of the question or is it at
least partially feasible? To be more specific, it would be nice to know now
how many new billets we can expect next year. We are just beginning the search
to fill the two billets recently made available to us. Starting so late in
the year is a problem. For example, there is a long lead time on ads. Our ads
will not appear until late April. Knowing soon about next year will make the
recruiting chore easier for us by allowing us to get underway early in the
year. But even if you can't tell us about next year just yet, we would still
appreciate some general feedback on the plan presented in the memo of May 6,
1982.
************************************************************
Paul
-------
∂12-Feb-83 1135 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA Proposal
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 12-Feb-83 11:34 PST
Date: Sat 12 Feb 83 11:30:03-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA Proposal
To: CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA, ZM@SU-AI.ARPA,
csd.armer@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu 10 Feb 83 11:09:08-PST
I assume paul is going to consolidate the scoping proposal from us?
Or should we deal individually with them?
Gio
-------
∂12-Feb-83 2033 RPG
To: JMC, rpg-q
John, I sent this to Ullman and Zohar:
Martin Brooks
Martin Brooks wants to return from Norway to Stanford in a research
capacity. He would like to divide his time equally between a practical
project and a mathematical project. The mathematical project would involve
`feasibility of computation,' which is a topic I know nothing about. I can
offer him a 1/2 research associate position doing Lisp Systems work with
me (John McCarthy is the PI, but I direct the project). John and I are
willing to put up 1/3 or even 1/2 of his travel to come talk about
possibilities, but we would be reluctant if he were not very interested in
Stanford, which we feel may be the case if no one would want to pick up
his other 1/2 time in a mathematical setting. John does not feel that
Brooks's interests and John's coincide well enough for John to offer the
other 1/2 time slot.
Would either or both of you be interested in discussing potentials
with him? I can give you his phone number in Norway, and if there
is interest we ought to let him move ahead on his travel plans.
Thanks.
-rpg-
∂13-Feb-83 1125 CLT tonight
The is a flute+piano recital (Alex Hawley) at Dink.
I want to go. Are you interested?
I think Gian Luigi and I will practice until time
for the recital. We could meet at Dink if you want to go.
∂13-Feb-83 2000 JMC*
Student papers
∂13-Feb-83 2054 GAVAN @ MIT-MC Bogosity of possible worlds
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 13 Feb 83 20:54:49 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Sun 13 Feb 83 20:50:34-PST
Date: Sunday, 13 February 1983 23:34-EST
Sender: GAVAN @ MIT-OZ
From: GAVAN @ MIT-MC
To: John Batali <Batali @ MIT-OZ>
Cc: JMC @ MIT-OZ, phil-sci @ MIT-OZ
Subject: Bogosity of possible worlds
In-reply-to: Msg of 8 Feb 1983 11:13-EST from John Batali <Batali>
From: John Batali <Batali>
It seems to me that the notion of "possible worlds" comes from the
mistaken idea that since the conceptual structure we have for the real
world corresponds to some world, the structures we create when dealing
with counterfactuals also correspond to some world. There is no reason
to assert this -- especially if we just speak of the conceptual
structure itself. The mapping that IS valid and which really exists is
the mapping from the counterfactual structure to the "real-world"
structure and from THAT back to the real world.
Any one mapping between a conceptual structure and the "real world"
MIGHT be valid (although I think they're all subject to distortion and
I think that this mapping can't possibly stand as a theory of truth),
and it certainly "exists" (insofar as anything so ephemeral can be
said to exist). A mapping between the "real" world and some possible
world (both are conceptual structures) is usually made to expose as
incoherent some aspect of somebody's theory of the "real" world. So I
almost agree with you, I think.
∂14-Feb-83 1059 DFH Richard Fujimoto
Richard Fujimoto will be here today from Berkeley,
re: CSD systems slot. You had said you would see
him. I told Juanita 4:30, since you had a 1 pm
lunch and she had mid-afternoon time slots filled.
Diana
∂14-Feb-83 1449 CLT
∂14-Feb-83 1240 LGC Additional ARPA Scope Item
∂14-Feb-83 1217 CLT arpa
Thanks for the info.
I thot john said he had sent the scope stuff off, but I'll check.
I don't know if it is to be included in the proposal proper.
What was missing?
LGC - The relevant parts currently read as follows:
------
Basic Research in Artificial Intelligence
1. Formalization of facts about the common sense world including
laws determining the effects of actions including mental actions.
2. Formalization of common sense reasoning including non-monotonic
reasoning.
3. Representation of facts in the memory of a computer. Connections
betweeen AI representation work and database research.
------
It seems to me that the following item should also be included:
Please add the following to the scope document for NAVELEX and ARPA.
1.5 Formalization (both procedural and declarative) of the heuristic
knowledge used in commonsense reasoning and problem-solving.
It may be that this could be construed as included under one of the other
items, but it is a distinctive and important type of knowledge that I
think probably deserves separate mention.
∂14-Feb-83 1515 CLT Arpa Proposal
To: "@FR.DIS[1,CLT]"
We would like to have a draft of the arpa proposal done by March 1.
RPG and I will coordinate putting the pieces together.
The required pieces are:
(1) For each of the following projects we need a progress report
and proposal for work for the next three years.
**** Formal Reasoning (John McCarthy)
**** Advice-taking ANALYST (Lewis Creary, Richard Gabriel)
**** Lisp Performance Evaluation (Richard Gabriel)
**** Formalisms for Reasoning about Programs (Carolyn Talcott)
**** EKL (Jussi Ketonen)
**** Automatic Construction of Special-purpose Programs (Chris Goad)
(2) From JJW and YOM thesis proposals
(3) From JMC an Introduction
The previous proposal can be found in FR81[s81,jmc].
The progress report submitted last year is in ARP82[1,LGC]
Please send me a pointer to your contribution by 21 Feb.
Thanks,
Carolyn
∂14-Feb-83 1539 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA Proposal
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 14-Feb-83 15:38 PST
Date: Mon 14 Feb 83 15:36:36-PST
From: Betty Scott <CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA Proposal
To: CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA, WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA, ZM@SU-AI.ARPA,
CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 14 Feb 83 15:28:39-PST
I guess I need to know exactly what I'm supposed to be doing with regard
to the proposal.
Betty
-------
∂14-Feb-83 1529 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA Proposal
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 14-Feb-83 15:29 PST
Date: Mon 14 Feb 83 15:28:33-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA Proposal
To: WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA, ZM@SU-AI.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat 12 Feb 83 11:40:34-PST
Mail-from: SU-NET host SUMEX-AIM rcvd at 12-Feb-83 1135-PST
Date: Sat 12 Feb 83 11:30:03-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA Proposal
To: CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA, ZM@SU-AI.ARPA,
csd.armer@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu 10 Feb 83 11:09:08-PST
I assume paul is going to consolidate the scoping proposal from us?
Or should we deal individually with them?
Gio
-------
It was my intent to consolidate but so far I have only JMC's and Gio's
to consolidate. PLEASE, wont the rest of you come thru with something??
Paul
-------
∂14-Feb-83 1741 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI@SRI-AI.ARPA> AAAI-83 Tutorial Program
Received: from SRI-AI by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 14 Feb 83 17:40:37 PST
Date: Mon 14 Feb 83 17:36:47-PST
From: Louis G. Robinson <AAAI@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: AAAI-83 Tutorial Program
To: AAAI-Executive-Committee: ;
cc: aaai@SRI-AI.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SRI-AI.ARPA with TCP; Mon 14 Feb 83 16:35:12-PST
Date: Mon 14 Feb 83 16:27:10-PST
From: Louis G. Robinson <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: [Charles Rich <RICH @ MIT-MC>: AAAI-83 Tutorial Program]
To: aaai@SRI-AI.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Return-Path: @MIT-MC:RICH@MIT-MC
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Mon 14 Feb 83 10:48:06-PST
Date: 14 February 1983 13:48-EST (Monday)
Sender: RICH @ MIT-OZ
From: Charles Rich <RICH @ MIT-MC>
To: AAAI-Office @ SUMEX-AIM
CC: AAAI-Executive-Committee @ SRI-AI
Subject: AAAI-83 Tutorial Program
Below is an outline of the AAAI-83 Tutorial Program.
Comments appreciated. Note that due to delay in fixing the time
and duration of the Technology Transfer Symposium, the final
copy for the tutorials has to go to the printer in just a few
weeks from now.
Thanks, Chuck Rich
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
AAAI-83
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TUTORIAL PROGRAM
August 22 and 23, 1983
This is the fourth year that AAAI is offering a tutorial program in
conjunction with either its National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence or the International Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence. This year, a total of six tutorials will be presented on
August 22 and the morning of August 23, followed by the Technology
Transfer Symposium on the afternoon of August 23. Tutorials will be
given in two parallel sessions from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 2 p.m.
to 6 p.m. on the respective days. The Technology Transfer Symposium
will be a single session from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The goal of the AAAI tutorial program is to provide a high quality
educational service to the AI community and members of the scientific,
business, and educational communities at large who are interested in
artificial intelligence. The tutorial program also provides the major
part of the yearly budget of the association for its other other
non-profit activities. To these ends we have prepared a curriculum of
timely topics taught by persons who are not only knowledgeable on
these topics, but have been chosen for their teaching ability.
The Technology Transfer Symposium is a new feature this year. It is
designed to be a bridge between the tutorial program, which is aimed
at explicating established work and the main conference program, which
is intended to be a forum for new ideas. The Technology Transfer
Symposium is described in more detail following the tutorial
descriptions.
All six tutorials (with the exception of Part 2 of the Expert Systems
tutorial) are taught as independent, self-contained units. There are
however, several logical sequences built into the program. For
example, a logical sequence for a technical manager interested in
starting an AI effort would begin with the Introductory Tutorial on
Artificial Intelligence, followed by the Expert Systems Tutorial (Part
1) and the AI Programming Technology Tutorial, culminating with the
Technology Transfer Symposium. Alternatively, those with more
specialized technical interest in robotics or natural language
interfaces could substitute the Introduction to Robotics Tutorial
for the Introduction to AI or the Natural Language Interfaces
Tutorial for the Expert Systems.
Specific questions regarding the scope and objective of the
AAAI-83 Tutorial Program should go to:
Dr. Charles Rich
AAAI Tutorial Coordinator
The Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Massachussets Institute of Technology
545 Technology Square, Room 822
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-7877
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
AN INTRODUCTORY TUTORIAL ON
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
9 a.m. to 1 p.m
August 22, 1982
[Content Similar to last year]
Speaker: Gene Charniak, Brown U.
Alternates: Nils Nilsson, SRI
Patrick Winston, MIT
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
AN INTRODUCTORY TUTORIAL ON
ROBOTICS AND VISION
9 a.m. to 1 p.m
August 22, 1982
[Content more like Raibert's tutorial of two years ago. Last year's
separate tutorials on Manipulation & Vision had extremely low
attendance (38 attendees each).]
Speaker: Richard Paul, Purdue
Alternates: Takeo Kanade, CMU
Bob Bowles, SRI
Carl Ruoff, JPL
Mike Brady, MIT
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A TUTORIAL ON NATURAL LANGUAGE INTERFACES
2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
August 22, 1982
[ Including speech, but less technically treated than last year. ]
Speaker: Gary Hendrix, Symantec Inc.
Alternates: Barbara Gross, SRI
Larry Harris, AI Corp.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A TUTORIAL ON EXPERT SYSTEMS:
PART 1 - FUNDAMENTALS
2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
August 22, 1982
[ Content similar to last year.]
Speakers: Randy Davis, MIT
Charles Rich, MIT
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A TUTORIAL ON EXPERT SYSTEMS:
PART 2 - APPLICATION AREAS
9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
August 23, 1982
[Content similar to last year.]
Speakers: Randy Davis, MIT
Charles Rich, MIT
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
AI PROGRAMMING TECHNOLOGY:
LANGUAGES AND MACHINES
2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
August 16, 1982
[ Last year this tutorial generated a lot of controversy. I think
one way to deal with the inherent biases of the various
major camps is to choose two reasonable people from different camps
and have them come to a consensus. ]
Speakers: Larry Masinter, Xerox
Dan Weinreb, Symbolics
Alternates: Johan Dekleer, Xerox
Richard Fikes, Xerox
Alan Bawden, Symbolics
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
-------
-------
-------
∂14-Feb-83 2000 JMC*
Another for Fritz, p.65.
∂15-Feb-83 0850 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA Proposal
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 15-Feb-83 08:50 PST
Date: Tue 15 Feb 83 08:42:04-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA Proposal
To: CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA,
ZM@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.rathman@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 14 Feb 83 15:39:11-PST
My understanding is:
Paul will consolidate Scope and clear that with ARPA and NAVALEX by MSGS.
WE, the PI's will prepare a global statement of qualification for the proposed
reserarch, with
a - general qualification of Stanford ( with paul's help perhaps 9
b - qualifications, past work in our particular areas.
Betty will add boiler plate and combine approved Scope, qualifications, and
a generl statement of work based on the Scope ( Paul and PI's)
and submit that through the university.
At that time PI's will prepare individula task propsals, for submitting through
the university.
The general proposal has to be joint. It is best if the task proposals are
also submitted together.
Paul- do you recall the time frame we mentioned?
Hope this note helps.
Gio
-------
∂15-Feb-83 1011 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA Proposal
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 15-Feb-83 10:10 PST
Date: Tue 15 Feb 83 10:04:57-PST
From: Betty Scott <CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA Proposal
To: WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA,
ZM@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.rathman@SU-SCORE.ARPA, CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue 15 Feb 83 08:56:49-PST
Thanks for your message, Gio.
Betty
-------
∂15-Feb-83 1033 TOB
To: csd.armer@SU-SCORE, JMC@SU-AI
Image Understanding and Robotics
The project focusses on
designing and implementing Intelligent and Expert Systems for
interpretation and planning actions. Its elements include:
1) expert systems for Image Understanding and expert systems for manufacturing,
in particular, the ACRONYM system and its planned successor;
2) subsystems for interaction with the user:
2a) rule-based, intelligent interfaces including
geometric editing, computer graphics, incorporation of natural language,
speech i/o, and mechanical devices;
3) subsystems for modeling the world:
3a) geometric modeling and representation of the physical world;
3b) learning and abstraction in building and using databases for the physical world;
4) subsystems for planning, interpretation, and decision making:
4a) representation of information as constraint networks;
4b) geometric reasoning utilizing mathematical representations in a rule base,
including constraint resolution, domain-specific constraints with specialized
procedures for resolution of constraints;
geometric reasoning incorporating symbolic statistical distributions
and maximum-likelishood methods with subspace factorization;
4c) problem formulation in geometric reasoning;
4d) reasoning with space/time and sequences of events and actions;
4e) interpretation of images by matching with generic and specific models;
4f) planning of robot actions;
4g) navigation, path-finding, and motion control of mobile robots; map-making
and world modeling;
5) subsystems for interaction with the world:
5a) analysis of images and sequences of images to obtain image features including
regions, region boundaries, and junctions of boundaries;
5b) segmentation and aggregation of image features to analyze texture regions,
canonical groupings, and figure-ground discrimination;
5c) VLSI implementation of image algorithms and architecture studies;
5d) inference rules for interpretation of image structures as spatial structures;
5e) multi-sensor integration with collateral information and knowledge bases;
5f) stereo mapping, motion parallax and object motion in spatial interpretation;
5g) use of shadows combined with general and special cues to spatial structure
in image analysis;
6) robotics:
6a) design of robot hands and arms;
6b) force control in assembly;
6c) control of cooperative action of multiple fingers and arms;
6d) programming systems for robots;
! SUMMARY
SAIL began research in computer vision
in 1965; it has led in educating leaders in vision research.
SAIL leads in research on Intelligent Systems for Image Understanding
with the ACRONYM system and SUCCESSOR. ACRONYM has been adopted
by about 10 research groups. For a decade, SAIL has been a leader in stereo
mapping, in image segmentation, in shape representation, and in
interpretation of images.
Stereo Mapping
A succession of efforts produced results and stereo mapping systems.
In 1972, motion parallax was used to map surfaces of rocks on a turntable
[Nevatia 76].
[Hannah 74] built a region-based mapping system which used area correlation.
In 1974, efficient "coarse-to-fine" stereo correlation of feature points
selected by an interest operator were demonstrated [Moravec 77].
[Moravec 77, 79, 80] demonstrated navigation of a mobile robot using
stereo vision, over realistic courses at very low speed.
[Gennery 77, 79, 80] built a stereo mapping system based on
high-resolution area correlation. It included self-registration and automatic
stereo camera calibration, a ground plane finder, object segmentation and
object description as ellipses and boxes.
[Arnold 77, 78] made a mapping system which used edge continuity
for correspondence. [Arnold 80, 83] demonstrated geometric constraints
for edge and surface correspondence,
constraints which relate closely to neurophysical results
in stereo vision. He produced a second system which integrated those
constraints and which introduced new
methods for quasi-optimal solutions from dynamic programming.
[Baker 81, 82] built a stereo mapping system which included constraints from
[Arnold 80] together with edge correspondence using dynamic programming
in a coarse-to-fine search. A subsequent stage enforced coherence among
interpretations between epipolar lines.
He used area correlation
to match intensities to accomplish interpolation of surfaces between edges.
The group's recent results are described below.
Interpretation and Recognition
[Binford 71] introduced the
generalized cylinder representation of object shape
and "structured light" ranging (along with IBM and ETL, Japan).
[Agin 72] described objects as generalized cylinders with circular
cross sections. [Nevatia 74] generated structured descriptions of complex
objects as part/whole graphs with generalized cylinder parts. They determined
coarse descriptions of objects as stick figures, based on an attachment
hierarchy. They demonstrated efficient recognition by indexing into a
data base of models using the stick figure description to determine a
subclass of similar object models to be used for detailed matching.
For example, a doll was matched against quadrupeds. They demonstrated
"learning by showing"; models of objects were generated automatically by
viewing them on the worktable.
[Baumgart 74] built the
GEOMED system for geometric modeling and geometric editing.
[Miyamoto 75] implemented the SPI geometric modeling system based on
generalized cylinders.
[Bolles 76] demonstrated a Verification
Vision system for repetitive vision and inspection tasks.
[Hueckel 69, 73] derived an edge operator with high performance.
[Bajcsy 72] demonstrated segmentation of textured regions.
Research was done to extend the Binford-Horn edge operator [Horn 72, Binford 81].
[Brooks 79b] made a ribbon finder for grouping edges into well-formed regions.
Robotics
SAIL built a hydraulic arm in 1968 and the Stanford arm in 1970.
[Salisbury 81] built a three finger hand.
Paul implemented WAVE in 1971, the first programming system
to provide several modern mechanisms.
The VAL programming system of Unimation
was based on WAVE. SAIL performed the world's first
computer integrated assembly with robots, the assembly of an automobile water
pump from 10 component parts [Paul 73, Bolles 73],
using force and touch sensing extensively along with vision,
a power tool, and several fixtures.
A new robot programming system, AL, was designed [Finkel 74] to provide for
real time, parallel control of multiple assembly devices with sensory/motor
control.
Scheinman built a wrist force sensor which is small, light and sensitive
[Binford 74], suitable for work with small arms and small parts in assemblies.
[Paul 72, 76, Shimano 78, Salisbury 80] analyzed and implemented
programmable compliance and force control which
has been integrated in AL and used for several assemblies.
[Paul 72] and [Overmyer 79 unpublished] built modules for
automated grasping. [Pieper 68, Widdoes 74, and Khatib 83] have
contributed to collision avoidance and demonstrated on film a system
which guided a manipulator through complex obstacles.
[Taylor 76] wrote a geometry system to translate symbolic constraints
of the form "part is against fixture" into a system of inequalities and
equalities, to deal with errors in part locations.
[Grossman 76] [Mujtaba, and Glaser and Liu in Binford 76]
and [Ohwovoriole 80] have investigated error tolerancing, analyzed
assembly times, analyzed motions required in assembly, and contributed
to kinematic analysis of assembly operations.
[Soroka 80] developed a kinematic simulator for mechanical systems.
It detects collisions between simulated objects.
A dynamic simulator has been implemented.
! RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Stereo Vision
The group made a comprehensive survey of stereo systems and available techniques.
SAIL has a major effort underway to implement and integrate all available
constraints and knowledge, general and special, monocular and stereo,
within a comprehensive, rule-based interpretation system.
Most of these constraints, especially monocular cues, have not been included
in any previous stereo system; all others use only a few, simple conditions.
The system of [Baker 81] has been extended to include the difficult case in
which images do not correspond along scan lines. It has been modified to
use edge data from [Marimont 82].
In order to calculate stereo geometry in a
sufficiently general way, a new system for stereo registration has been developed.
A new search method for stereo registration was developed [Clarkson 81].
Currently, the group is designing generic models of buildings to serve
in a rule-based system which incorporates monocular and stereo inference
rules based on [Binford 81, Lowe 81]. Preliminary results have been obtained
in using cube corners, horizontal surfaces, and horizontal edges in
stereo correspondence, going beyond the results of [Liebes 81].
Intelligent systems
Recent research has centered on the ACRONYM system, an intelligent,
knowledge-based system for vision and planning [Brooks 79, 81].
ACRONYM includes geometric modeling and geometric reasoning. It integrates
subsystems for interaction with users, for interaction with the world,
for modeling the world,
and subsystems for planning, interpretation, and decision making.
Recognition of aircraft has been demonstrated in ACRONYM.
ACRONYM has been used as a central part of a major ARPA project and has
been distributed to about ten research groups.
Recent efforts have gone towards SUCCESSOR, a follow-on to ACRONYM.
The modeling system is being extended to include negative volumes,
multiple instances of objects, and a general name-scoping mechanism.
The representation of shape is being extended to
a very general subclass of generalized cylinders. A powerful graphics
display system is being built. A large set
of aircraft models have been built. With these, some problems with the rule
set for recognition have been discovered, and the constraint resolution
system has been tested.
Generic models of buildings are being designed.
New mechanisms are being added to
the constraint resolution system which represent a radical departure from
ACRONYM's general, domain-independent constraint resolution toward flexible
use of domain-specific methods which resemble human interpretation.
[Malik 82] described
representation of space/time as constraint systems and efficient methods
for resolution of constraints.
A joint effort with MIT produced preliminary results in learning
which relates object function to form [Winston 83, Lowry 82].
This work is a step toward learning of object classes and learning
of rules, i.e. procedures.
[Binford 81, Lowe 81] describe inference rules for three-dimensional
interpretation of two-dimensional images. Powerful, general methods
include as a subcase the use of shadows for determining three dimensional
structure. [Lowe 82, Binford 82] describe extensions of this approach
to general methods for grouping of image features as ribbons and
grouping operations for continuous curves. These methods address the
figure/ground problem; they are central to subsequent recognition.
reconstruction of three-dimensional shapes based on shadows;
[Miller 81, Lowry 82] describe design and implementation of
an element of a VLSI processor array and describe mechanisms for fault-tolerance.
!\C\F2REFERENCES\F0
\J[Agin 72] Agin, G.J.;
\F1"Representation and Description of Curved Objects"\F0
AI Lab, Stanford University, Memo AIM-173, CS-305, 1972.\.
[Arnold 77] Arnold,R.D.; %2"Spatial Understanding"%1
Proc Image Understanding Workshop, April 1977.
[Arnold 78] Arnold,R.D.; %2"Local Context in Matching Edges for Stereo
Vision"%1; Proc Image Understanding Workshop, Boston, May 1978.
\J[Arnold 80] Arnold, R.D., Binford, T.O.;
\F1"Geometric Constraints in Stereo Vision"\F0
Proc SPIE Meeting, San Diego, Cal, July 1980.\.
\J[Arnold 83] R.D.Arnold;
thesis, Stanford AI Lab, 1983.\.
[Bajcsy 72] Bajcsy, R.;
%2"Computer Identification of Textured Visual Scenes"%1
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Stanford University, Memo
AIM-180, October 1972.
\J[Baker 80] Baker, H.;
\F1"Edge-Based Stereo Correlations";\F0
Proc Image Understanding Workshop, Baltimore, April l980.\.
[Baker 81] Baker, H. and Binford, T.O.;
%2"Depth from Edge and Intensity Based Stereo";%1
Proc Int Joint Conf on AI, Aug 1981.
[Baker 82] Baker, H.;
%2"A system for automated stereo mapping";%1
Proc. IU Workshop Image Understanding September 1982.
\J[Baumgart 74] Bruce Baumgart;
\F1"Geometric Modeling for Computer Vision";\F0
AI Lab, Stanford University, Memo AIM-249, 1974.\.
\J[Binford 71] T.O.Binford;
\F1"Computer Visual Perception";\F0
Invited Paper, Systems, Man and Cybernetics Conf, Miami, Fla, 1971.\.
\J[Binford 74] T. O. Binford et al;
\F1"Exploratory Study of Computer Integrated Assembly Systems";\F0
AI Lab, Stanford University,
First Report, 1974.\.
\J[Binford 76] T.O.Binford et al;
\F1"Exploratory study of Computer Integrated Assembly Systems";\F0
AI Lab, Stanford University, Third Report, 1976.\.
[Binford 81] Binford, T. O.;
%2"Inferring Surfaces from Images";%1
Artificial Intelligence Journal August, 1981.
\J[Binford 82] T.O.Binford;
"Segregation and Aggregation: the Figure/Ground problem";
Proceedings of the Rank Prize Fund Conf on Machine and Biological Processing
of Images.\.
\J[Bolles 73] Robert Bolles, Richard Paul;
\F1"The use of Sensory Feedback in a Programmable Assembly Systems";\F0
AI Lab, Stanford University,
Memo AIM-220, 1973.\.
\J[Bolles 76] Robert C. Bolles,
\F1"Verification Vision Within a Programmable Assembly System";\F0
AI Lab, Stanford University,
Memo AIM-295, 1976.\.
\J[Brooks 79] R. Brooks, R. Greiner, T.O.Binford;
\F1"ACRONYM: A Model-Based Vision System";\F0
Proc Int Jt Conf on AI, Tokyo, Aug 1979.\.
[Brooks 79b] Brooks, R.A.;
%2"Goal-Directed Edge Linking and Ribbon Finding";%1
Proc Image Understanding Workshop, Palo Alto, Calif, Apr 1979.
\J[Brooks 81] R. Brooks;
\F1"Symbolic Reasoning among 3-D Models and 2-d Images"\F0;
Artificial Intelligence Journal, August 1981.\.
[Clarkson 81] Clarkson, K.L.;
%2"A Procedure for Camera Calibration";%1
Proc Image Understanding Workshop, April 1981.
\J[Finkel 74] R. Finkel, R.H.Taylor, R.C.Bolles, R.Paul, and J.A.Feldman;
\F1"AL, A Programming System for Automation";\F0 Memo AIM-243;
AI Lab, Stanford University, 1974.\.
\J[Gennery 77] Gennery, D.B.;
%2"A Stereo Vision System for An Autonomous Vehicle";%1
Proc 5th International Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence,
MIT, Boston, Aug 1977.\.
\J[Gennery 79] Gennery, D.B.;
%2"Object Detection and Measurement using Stereo Vision";%1
Proc Int Joint Conf on AI, Aug 1979.\.
\J[Gennery 80] Gennery, D.B.;
%2"Modeling the Environment of an Exploring Vehicle by means of Stereo Vision";%1
AI Lab, Computer Science Dept, Stanford Univ, 1980.
\J[Goldman 83] Ron Goldman;
\F1"Design of an Interactive Manipulator Programming Environment";\F0
Memo AIM-350, Stanford University, 1982.\.
\J[Grossman 76] David D. Grossman;
\F1"Monte Carlo Simulation of Tolerancing in Discrete Parts Manufacturing
and Assembly";\F0
Memo AIM-280,
AI Lab, Stanford University, 1976.\.
\J[Hannah 74] Hannah, M.J.;
\F1"Computer Matching of Areas in Stereo Images"\F0
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Stanford University, Memo
AIM-239 1974.\.
[Hueckel 69] M. Hueckel;
%2"An Operator which locates edges in digitized pictures";%1
J.Assoc Computing Mach, 1969.
[Hueckel 73] Hueckel, M.;
%2"A Local Visual Operator which Recognizes Edges and Lines";%1
J.Assoc Computing Mach, 20,634 (1973).
[Horn 72] B.Horn;
"The Binford-Horn Edge Finder";
MIT AI Memo 172, 1972.
\J[Khatib 83] O. Khatib;
\F1Dynamic Control of Manipulators in Operational Space"\F0;
submitted to IFTOMM Congress, 1983.\.
[Liebes 81] Liebes, Jr., S.;
%2"Geometric Constraints for Interpreting Images of
Common Structural Elements: Orthogonal Trihedral Vertices";%1
Proc Image Understanding Workshop, April 1981.
[Lowe 81] Lowe, D. and Binford, T.O.;
%2"The Interpretation of Three-Dimensonal Structure from Image Curves";%1
Proc Int Joint Conf on AI, Aug 1981.
[Lowe 82] D. Lowe, T. Binford;
"Segmentation and Aggregation";
Proc ARPA IU Workshop, 1982.
[Lowry 82] M. Lowry;
"Relating Structure and Function";
Proc ARPA IU Workshop, 1982.
[Lowry 82b] M. Lowry, A. Miller;
"
Proc ARPA IU Workshop, 1982.
[Miller 81] Miller, A. and Lowry, M.;
%2"General purpose VLSI chip with fault tolerant hardware
for image processing";%1
Proc Image Understanding Workshop, April 1981.
\J[Miyamoto 75] E.Miyamoto, T.O.Binford;
\F1"Display Generated by a Generalized Cone Representation";\F0
Conf on Computer Graphics and Image Processing, Anaheim,
Cal, 1975.\.
[Moravec 77] Moravec, H.P.;
%2"Towards Automatic Visual Obstacle Avoidance"%1
Proc 5th International Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence,
MIT, Boston, Aug 1977.
[Moravec 79] Moravec, H.P.;
%2"Visual Mapping by a Robot Rover",%1
Proc Int Joint Conf on AI, Aug 1979.
[Moravec 80] Moravec, H.P.;
%2"Obstacle Avoidance and Navigation in the Real World by a Seeing Robot Rover";%1
AI Lab, Computer Science Dept, Stanford Univ, 1980.
\J[Nevatia 74] Nevatia, R.;
\F1"Structured Descriptions of Complex Curved Objects for Recognition and
Visual Memory"\F0
AI Lab, Stanford University, Memo AIM-250, CS-464, 1974.\.
[Nevatia 76] Nevatia, R.K.;
%2"Depth Measurement by Motion Stereo"%1; Comp. Graph. and Image Proc.,
vol.5 , 1976, pp. 203-214.
\J[Ohwovoriole 80] Ohwovoriole,Morgan;\F1"An Extension of Screw Theory and
its Application to the Automation of of Industrial Assemblies"\F0;
Ph. D. Thesis, Dept Mech Eng, Stanford University, 1980.\.
\J[Paul 72] Richard Paul;
\F1"Modelling, Trajectory Calculation and Servoing of a Computer Controlled
Arm";\F0 Memo AIM-177,
AI Lab, Stanford University, 1972.\.
\J[Paul 73] Richard Paul, Karl Pingle, and Bob Bolles; \F1"Automated Pump
Assembly";\F0 16mm color film,
AI Lab, Stanford University, 1973.\.
\J[Paul 76] R.Paul and B.Shimano;
\F1"Compliance and Control";\F0
Joint Automatic Controls Conf, Purdue Univ, July 1976.\.
\J[Pieper 68] Donald L. Pieper;
\F1"The Kinematics of Manipulators under Computer Control";\F0
Memo AIM-72,
AI Lab, Stanford University, 1968.\.
\J[Salisbury 80] Salisbury, J.K.;
\F1"Active Stiffness Control of a Manipulator in Cartesian Coordinates";\F0
Proc 19th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Albuquerque, l980.\.
\J[Salisbury and Craig] Salisbury, J.K. Craig, J.;
\F1%"Articulated Hands: Force Control and Kinematic Issues"\F0;
Proc JACC, Charlottesville, Va, 1981.\.
\J[Soroka 80] Soroka, B.I.;
\F1"Debugging Robot Programs with a Simulator";\F0
Proc CADCAM-8 Conference, Anaheim, CA, l980.\.
\J[Shimano 78] Bruce E. Shimano;
\F1"The Kinematic Design and Force Control of Computer Controlled
Manipulators";\F0
Stanford AI Lab Memo AIM 313, 1978.\.
\J[Shirai 71] Y. Shirai and M. Suwa;
\F1"Recognition of Polyhedrons with a range finder";\F0
Proc Int Jt Conf on AI, London, 1971.\.
\J[Taylor 76] Russell Taylor;
\F1"Synthesis of Manipulator Control Programs From Task-Level Specifications";\F0
Memo AIM-282,
AI Lab, Stanford University, 1976.\.
\J[Widdoes 74] L.C.Widdoes;
\F1"A Heuristic Collision Avoider for the Stanford Arm";\F0
Internal Note,
AI Lab, Stanford University, 1974.\.
[Winston 83] P.Winston, T.Binford, B.Katz, M.Lowry
"
Stanford AI Memo , MIT-AI memo .., 1983.
\,
∂15-Feb-83 1400 MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM Follow-up information on Richard Fujimoto and any future candidates
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 15-Feb-83 14:00 PST
Date: Tue 15 Feb 83 13:51:57-PST
From: Juanita Mullen <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Follow-up information on Richard Fujimoto and any future candidates
To: csd.mayr@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jef@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.golub@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
weiderhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, csl.jlh@SU-SCORE.ARPA, icl.dutton@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Please let me have your preliminary assessments of Richard's strengths and
weaknesses for the faculty position. We will be talking to several people
and I would appreciate your writing these impressions down for the
committee while they are still fresh in your mind. Thank you. Bruce
-------
∂15-Feb-83 1427 CSD.DORIO@SU-SCORE pmessage
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 15-Feb-83 14:27 PST
Date: Tue 15 Feb 83 14:26:23-PST
From: Nancy Dorio <CSD.DORIO@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: pmessage
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2273
Chris Cory called from Psychology Today in reference to your letter of Jan
27. He wants you to do the piece and needs to discuss it further with you.
Please return the call at 212 725-7536.
Nan
-------
∂15-Feb-83 1430 ullman@Diablo Re: Follow-up information on Richard Fujimoto and any future candidates
Received: from SU-HNV by SU-AI with PUP; 15-Feb-83 14:30 PST
Date: 15 February 1983 14:31:10-PST (Tuesday)
From: ullman@Diablo
Subject: Re: Follow-up information on Richard Fujimoto and any future candidates
To: MULLEN at Sumex-Aim, csd.golub at SU-Score, csd.mayr at SU-Score, csl.jlh
at SU-Score, icl.dutton at SU-Score, jef at Sail, jmc at Sail,
weiderhold at Sumex-Aim
Cc: buchanan at Sumex-Aim
Hard to see any brilliance there, although he might make an adequate
worker. I asked him why one didn't simply implement a hypercube, which
can simulate arrays, trees, etc. efficiently, and he didn't really have
the idea, i.e., he didn't know that wire area (or volume) grows nonlinearly
with the number of processors.
∂16-Feb-83 1030 CLT beeson
don't forget
∂16-Feb-83 1556 CLT
Beeson,Michael 56-277-2394 (SJSU) 408-335-3528(home ~ 10am)
659 Redwood Road, Felton, CA 95018
"ucscc!beeson"@Berkeley gets mail to Beeson.
∂16-Feb-83 1712 Louis G. Robinson <AAAI@SRI-AI.ARPA> [FEINLER at SRI-NIC: AI reference tool for network]
Received: from SRI-AI by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 16 Feb 83 17:12:19 PST
Date: Wed 16 Feb 83 07:50:35-PST
From: Louis G. Robinson <AAAI@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: [FEINLER at SRI-NIC: AI reference tool for network]
To: AAAI-Executive-Committee: ;
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Received: from SRI-NIC by SRI-AI.ARPA with TCP; Tue 15 Feb 83 13:15:22-PST
Date: 15 Feb 1983 1302-PST
From: FEINLER at SRI-NIC
Subject: AI reference tool for network
To: kahn at USC-ISI, walker at SRI-NIC, gpark at BBNA, parker at SRI-NIC,
tharris at BBNA, jthomas at BBNA
cc: feinler at SRI-NIC, roode at SRI-NIC, klh at SRI-NIC, aaai at SRI-AI,
amsler at SRI-AI, walker at SRI-AI
Gentlemen,
About a week ago Lou Robinson from AAAI came by to talk to us about
putting the AI literature online in such a fashion that it would be
easily accessible by network users and would be reproducible by AAAI
(and others) in hardcopy. There has been an active dialog online
between many AI researchers suggesting that such a data base would be
useful and is needed. We visualize a highly interactive, query/response
system for simple reference requests (e.g., 1 to 10 references) and a
simple indexing scheme to start with. Searches of the type 'everything
ever written on...' would probably not be delivered in real time, but
could be delivered at a later time and in a useful format. In addition,
the same data base could be used to produce a periodic hardcopy
bibliography for AAAI.
We are quite interested in doing this work and have discussed it with
Bob Amsler and Don Walker of our AI group. Any thoughts you might have
on this would be appreciated, and I would like to know if DARPA or DCA
could provide the necessary funding needed to build and maintain the
data base. We estimate that two people would be needed, one
professional and one clerical along with already available machine
resources.
Regards,
Jake
--------
30-Jan-83 15:56:03-PST,3718;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host SRI-AI rcvd at 30-Jan-83 1555-PST Date: 30 Jan
1983 0834-PST
From: Louis G. Robinson <AAAI at SRI-AI>
Subject: One-Line Abstract and Bibliographic Reference Service To:
Feinler at SRI-NIC, Roode at SRI-NIC
cc: aaai at SRI-AI
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
January 29, 1983
To: Jake Feinler, SRI-NIC
From: Lou Robinson, AAAI
Subject: On-Line Abstract and Bibliographic Reference Service
It is my understanding that the Network Information Center at
SRI-International is providing an on-line protocol service linked to the
Arpanet. It's also my understanding that NIC will soon make a proposal
to DCA for the funding of that service. It seems to me that your
proposal could be expanded to include a service that is of vital concern
to the AI community.
The American Association for Artificial Intelligence would like to
provide an on-line abstract and bibliographic reference service to the
Artificial Intelligence community. This would be an extension of the
Association's present role of providing a number of AI educational
services including the publishing of an AI magazine, the holding of AI
conferences, the publishing of conference proceedings and the running of
AI tutorial and exhibit programs.
A number of individuals have expressed the need for such a service. None
articulates the need better than Professor Michael Genesereth, professor
of computer science at Stanford University, and Program Chairman for
AAAI-83, the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence being held
this year in Washington, D.C. on August 22 to 26:
"As the amount of AI literature grows, the difficulties of keeping
track of it all are becoming more pronounced. It's time we exploited
our computer systems and networks in facilitating our research.
Although a number of commercial on-line abstract services already
exist, these services are inconvenient to use and their listing are
not really up-to-date.
"It's my opinion that the AAAI can benefit the research community by
establishing an online abstract service accessible via arpanet. The
majority of the research community has access to the net or can get
access. Even if it turns out that commercial facilities like Telenet
must be used, I'd encourage some sort of automatic link for those of
us on Arpanet machines.
"The service I'm recommending would include a complete and up-to-
date catalog of abstracts of AI papers. The software to do key-
word, author, title, and word searches should be fairly simple to
generate or acquire. . . the facility might also include a standard-
ized bibliographic reference and automatic order forms. Eventually,
the service might even grow into an online publishing facility."
A number of individual's within AAAI have endorsed Genesereth's
proposal. The International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence
supports the idea as does the Artificial Intelligence Journal which has
even made an offer of funds to support the start up of such a service.
In our talk last Friday, you indicated that the NIC machine, with its
already well-established accessing facility and expanded storage
capacity, could easily handle the kind of service referred to above.
You also indicated that the only truly significant cost factor involved
would be the hiring of the necessary personnel -- most probably two
individuals -- to start and maintain the service.
AAAI would like to continue to explore the possibility of creating an
on-line abstract and bibliographic reference service in conjunction with
the Network Information Center.
-------
-------
∂17-Feb-83 1334 RPG Martin Brooks
To: ZM, JMC
I plan to call him tomorrow and invite him to visit Stanford to
discuss possibilities. Are there any objections?
-rpg-
∂17-Feb-83 1653 YOU@UTAH-20 interested in your new paper.
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 17-Feb-83 16:53 PST
Received: from UTAH-20 by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 17 Feb 83 15:09:44-PST
Date: 17 Feb 1983 1602-MST
From: Jia-huai You <you@UTAH-20>
Subject: interested in your new paper.
To: McCarthy@SU-AI
cc: you@UTAH-20
Just aware that you wrote a paper entitled
"Coloring Maps and Kowalski Doctrine".
I'd appreciate it if you could send me a copy of it.
Please send to the following address:
Jia-huai You
Dept. of Computer Science
3160 Merril Engineering Building
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
Thank you very much,
-You
-------
Diana: Please send him the paper with a note saying that there is more
to come eventually, and I'll put him on the list.
∂17-Feb-83 2243 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA Proposal
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 17-Feb-83 22:42 PST
Date: Thu 17 Feb 83 22:39:55-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA Proposal
To: CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA,
ZM@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 14 Feb 83 15:29:08-PST
Is there a desire to use a common formatting program for the proposal?
SCRIBE? TEX?
I7ll collect votes, including nays. Gio
-------
∂17-Feb-83 2257 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA Proposal
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 17-Feb-83 22:57 PST
Date: Thu 17 Feb 83 22:56:08-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA Proposal
To: WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA,
ZM@SU-AI.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu 17 Feb 83 22:48:54-PST
Received: from SUMEX-AIM with PUP; Thu 17 Feb 83 22:45:21-PST
Date: Thu 17 Feb 83 22:39:55-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA Proposal
To: CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA,
ZM@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 14 Feb 83 15:29:08-PST
Is there a desire to use a common formatting program for the proposal?
SCRIBE? TEX?
I7ll collect votes, including nays. Gio
-------
I don't have a secretary at my disposal at the moment since she is all tied up
with admissions. John McC volunteered Diana- which system does she know and use.
Paul
-------
∂17-Feb-83 2322 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA Proposal
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 17-Feb-83 23:21 PST
Date: Thu 17 Feb 83 23:19:32-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA Proposal
To: WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA,
ZM@SU-AI.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu 17 Feb 83 22:48:54-PST
Received: from SUMEX-AIM with PUP; Thu 17 Feb 83 22:45:21-PST
Date: Thu 17 Feb 83 22:39:55-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA Proposal
To: CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, DCL@SU-AI.ARPA, TOB@SU-AI.ARPA,
ZM@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 14 Feb 83 15:29:08-PST
Is there a desire to use a common formatting program for the proposal?
SCRIBE? TEX?
I7ll collect votes, including nays. Gio
-------
I note that I have extensive material from both Binford and Luckham in
Scribe format.Paul
-------
∂18-Feb-83 0900 JMC*
Hilts.
∂18-Feb-83 1347 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Industrial Lectureships.
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 18-Feb-83 13:47 PST
Date: Fri 18 Feb 83 13:45:44-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Industrial Lectureships.
To: bmoore%SRI-AI@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: : ;
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
Can we tentively schedule the lindustrial lectureships as you suggested
in your message of 14 january/ That is, Pentland and Barnard to teach
this spring, Bob Moore to teach next Fall, and Stan Rosenschein to teach
next Winter. The only thing keeping this fro being the final schedule
is gettting an okay from the fourth speaker for the spring of '84. paul
-------
∂19-Feb-83 1000 JMC*
Letters to Liu.
∂19-Feb-83 1537 Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon) answer from Ithiel Pool
Received: from USC-ECL by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 19 Feb 83 15:37:04 PST
Received: from MIT-MULTICS by USC-ECL; Sat 19 Feb 83 15:36:21-PST
Date: 19 February 1983 18:09 est
From: Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon)
Subject: answer from Ithiel Pool
To: JMC%SU-AI at USC-ECL
cc: Solomon.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS (hold.sv)
Acknowledge-To: Solomon.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS
This is Ithiel's answer to your note. He just got it, and as he is off
to Italy for 4 days, he asked me by phone to get it to you since Multics
does not seem to want to talk to SU-AI these days. I will try sending
it via OZ if Multics refuses to send it again. I have taken the liberty
of sending it to the other members of the advisory board. My phone
number is 413 267 5171. Richard Solomon.
===================================================================
To John McCarthy from Ithiel Pool:
You have a point, but also, I think some misunderstanding, which is our
fault for poor explanation.
The press release was issued in September, soon after the grant was
made, so people would not wonder what was going on. It represented our
thinking at that time.
It still guides our plans, but after much discussion of the nature of
the video medium among our committee we decided that a certain narrowing
was necessary. You don't use a videotape to write a definitive history
or to do subtle intellectual analysis. The written word is better for
that, or a carefully scripted combination of words and video. The value
of a videotape in a historical archive is to allow people in the future
to look at it and recapture some sense of the feelings, the character
and the interactions of the key players after they are gone. So far as
possible with video, the purpose is to get a sense of these important
people as people, and how they conceptualized what they were doing.
Therefore, after several iterations of how we were going to make these
tapes, including some test situations, the advisory committee suggested
to us that the best thing that we could do is to bring together teams
that worked together to recapture the spirit of that time, and forgo any
attempt at being more comprehensive. The panels chosen are guided by
the topics with which we started, but they obviously do not cover those
topics thoroughly.
We also decided from the start that we would go a bit heavier on the MIT
history but just because we can get more interviews into our budget if
we use local people. But we are quite determined that it is not going
to be an MIT history. MIT is dealt with in just one of the three main
units.
The first three or four panels are on Eniac, EDVAC, and the IAS machine.
In addition to the panels scheduled (and these schedules have changed
several times since we typed the sheet mailed out during to various
conflicts), we may make site visits to Philadelphia and other places in
order to include important people who would be otherwise be left out.
The next group of panels is MIT-centered and leads to interactive
real-time computing.
The third group of panels (not yet on the schedule) which was originally
called "the computer moves into business", focuses on the 701, and
hopefully 704-7090 groups at IBM. We are working that out with them.
In addition, Richard Solomon began our videotaping last December with a
group of people at NPL in Teddington, England discussing Pilot ACE,
Colossus and the role of Alan Turing in the origins of the digital
computer. If funds can be made available, we may return to England at
the end of this phase of the project to continue documenting the people
who worked on machines in postwar Britain and perhaps on the Continent
as well.
So you see it is not as imbalanced as I think you believed.
As to your point on CTSS: that, you see, is the way we focussed the
topic of time-sharing into a working group. However, putting CTSS in
its place is a perfectly proper topic of discussion at the session.
I would thus ask you to reconsider. However, our number one principle
in this project is that no one is asked to do anything that makes them
uncomfortable or that they feel misrepresents the history. The
participants are the final judges of how we set things up. So, if you
want to redefine the format in which you participate, or the subject and
nature of a group, please make your suggestion, and we will take it up
with the others and probably set it up the way you want. This won't be
the first time, though the points you raised have not been the ones
raised by others. In some earlier instances we put people together who
did not want to be together. Whatever the point, however, we are
convinced that you know more than we do, and you are the judge.
Specifically we are using the CTSS group only as an organizing device.
We are very aware, for example, of the BBN machine on which Lick (inter
alia) worked. The theme of all the discussions is to be the streams of
ideas and devices that flowed together, not who did it first or who
should get all the credit. So each of our groups will be asked to
discuss what else was going on elsewhere.
I am forwarding our correspondence to all the people involved on our
team and advisors. The revision that you want should be expressed in
the preliminary memo that we are preparing for each session. That memo
is designed to focus the discussion, naming the topics we want to deal
with and the questions that need to be raised. Between that and the
specific composition of the panel we should be able to create a format
that you think has validity.
∂20-Feb-83 1352 CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE Next meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 20-Feb-83 13:52 PST
Date: Sun 20 Feb 83 13:52:33-PST
From: Gene Golub <CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next meeting
To: search: ;
Our next meeting will take place on Thursday Feb 24 at 2:45 in
the conference room next to my office.
We need to make some invitations and some exclusions.
You may look at the applications which have arrived in the file
in Elyse's office.
I want to talk about general goals and specific arrangements.
GENE
-------
∂22-Feb-83 1016 CSD.MSK@SU-SCORE Re: mailing list
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 22-Feb-83 10:14 PST
Date: Tue 22 Feb 83 10:15:39-PST
From: Michael S. Kenniston <CSD.MSK@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: mailing list
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: csd.msk@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri 18 Feb 83 17:00:00-PST
You're now on the list.
-------
∂22-Feb-83 1322 Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon) mail
Received: from USC-ECL by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 22 Feb 83 13:18:54 PST
Received: from MIT-MULTICS by USC-ECL; Tue 22 Feb 83 13:17:11-PST
Date: 22 February 1983 15:46 est
From: Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon)
Subject: mail
To: jmc%su-ai at USC-ECL
cc: Solomon.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS (hold.sv)
Acknowledge-To: Solomon.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS
If you are having trouble reaching me at Multics, you can send mail to
ESTRIN -at MIT-XX and ask it to be forwarded. For that matter, most of
the advisory committee is on XX: fano, lick, corbato. You can send mail
to them and ask for forwarding. Gwen Bell is GBell -at dec-marlboro.
Unfortunately, Bob Everett does not use his mailbox at Mitre.
∂22-Feb-83 1822 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE Total Scope Document
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 22-Feb-83 18:21 PST
Date: Tue 22 Feb 83 18:19:14-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Total Scope Document
To: zm@SU-AI.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, tob@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.wiederhold@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
csd.bscott@SU-SCORE.ARPA, csl.ver.dcl@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
Here is the total scope document as I received the pieces. It is stored
as <csd.files>total.scope. Gio has volunteered to forward it on to the ARPA
folks so comments to him as well as to me. I trust I did what was expected
of me. Paul
-------
∂22-Feb-83 1842 CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE The file
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 22-Feb-83 18:42 PST
Date: Tue 22 Feb 83 18:41:10-PST
From: Paul Armer <CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: The file
To: zm@SU-AI.ARPA, tob@SU-AI.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.wiederhold@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
csd.bscott@SU-SCORE.ARPA, csl.ver.dcl@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2906
I've been frustrated in sending you the file because I'v e been out of space
Hop it works this time.
A. Basic research in Software Engineering and Program Verification
1. Languages for formal specification of systems designs including
both software and hardware.
2. Languages for formal documentation and annotation of programs.
3. Techniques for specifying and analysing systems designs.
4. Techniques for analyzing sequential and concurrent programs, including
consistency analysis, analysis of runtime behavior, analysis of communication
in concurrent programs.
5. Concurrent programming methodology.
6. Formalization of programming knowledge.
7. Techniques for systematic development of programs, and for reasoning about
programs and programming.
8. Techniques for computer-supported reasoning.
9. Design and implementation of tools for advanced programming environments
including tools for error detection and consistency analysis, and for
knowledge based programming assistance.
10. Techniques for interactive and automatic program synthesis.
11. Theorem proving techniques.
12. Logical tools for program verification and synthesis
B. DATA MANAGEMENT
We prpose to investigate advanced techniques to improve database access and
management. Withis this objective we will analyze the semantics inherent in
the data and in the operations persformed on data. Where the boundaries of
algorithmic approached are reached we will develop heuristic techniques. We
will stress methods which are domain-independent so that the technology can
be transferred to a wide variety of applications.
Specifically we propose to:
1. Specify and use data semantics. We will use a categorization of data
semantics to establish those semantics which can aid in designing and
distributing well-structured databases, and those which may be of operational
utility.
2. Address ambiguity,view and performance problems in database update.
3. Extend and develop semantic aids to the anlaysis of database contents.
4.Develop communication and audit-trail concepts in design databases.
5. Investigate algorithms for maintaining data on optical disks.
6.Acquire and maintain data resourses and database management systems to
support this research.
C. Basic Research in Artificial Intelligence
1. Formalization of facts about the common sense world including laws
determining the effects of actions including mental actions.
2. Formalization( both procedural and declarative) of the heuristic knowledge
used in common sense reasoning and problem solving.
3. Formalization of common sense reasoning including non-monotonic reasoning.
4. Representation of facts in the memory of a computer. Connections between
AI representation work and database research.
5. Languages for communications among computers and between computers and
people, especially semantic aspects of such languages.
6. Techniques for computer reasoning and computer-assisted human reasoning.
7. AI Programming languages including LISP, especially Common Lisp, but also
research aimed at new languages.
8. Techniques of automatically specializing programs.
9.Programs that take advice from users and give advice in return, and
programs that decide what to do by formal reasoning.
D. Image Understanding and Robotics
This project focusses on desgning and implementing Intelligent and Expert
Systems for interpretation and planning actions. Its elements include:
1. Expert systems for Image Understanding and expert systems for
Manufacturing; in particular the ACRONYM system and its planned successor;
2. Subsystems for interaction with the user:
2A. Rule-based, intelligent interfaces including geometric editing, computer
graphics, incorporation of natural language, Speech I/O and mechanical
devices;
3. Subsystems for modeling the world:
3A. Geometric modeling and representation of the physical world;
3B.learning and abstraction in building and using databases for the physical
world;
4. Subsystems for planning, inerpretation and decision making;
4A. Representation of information as constraint neetworks;
4B. Geometric reasoning utilizing mathematical representations in a rule base,
including constraint resolution, domain-specific constraints with specialized
procedures for resolution of constraints; geometric reasonong incorporating
symbolic statistical distributions and maximum-likelihood methods with
subspace factorization;
4C. Problem formulation in geometric reasoning;
4D. Reasonong with space/time and sequences of events and actions;
4E.Interpretation of images by matching with generic and specific models;
4F. Planning of robot actions;
4G. navigation, path-finding, and motion control of mobile robots;
map-making and world modeling;
5. Subsystems for interaction with the world:
5A. Analysis of images and sequences of images to obtain image features
including regions, region boundaries, and junctions of boundaries;
5B. SEgmentation and aggregation of image features to analyze texture
regions, canonical groupings, and figure-ground discrimination;
5C. VLSI implementation of image algorithms and architecture studies;
5D. Inference rules for interpretation of image structures as spatial
structures;
5E. Multi-sensor integration with collateral information and knowledge
bases;
5F. Stereo mapping, motion parallax and object motion in spatial
interpretation;
5G. Use of shadows combined with general and special cues to spatial
structure in image analysis;
6. Robotics:
6A. Design of robot hands and arms;
6B. Force control in assembly;
6C. Control of cooperative action of multiple fingers and arms;
6D. Programming systems for robots.
-------
∂23-Feb-83 0845 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: The file
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 23-Feb-83 08:45 PST
Date: Wed 23 Feb 83 08:37:47-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: The file
To: CSD.ARMER@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: zm@SU-AI.ARPA, tob@SU-AI.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.wiederhold@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
csd.bscott@SU-SCORE.ARPA, csl.ver.dcl@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue 22 Feb 83 20:38:06-PST
If it is corect in everybodies opinion , I will send it.
I do feel that an intrductory papragraph is appropriate.
Gio
-------
∂23-Feb-83 1504 DFH admissions folders
I have put new GRE scores in VOORHEES folder (in addition to
those from last week listed on Rita's note). Also, Rita
would like the folders back as soon as possible.
∂26-Feb-83 1738 CSD.RESTIVO@SU-SCORE Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover system
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 26-Feb-83 17:16 PST
Date: Fri 25 Feb 83 17:45:31-PST
From: Chuck Restivo <CSD.Restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover system
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
Is there any documentation for the Theorem Prover that is installed
at SCORE on PS:<TP2>?
Chuck Restivo
-------
There is a lot of documentation. Ask Joe Weening or Carolyn Talcott.
∂26-Feb-83 2353 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Proposed SCOPE for 1983-1986 ARPA proposal
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 26-Feb-83 23:53 PST
Date: Sat 26 Feb 83 23:46:33-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed SCOPE for 1983-1986 ARPA proposal
To: adams@USC-ISI.ARPA, ohlander@USC-ISI.ARPA, mach@USC-ECLB.ARPA
cc: csd.armer@SU-SCORE.ARPA, csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, zm@SU-AI.ARPA,
csl.dcl@SU-SCORE.ARPA, tob@SU-SCORE.ARPA, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Please comment on the appropriateness of the Scope as follows.
Thank you - we will continue to prepare the full Contract proposal
as well as individual task requests.
Gio Wiederhold for McCarthy, Luckham, Manna, Binford, and himself.
Stanford proposes to perform Research in the following Areas:
A. Basic Research in Artificial Intelligence
--------------------------------------------
1. Formalization of facts about the common sense world including laws
determining the effects of actions including mental actions.
2. Formalization (both procedural and declarative) of the heuristic knowledge
used in common sense reasoning and problem solving.
3. Formalization of common sense reasoning including non-monotonic reasoning.
4. Representation of facts in the memory of a computer. Connections between
AI representation work and database research.
5. Languages for communications among computers and between computers and
people, especially semantic aspects of such languages.
6. Techniques for computer reasoning and computer-assisted human reasoning.
7. AI Programming languages including LISP, especially Common Lisp, but also
research aimed at new languages.
8. Techniques of automatically specializing programs.
9. Programs that take advice from users and give advice in return, and
programs that decide what to do by formal reasoning.
B. Basic research in Software Engineering and Program Verification
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Languages for formal specification of systems designs including
both software and hardware.
2. Languages for formal documentation and annotation of programs.
3. Techniques for specifying and analysing systems designs.
4. Techniques for analyzing sequential and concurrent programs, including
consistency analysis, analysis of runtime behavior, analysis of communication
in concurrent programs.
5. Concurrent programming methodology.
6. Formalization of programming knowledge.
7. Techniques for systematic development of programs, and for reasoning about
programs and programming.
8. Techniques for computer-supported reasoning.
9. Design and implementation of tools for advanced programming environments
including tools for error detection and consistency analysis, and for
knowledge based programming assistance.
10. Techniques for interactive and automatic program synthesis.
11. Theorem proving techniques.
12. Logical tools for program verification and synthesis
C. DATA MANAGEMENT
------------------
We propose to investigate advanced techniques to improve database access and
management. Within this objective we will analyze the semantics inherent in
the data and in the operations persformed on data. Where the boundaries of
algorithmic approached are reached we will develop heuristic techniques. We
will stress methods which are domain-independent so that the technology can
be transferred to a wide variety of applications.
Specifically we propose to:
1. Specify and use data semantics. We will use a categorization of data
semantics to establish those semantics which can aid in designing and
distributing well-structured databases, and those which may be of operational
utility.
2. Address ambiguity, view and performance problems in database update.
3. Extend and develop semantic aids to the anlaysis of database contents.
4. Develop communication and audit-trail concepts in design databases.
5. Investigate algorithms for maintaining data on optical disks.
6. Acquire and maintain data resourses and database management systems to
support this research.
D. Image Understanding and Robotics
-----------------------------------
This project focusses on designing and implementing Intelligent and Expert
Systems for interpretation and planning actions. Its elements include:
1. Expert systems for Image Understanding and expert systems for
Manufacturing; in particular the ACRONYM system and its planned successor;
2. Subsystems for interaction with the user:
2A. Rule-based, intelligent interfaces including geometric editing,
computer graphics, incorporation of natural language, Speech I/O
and mechanical devices;
3. Subsystems for modeling the world:
3A. Geometric modeling and representation of the physical world;
3B. Learning and abstraction in building and using databases for
the physical world;
4. Subsystems for planning, interpretation and decision making;
4A. Representation of information as constraint neetworks;
4B. Geometric reasoning utilizing mathematical representations in
a rule base, including constraint resolution, domain-specific constraints
with specialized procedures for resolution of constraints; geometric
reasonong incorporating symbolic statistical distributions and
maximum-likelihood methods with subspace factorization;
4C. Problem formulation in geometric reasoning;
4D. Reasonong with space/time and sequences of events and actions;
4E. Interpretation of images by matching with generic and specific models;
4F. Planning of robot actions;
4G. navigation, path-finding, and motion control of mobile robots;
map-making and world modeling;
5. Subsystems for interaction with the world:
5A. Analysis of images and sequences of images to obtain image features
including regions, region boundaries, and junctions of boundaries;
5B. Segmentation and aggregation of image features to analyze texture
regions, canonical groupings, and figure-ground discrimination;
5C. VLSI implementation of image algorithms and architecture studies;
5D. Inference rules for interpretation of image structures as spatial
structures;
5E. Multi-sensor integration with collateral information and knowledge
bases;
5F. Stereo mapping, motion parallax and object motion in spatial
interpretation;
5G. Use of shadows combined with general and special cues to spatial
structure in image analysis;
6. Robotics:
6A. Design of robot hands and arms;
6B. Force control in assembly;
6C. Control of cooperative action of multiple fingers and arms;
6D. Programming systems for robots.
-------
∂28-Feb-83 2015 CL.BOYER at UTEXAS-20
Received: from USC-ECL by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 28 Feb 83 20:15:18 PST
Received: from UTEXAS-20 by USC-ECL; Mon 28 Feb 83 18:33:39-PST
Date: Monday, 28 February 1983 20:29-CST
From: CL.BOYER at UTEXAS-20
To: John McCarthy <JMC%SU-AI at USC-ECL>
Moore and I are planning to convert our theorem-prover to
run on a Symbolics 3600 this summer. We have two 3600s on
order, and we will probably order more if they work as we
expect.
Although an Interlisp "compatibility package" is available
for the 3600, I am fairly sure we will make the program work
in Zetalisp, which is very close to Maclisp.
∂28-Feb-83 2300 JMC*
Lowell. Should I call security?
∂28-Feb-83 2351 AAM Text
I have a friend at the Blind Rehabilitation Center who needs some text for
training blind people on a new word processor they have. I suggested that
he use the system documentation that came with their VAX, but apparently he
wants something less technical. Do you know if anyone would object to my
giving him a tape with either Wuthering Heights or Grimm's Fairy Tales on
it (from [LIB,DOC])? I thought you might know, since if I'm not mistaken
you got the copy that we have from III.
Allan
∂01-Mar-83 0619 Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon) sample session
Received: from USC-ECL by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 1 Mar 83 06:19:07 PST
Received: from MIT-MULTICS by USC-ECL; Tue 1 Mar 83 06:18:31-PST
Date: 28 February 1983 23:32 est
From: Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon)
Subject: sample session
To: jmc%su-ai at USC-ECL
cc: Pool.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS,
Solomon.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS (hold.sv)
Acknowledge-To: Solomon.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS
I am sending in the next message a sample memo on ENIAC which is going
to the participants in that session. We thought you would like to see
how we are handling the videotaping. the memo on CTSS and timesharing is
underway, but will be similar, unless feedback from our advisors and
participants suggest a different approach.
∂01-Mar-83 0619 Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon) ENIAC memo
Received: from USC-ECL by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 1 Mar 83 06:19:27 PST
Received: from MIT-MULTICS by USC-ECL; Tue 1 Mar 83 06:18:40-PST
Date: 28 February 1983 23:33 est
From: Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon)
Subject: ENIAC memo
To: jmc%su-ai at USC-ECL
cc: Solomon.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS (hold.sv)
Acknowledge-To: Solomon.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPUTER HISTORY PROJECT
The discussion on ENIAC which we are to hold on March 19, is one of a
series of videotaped sessions on the history of the computer which have
been funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The series as a whole
has two purposes:
1. To recapture for the historical record, while the computer pioneers are
still with us, the mood and spirit of the time in which they worked.
History is
always a rewriting of the past from the perspective of
the present, but to the extent that it is possible, we
wish to have our informants tell us what they were
thinking about then, how the problems and difficulties
appeared to them at that time, and what their
expectations and hopes were then. To do that we are
using the scheme of bringing together small groups of
people who had worked with each other so that they can
informally discuss and recollect what they had done and
thought on a daily basis when they had made their early
contributions as a team. We will therefore be asking
you to discuss, as you saw things then, such matters
as: where and when you would meet; what you would then
discuss; what then seemed the hardest and most
important problems to be solved; what ultimate value
you expected the work to have.
2. As the unifying intellectual theme, we want to
trace what streams of ideas came together in the
various early computer efforts that we are reviewing.
The computer is not a single invention like the
telephone or the transistor; it is a complex of many
things that were brought together in different ways for
different purposes in different projects. So as we
look at any point in past time we would like to know:
what intellectual influences and previous experiences
where seminal in the new effort? What combinations of
skills were needed on the team? What combinations of
previously unrelated technologies were brought
together? Where and how did ideas come about? At each
point, what was the pivotal innovation added to the
previous store of knowledge and how did it change the
previous perspectives?
One issue that inevitably arises in all discussions of the
history of technology, but which is not our central concern, is that
of exact priorities and sequences. It is an important issue on which
those who participate may certainly from time to time want to
express their convictions, but we have strong opinions about what the
video medium is good for and what it is not good for. We do not
believe a videotaped discussion is the best medium for establishing
precise facts that need documentation. The written record, with
documentation, is far better for that. !
The value of the videotape is to capture feelings and impressions about
what important players were doing. We want you to try to recall how
you saw things. We are not asking each of you to be a historical
encyclopaedia.
The videotaping and discussion is intended be quite informal. If there
is anything you wish to say off the record, just indicate this, and we
will stop or backspace (and erase) the recording for the moment. This
is not a TV program or a documentary. There is no script; the
purpose is to archive your comments in order to aid future historians.
You can feel free to interrupt at will, leave the room as you
need to, and change the subject if you think we have got the questions
wrong.
The studio will be set up as if it were a living room, and
illuminated primarily with normal room lighting, so it will not be
too warm, nor too bright. We will use a minimum of
technicians, and equipment. Informality extends to your
clothing. Wear whatever you feel comfortable in. (1)
With that in mind, we will present some thoughts and questions about
ENIAC that may help focus the discussion.
The ENIAC
A simple list of dates may aid in placing ENIAC in the proper time
frame, though details abound in a number of books and articles:
From the late 1930's to World War II, a number of attempts were
made to design or build faster calculating machines based on eletronics,
or electro-mechanical relays. John Mauchley, a physicist, brought
one set of these ideas with him when he joined the Moore School, and
wrote a memo to that effect in August 1942, after consulting with J.
Presper Eckert, a graduate instructor in electronics. A proposal to
build the ENIAC was drafted by J. Grist Brainerd in April 1943 and was
accepted by the U.S. Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory in June of
that year. The machine was designed and built under the engineering
direction of Eckert with a team of other engineers, technicians and
mathematicians during the next 30 months, with the first
problem, a still-classified one related to the H-bomb, run by December
1945. It was presented to the public in January 1946, but technical
details remained classified for some time after that.
Our panelists know the history best; they have written about their
experiences and have delivered lectures on the subject. It would be
presumptuous for this memo to attempt to more than
(1)
Some colors do not go well with video equipment however; white
shirts are to be avoided, since they cause glare, and finely
patterned material, or narrowly striped cloth, could interfere
with the video raster. !
cursorily outline what happened; and in the discussion, we expect that
each panelist's memory will be a better "jog" for the others than
anything that can be written here.
We want to discuss how people worked together; what they thought they
were doing; what they thought others, including the "outside world"
were doing; where they thought their contributions were going; what
they needed, and what they wanted to accomplish these goals; levels of
satisfaction, inspiration and frustration in their work; how
problems were approached, solved, or abandoned; and specific examples --
and anecdotes -- which illustrate why and how components of ENIAC
were built, why certain design philosophies were followed or not
followed, why basic engineering decisions were made, and how well
workers, administrators, engineers and mathematicians, and the Army
bureaucracy understood and influenced these decisions.
What we would like discussed is the evolution of ideas, cross-
fertilization between individuals, what constitutes useful
breeding grounds for novel ideas, how one recognizes an idea, when
a technical concept becomes applicable, and how one decides to abandon a
specific idea for alternatives.
The evolution, construction, and application of ENIAC, and the origin
of the EDVAC concept should considered discussed in these terms.
In the evolution of ENIAC and in the thinking and intellectual growth
of the individuals involved on ENIAC and EDVAC, many events
occurred and technical decisions were made of varying importance
to the machine's final working order. The following list appears to be
the important ones to cover in our videotape discussion, but we will
leave it to the panelists to choose what they think are the most
important to be discussed, especially if such items or concepts were
left off of the list:
1) The background of the people on the project is
important. We would like to have you discuss your own
background; how you became interested in technology,
mathematics, engineering, etc.; what you may have done
which inspired these avocations before you had
completed your studies; how these interests evolved
until, and after you joined the ENIAC project; how your
professional interests were affected after ENIAC; what
you knew of others on the project who made significant
contributions.
2) What were the problems that ENIAC was intended to
solve, and how may have this perception changed as the
machine was under design and being completed. What
approaches were taken to that effect. What was known
of other efforts, contemporary and historical to solve
such problems. Did problem-oriented goals
significantly affect the design and architecture (a !
modern term, to be sure) of ENIAC and the concepts
embodied in EDVAC?
3) Which components of the ENIAC were critical and
required novel and imaginative design? How was that
approached?
a) Some components, from today's point of view,
seem to have been very important to ENIAC's success.
For example, the accumulators and multiplication units
used for arithmetic, the constant transmitter, pulse
generator, program control circuitry, function table
matrices, and counters. What were the problems and
engineering solutions?
b) What were the choices between number systems for
the electronics? What design tools were available for
logical circuit analysis, wiring and testing to
accomplish electronically the manipulation of decimal
and binary numbers in the machines?
c) The choice between parallel and serial circuit
architectures made significant difference in operation
for other machines in later years. At this juncture,
how were they made?
d) The reliability of large-scale application of
vacuum tubes was unknown. How was this problem
approached?
e) ENIAC relied on more-or-less conventional input-
output devices in the form of punched cards. How were
alternatives evaluated and what was the process of
choice here?
f) How did problems and solutions in engineering
design and application contribute to the evolution of
EDVAC and differing approaches to computation at the
time?
4) Describe the interaction in the working team. Where
and when did you talk about plans, problems, and
solutions? Over lunch? On the laboratory floor? At
regular meetings? What were the subteams? How did
that change from the early planning phase to the time
of construction and then implementation?
5) In these discussions what were the primary issues at
different stages of the work? The mathematical and
logical operations? Their engineering representation?
Reliability? Different components? Schedule?
Contractor needs? Range of applications? Etc.
6) Retrospective questions are very subjective, but !
instructive to future generations. So, in retrospect,
and for varying time cycles after ENIAC was completed:
what worked and what did not work in terms of
technology, process, environment, funding, and people?
What did you perceive was happening to computers and
computing, for example, right after the project was
complete, a few years later when more advanced devices
were in the works, a decade later when the
stored-program concept was more-or-less proven, and
later. What of your experience with the machine, and
that of the computer community, helped, hindered and
led? Would there have been better ways to learn about
the problems and opportunities, or worse ways?
7) ENIAC played a seminal role in being an early
demonstration to sceptics that very large, complex,
electronic machines can be used for rapid computation.
How would you define the other major contributions of
ENIAC to the concepts and architectures that have
entered the modern computer?
8) What else would you like to say to future
generations of computing professionals and to
historians? !
∂01-Mar-83 1624 DFH
Restaurant is Kee Joons,433 Airport Blvd., near
Bayshore & Burlingame. phone there is 348 1122.
∂01-Mar-83 2128 CSD.BRODER@SU-SCORE Winter course evaluations
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 01-Mar-83 21:28 PST
Date: Tue 1 Mar 83 21:27:22-PST
From: Andrei Broder <CSD.Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Winter course evaluations
To: Winter Instructors: ;
cc: csd.jf@SU-SCORE.ARPA, CSD.RATHMANN@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Stanford-Office: MJH 325, Tel. (415) 497-1787
Here we are again! Please reserve 15 min. at the end of your class on
Tuesday, Mar. 8, or Wednesday Mar. 9 for course evaluation. If this
is not convenient please let us know what other time is good for you.
Many thanks,
The course evaluation ctte.
(Joan Feigenbaum, Peter Rathmann, Andrei Broder)
-------
∂02-Mar-83 1652 RPG Your part
How is your part of the proposal coming. I've got a first version of the rest
done, but I need to go over it once more. It is on ARPA.TEX[1,RPG], though
no committment to TEX is in the file.
-rpg-
∂03-Mar-83 0826 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM Re: COMTEX PUBLICATIONS
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 03-Mar-83 08:26 PST
Date: Thu 3 Mar 83 08:21:44-PST
From: Louis Robinson <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: COMTEX PUBLICATIONS
To: MINSKY@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, NEWELL@CMU-CS-A.ARPA, AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
: ;
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed 2 Mar 83 22:57:42-PST
Marvin,
The Comtex offer does seem high. The MIT AI lab memos could
certainly be offered for less. I can do some investigating
and get back to you with some figures if you'd like.
I would wonder, though, about the kind of agreement Comtex may now have
for the production of these memos. Who holds the copyrite for the
MIT AI lab memos. Would you happen to know?
Lou
-------
∂03-Mar-83 0917 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM Re: COMTEX PUBLICATIONS
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 03-Mar-83 09:16 PST
Date: Thu 3 Mar 83 09:15:49-PST
From: Louis Robinson <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: COMTEX PUBLICATIONS
To: MINSKY@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, NEWELL@CMU-CS-A.ARPA, AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed 2 Mar 83 22:57:42-PST
Marvin,
Regarding Comtex and the MIT AI-lab memos:
Checked with a copyrite expert who asks: Are the memos in the
PUBLIC DOMAIN?
If they are then Comtex has no proprietary rights to them and
they can be reproduced elsewhere, as long as they are not in
th exact format in which they are now being reproduced.
I will follow through on this for you if you'd like.
Lou
-------
∂03-Mar-83 0954 DFH
Re: NYC/SFO flight, there is a gap between the 12:30pm flight which
arrives at 3:20pm and the 4:30 flight arriving at 7:30 pm. Earlier
flight is on American, 4:30 one on Pan Am.
Reached Brian Randell's secretary. They are happy you're coming,
and would like abstract by Easter (April 3).
∂03-Mar-83 1442 CT CS 293
Can I get together with you next week some time to discuss
what I have done so far, and my plans for next quarter?
Next Friday would be best for me, anytime after 11am
Thank you!
Chris Tucci
∂03-Mar-83 1500 JMC*
Kline, catalog, Bernstein, Ershov,common, proposal
∂03-Mar-83 2050 CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SIERRA my thesis proposal
Received: from SU-SIERRA by SU-AI with PUP; 03-Mar-83 20:33 PST
Date: Thu 3 Mar 83 17:54:27-PST
From: Richard Treitel <CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
Subject: my thesis proposal
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: CSL.VER.RJT@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
Since I gave you that document, the more I have thought about it the less I
have liked it. Compared with LCF, there seems to be very little that is new.
Unless you (or Jussi) can see something of value in it, I feel like dropping
the whole thing and switching to a different project.
- RJT
-------
Wed. at 2pm looks good, but see the following:
∂03-Mar-83 2107 ME Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 3 March 1983
Previous Balance 0.25
Monthly Interest at 1.5% 0
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 0.25
Please deliver payments to Diana Hall, room 358, Jacks Hall.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your Pony account name on your check.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.5% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
You haven't paid your Pony bill since 12/82.
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.
∂03-Mar-83 2256 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Artificial Hearts
Received: from S1-A by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 3 Mar 83 22:42:10 PST; for: jmc
Date: 03 Mar 1983 2241-PST
From: Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A>
Subject: Artificial Hearts
To: jmc at SU-AI
CC: LLW at S1-A
John, I was delighted by your artificial heart R&D letter of 18 February,
of which you were kind enough to send me a copy. Would you be good enough
to send me a copy of the offending newpaper article, and would you be
willing to have me post or further disseminate the pair of them? Thanks,
Lowell
∂04-Mar-83 0035 CLT
Jussi says the following about times for getting together with Treitel
The only times that don't suit me are
mon, tue, wed before noon and tue,wed,thu after 4 pm. next week.
What about Wednesday (the 9th) at 2 or Friday (the 11th) at 1 or 2?
(or Thurs at 3? )
∂04-Mar-83 1031 JMC*
tinlunch
∂04-Mar-83 1111 DFH
To: JMC, ZM
I am planning to take two controller's office workshops in the next few
weeks. I would be gone from 9:30-12 Wed Mar 9, and from 10 - 12 Fridays,
Mar 11,18 & 25. Please let me know if my being gone any of these times
would be inconvenient for you.
Diana
∂04-Mar-83 1324 CLT Theorem proving Meeting
To: JMC@SU-AI, JK@SU-AI, JJW@SU-AI, csl.ver.rjt@SU-SIERRA, CLT@SU-AI
There seems to be agreement that wednesday at 2 is a suitable time
I've reserved 301 from 2-3 for that purpose.
∂04-Mar-83 1528 vardi@Diablo Bob Doyle
Received: from SU-HNV by SU-AI with PUP; 04-Mar-83 15:09 PST
Date: 4 March 1983 14:57:37-PST (Friday)
From: vardi@Diablo
Subject: Bob Doyle
To: jmc at sail
Do you have his current address?
Moshe
I don't remember any Bob Doyle, but Jon Doyle is in the CS Department
at CMU.
Bob Moore is at SRI. Combining the two is an operation for whose
consequences I would not take responsibility.
∂04-Mar-83 1628 DFH
To: JMC
From: DFH
Re: Travel arrangements
1. Ardenhouse
Mar. 17 SFO/NYC Pan Am 6 11:45am/7:53pm
Mar. 20 NYC/SFO Pan Am 855 4:30pm/7:30 pm
Please note that the earlier flights are full, but I have you
waitlisted for the following:
Mar 20 NYC/SFO United 11:45am/2:45pm
American 12:30pm/3:20pm
2. Chicago/NY
Apr 4 SFO/CHI American 182 9:30am/3:15pm
(There is a reception at 5:30. Next earlier flight leaves 7:15am )
Apr 5 CHI/NYC American 514 6:00pm/8:50pm (La Guardia)
Apr 8 NYC/SFO United 29 6:00pm/9:00pm (from JFK)
(next earlier flight is at 4:30pm)
3. DARPA reservations are confirmed.
If you would prefer different flight times, etc., let me know
∂07-Mar-83 1217 RICH@MIT-MC [RICH: TimeSharing]
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 07-Mar-83 12:16 PST
Received: from MIT-ML.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 7 Mar 83 12:06:33-PST
Date: 7 March 1983 15:00-EST (Monday)
Sender: RICH @ MIT-OZ
From: Charles Rich <RICH @ MIT-MC>
To: McCarthy @ SU-AI, McCarthy @ SCORE
Subject: [RICH: TimeSharing]
Date: 7 March 1983 10:46-EST (Monday)
From: Charles Rich <RICH>
Sender: RICH
To: minsky
cc: RICH
Re: TimeSharing
Marvin - In my introductory remarks to the AI and the Computing
Environment panel at the ILO Symposium later this month I want
to mention that there is a history of innovation in this
area spearheaded by the AI community. I always heard around
the lab that timesharing (on the PDP1?) was invented here,
but before I get up and say so in public, I want to get the
story straight from a reliable source. Do you know exactly
what the story was?
Thanks, Chuck.
P.S. I you would rather reply by phone I am at x7877. -CR
Date: Monday, 7 March 1983 14:51-EST
From: MINSKY
Sender: MINSKY
To: Charles Rich <RICH>, MINSKY
Re: TimeSharing
The most reliable source in McCarthy himself. I'll ask him where it
is documented.
∂07-Mar-83 1308 RPG Proposal
How's it going? Who will be preparing the final report. I do not volunteer
for that.
-rpg-
∂08-Mar-83 0641 Charles Rich <RICH @ MIT-MC> time-sharing history
Received: from USC-ECL by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 8 Mar 83 06:41:13 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECL; Tue 8 Mar 83 06:38:53-PST
Date: 8 March 1983 09:30-EST (Tuesday)
Sender: RICH @ MIT-OZ
From: Charles Rich <RICH @ MIT-MC>
To: John McCarthy <JMC%SU-AI @ USC-ECL>
Subject: time-sharing history
In-reply-to: Msg of 07 Mar 83 1350 PST from John McCarthy <JMC%SU-AI at USC-ECL>
John,
Thank you for the information.
-Chuck.
∂08-Mar-83 1000 JMC*
call Jerry Gunther about choper.1.
∂08-Mar-83 1336 DFH Chicago conference presentation
When I called, I was told that if we got a
copy of your presentation to them by early next
week it would be OK. If they need a summary prior
to that time they will call back.
∂08-Mar-83 1500 JMC*
Treitel, etc. + Gunther
∂09-Mar-83 0812 DFH Student support/Marlie' memo
I am assuming there are no changes to what is
shown, except that I am going to switch Joe
Weening to Jussi's account for spring per your
previous suggestion. Let me know if you want
anything done differently. Diana.
∂09-Mar-83 0955 lantz@Diablo industrial lectureships
Received: from SU-HNV by SU-AI with PUP; 09-Mar-83 09:55 PST
Date: Wednesday, 9 Mar 1983 09:57-PST
To: jmc at Sail, csd.golub at Score
Cc: lantz at Diablo
Subject: industrial lectureships
From: Keith Lantz <lantz@Diablo>
As I recall, I was supposed to be on the "committee" screening
potential lecturers. I must be wrong, since the lectureship for the
spring as been announced and those for next year have been
"determined"...
Keith
P.S. Pentland is terrific!
You are undoubtedly right, and I forgot, for which I apologize.
However, unless you had an additional candidate, the issue is moot,
because there were exactly four candidates for four slots. The
other three were John Greenstadt from IBM who will lecture on the
finite element method, Bob Moore from SRI and Stan Rosenschein from
SRI. Had I remembered, I wouldn't have had to do all the work.
∂09-Mar-83 1109 lantz@Diablo
Received: from SU-HNV by SU-AI with PUP; 09-Mar-83 11:09 PST
Date: Wednesday, 9 Mar 1983 11:11-PST
To: John McCarthy <JMC at SU-AI>
Cc: lantz at SU-HNV
In-reply-to: Your message of 09 Mar 83 1027 PST.
From: Keith Lantz <lantz@Diablo>
Actually, I don't mind not having to do the work. The only candidate I
had was Yogen Dalal who was all set to lecture in the spring until he
left Xerox for Metaphor.
Keith
∂09-Mar-83 1659 CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 09-Mar-83 16:59 PST
Date: Mon 7 Mar 83 14:02:34-PST
From: Gene Golub <CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: meeting
To: search: ;
There'll be a meeting of the Search committees this Thursday (3/10 )
at 2:30. This will probably be the last meeting with me in attendance.
Gene
PS Please try to read the files before you come.
-------
∂09-Mar-83 2257 ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode) [ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode): EMACS effect on overloaded computer systems]
Received: from SRI-NIC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 9 Mar 83 22:57:00 PST
Date: 9 Mar 1983 2254-PST
From: ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode)
Subject: [ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode): EMACS effect on overloaded computer systems]
To: ARK at SU-AI, JMC at SU-AI
cc: Admin.Bosack at SU-SCORE, McLure at SRI-KL
Location: EJ296 Phone: (415) 859-2774
Someone forwarded me your comment on measurement by Len Bosack.
I would like to see an experiment to see how these changes alter
the measurement. Good luck. I also hear that someone somewhere made
the changes RMS desired to TEXTI, finally, but have no word
on the slight changes to EMACS (ITS TECO actually) to make
it take advantage of them.
---------------
Date: 9 Mar 1983 1634-PST
From: ROODE at SRI-NIC (David Roode)
Subject: EMACS effect on overloaded computer systems
To: BBOARD at SU-SCORE
Location: EJ296 Phone: (415) 859-2774
There is a relatively simple change to EMACS and TOPS-20 that has been
kicking around for years which should vastly relieve its affect on an
overloaded, pathalogical, DEC-20 system. The problem is that each
character is a "Command" to EMACS, even when text is merely being
inserted. The monitor must effect a context switch, so that the user
program can process the character, and it is in this respect that
EMACS differs most markedly from other editors.
All that is needed are a few modifications to the TEXTI monitor call,
so that a string of characters can be accepted without any context
switching. TEXTI already addresses this problem, and is flexible in
terms of specifying what terminates the string. The major shortfall
it has is in always echoing the break character. With a few options
added, EMACS could be changed to process most normal text input in
batches of characters, while still retaining its full display
orientation.
Why doesn't someone look into this instead of going to extremes
of designing entire new editors, when the major source
of improvement is going to lie in this regard anyway, and when
other improvements will constrain the power of the editor?
-------
-------
∂09-Mar-83 2330 JMC*
choper.1
∂10-Mar-83 0337 MRC@SU-SCORE Re: lunch on Tuesday
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 10-Mar-83 03:37 PST
Date: Thu 10 Mar 83 03:35:06-PST
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: lunch on Tuesday
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: admin.mrc@SU-SCORE.ARPA, ME@SU-AI.ARPA
Postal-Address: 725 Mariposa Ave. #103; Mountain View, CA 94041
Phone: (415) 497-1407 (Stanford); (415) 968-1052 (residence)
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu 10 Mar 83 02:22:00-PST
Two things caused this. First, the mailer died for a while, and then
ARPANET TCP/IP service in the monitor got hung. When mail gets badly
backlogged nothing goes through.
-------
∂10-Mar-83 0700 ATP.BLEDSOE@UTEXAS-20 Centenial Lecture at UTEXAS
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 10-Mar-83 07:00 PST
Received: from UTEXAS-20 by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 10 Mar 83 07:00:36-PST
Date: 10 Mar 1983 0855-CST
From: Woody Bledsoe <ATP.Bledsoe@UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Centenial Lecture at UTEXAS
To: JMC@SU-AI
cc: cl.boyer@UTEXAS-20, cl.moore@UTEXAS-20, cmp.good@UTEXAS-20,
cs.dale@UTEXAS-20, ATP.Bledsoe@UTEXAS-20
John,
The University of Texas will celebrate 100 years of existence this
Fall with a series of Centenial lectures. The Computer Science department
will invite 8 such lectures for the areas shown below (with the speakers
who have already accepted)
AI
Theorem Proving/Verification
Modelling/performance
Distributed Systems David Gries
Architecture
Theory Jeff Ullman
Computer networks Mischa Schwartz
Numerical Software Cleve Moler
We hereby invite you to give one of these lectures in the area
of Theorem Proving/Verification. (Of course AI would have been another
natural area for you).
The following is the general instruction:
"Speakers should review developments over the past ten years
and identify major current research directions - about 1 hour
presentation.
We will pay a $500. honorarium, plus expenses.
Dates: October 20-21, Thompson Conference Center."
John, once we settle on a date, you would not have to be here both
days. Also you can do as you like about reviewing the developments
for the last ten years. In fact, you can settle on PV instead of ATP,
or vice versa, if you prefer that.
I hope you will be able to accept.
Woody
-------
∂10-Mar-83 0851 DFH meeting
Elise from Gene Golub's office called to
remind you of a 2:30 p.m. meeting today.
(I didn't see it on your calendar--added)
Diana
∂10-Mar-83 1245 JMC*
Alex Bronstein will talk.
∂10-Mar-83 1500 JMC*
Lantz 352 3:45
∂11-Mar-83 0931 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM 1984 AAAI Projects
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 11-Mar-83 09:31 PST
Date: Fri 11 Mar 83 09:23:37-PST
From: Louis Robinson <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: 1984 AAAI Projects
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: AAAI-office@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Dear Dr. Mc Carthy,
Lou Robinson and I would like to meet with you to discuss your
ideas about directions and projects for AAAI next year. We
understand from Nils that you have a number of things you would
like to implement during your tenure as AAAI President. How about
lunch at Cafe Magdalena to discuss these ideas? May we call you soon
to learn of a time that might be convenient to your schedule?
Thank you,
Claudia Mazzetti
-------
∂11-Mar-83 1002 BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM dinner tonight
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 11-Mar-83 10:02 PST
Date: Fri 11 Mar 83 10:00:36-PST
From: Bruce Buchanan <BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: dinner tonight
To: search-committee: ;
Is someone free to have dinner with Steve Vegdahl tonight after his
day of interviewing? He has no plans, I discovered when he arrived
this a.m., and it would be courteous to take him out.
bgb
-------
∂11-Mar-83 1009 RPG Arpa Proposal
Are short biographies like those in the last ARPA proposal sufficient
or should we have long biographies like those in the recent Common Lisp
proposal?
-rpg-
I suppose short biographies will suffice.
∂11-Mar-83 1618 CT CS 293
Hi:
I have tried to come by, but I guess we are just crossing
paths...
I have two questions about CS 293.
First of all, can I take it for a grade?
Second, I have signed up for 2 units this quarter, and 4 next
quarter. Although I have been doing a lot of planning and
preparation, I still don't have any code down on line.
So, is it possible to take an Incomplete for the 2 units
this quarter, and have them restored upon completion of the
project (mid-May)?
If you have any questions, or want to talk to me some more,
I will be around all next week, and I check my SCORE mail
(csd.tucci) regularly.
thank you!
Chris Tucci
Yes to both questions.
∂13-Mar-83 1647 RPG Proposal
To: CLT, JMC, CG, JK, LGC, YOM, JJW
dover ARP83.PRE[ARP,RPG]
is the press file for the last version of the
arpa proposal before I give to BS. If anyone wants to comment,
feel free.
-rpg-
∂14-Mar-83 1000 JMC*
Waltuch
∂14-Mar-83 1018 AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM Tues. Lunch
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 14-Mar-83 10:13 PST
Date: Mon 14 Mar 83 10:10:59-PST
From: Louis Robinson <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Tues. Lunch
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: AAAI-office@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Dear Dr. Mc Carthy,
Lou and I would like to have lunch with you tomorrow at
11:45 at Cafe Magdalena. If this time is too early, give us a
ring. Otherwise, we will meet you there at that time. Thank
you.
Claudia Mazzetti
-------
∂14-Mar-83 1018 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 14-Mar-83 10:18 PST
Date: Mon 14 Mar 83 10:15:07-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, zm@SU-AI.ARPA, tob@SU-AI.ARPA,
dcl@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.rathman@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 14 Mar 83 09:18:00-PST
I talked to people at ARPA and NAVALEx this week, and they are running
behind
schedule internally due to
budget hassles.
I think it better we prepare a better proposal ( non-task part )
The sums and items should be integrated somehow . GioIn the absence of Paul should we schedule a meeting this week?
Gio
-------
∂14-Mar-83 1130 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE Round2 Scores
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 14-Mar-83 11:30 PST
Date: Mon 14 Mar 83 11:20:02-PST
From: Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Round2 Scores
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: csd.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-4365
First John, let me thank you for returning my key as you said you would, it was
just where you placed it, under the terminal.
Now, I have a problem: you have rated FANTY twice, 4.8 & 4.6 and FARRAH
4.4 & 4.8. I need to know which score you want for both people. There may
be more "doubles", I have someone checking for me as I write this 3/14/83
11:18 a.m.
Please advise.
csd.Rita
-------
∂14-Mar-83 1156 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE Re: ARPA
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 14-Mar-83 11:56 PST
Date: Mon 14 Mar 83 11:52:59-PST
From: Betty Scott <CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA
To: WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, zm@SU-AI.ARPA, tob@SU-AI.ARPA,
dcl@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.rathman@SU-SCORE.ARPA, CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 14 Mar 83 10:25:31-PST
Do you want me to set up a meeting? If so, let me know the best times for
you.
Betty
-------
∂14-Mar-83 1244 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 14-Mar-83 12:43 PST
Date: Mon 14 Mar 83 12:40:42-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA
To: CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, zm@SU-AI.ARPA,
tob@SU-AI.ARPA, dcl@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.rathman@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 14 Mar 83 11:56:16-PST
Yes, lets try for tomorrow, the standard fac.meeting day, 3:30
Chairmans conf room?
Gio
-------
∂14-Mar-83 1310 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: ARPA
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 14-Mar-83 13:10 PST
Date: Mon 14 Mar 83 13:05:46-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: ARPA
To: CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, zm@SU-AI.ARPA,
tob@SU-AI.ARPA, dcl@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.rathman@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 14 Mar 83 11:56:16-PST
More: Betty will join us about 4pm. We'll use MJH 252. Gio
-------
∂14-Mar-83 1641 JJW Yoram delayed for 2 weeks
Here's a message I received from Yoram today:
Unexpectedly, my Aunt will be coming in from Israel to undergo
surgery, arriving in NY on the 22nd. I must meet her, and take
care of certain technical details concerning this.
Therefore, I will stay on the east coast for the next 2 weeks
(until the 28/29th). I have sent Jussi some suggestions for Comp
Questions,
and hope that my late arrival will not be too harmful. I can be
reached today and tomorrow by sending mail to benny@ml, and
otherwise (later)
C/O
A. Winnick
400 east 57th street,
57th street,
NY,NY 10022
10022.
(212) 688-3497
∂14-Mar-83 1832 JMC*
864-0645
∂15-Mar-83 0227 Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC> Marconi
Received: from USC-ECLC by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 15 Mar 83 02:27:16 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by USC-ECLC; Tue 15 Mar 83 02:24:16-PST
Date: 15 March 1983 05:17 EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Marconi
To: JMC @ MIT-MC
Marconi executives keep asknig me for your VITA and stuff.
I think we have a real chance of getting the Marconi Fellowship
for you, but I do need (1) a hard copy of that essay you wrote
on the subject, and (2) a complete vita and bibliography, at
some reasonable interval...
I will be up for the West Coast Computer Fairew Thursday through
Sunday, staying at Hyatt Union Square and will be at Workman
Booth also BYTE b ooth if you're up..
JEP
"for you, but I do need (1) a hard copy of that essay you wrote
on the subject, and (2) a complete vita and bibliography, at"
What essay on what subject? I'll send the vita. I'll be in the
New York Thursday through Sunday noon, but if there are phone
numbers where you can be reached Sunday afternoon, perhaps we can
get together, since I will be in SF for the pocket opera Sunday
evening.
∂15-Mar-83 1030 JJW Hertz application
A while ago the Hertz foundation told me that they hadn't received the
reference form from you. Could you please send it to them? Thanks.
Joe
Sorry, I'll send it anon.
∂15-Mar-83 1100 RPG Martin Brooks
To: BS@SU-AI
CC: JMC@SU-AI
I have been trying to get in touch with him regarding the lack
of interest in picking up his other half-time. In talking to
a close friend who appears privy to Brooks's plans I have
come to believe that he may be interested in the half-time
work on Common Lisp-related matters even without a second
Stanford half-time position (he may want to consult). If this
is indeed the case, and if we need to begin pressing ARPA for
the $500 in travel before early next week, then I am still very
interested in hiring him and should like to restart that process.
If it is possible to delay until next tuesday (he was to arrive
a week from this friday) we should do that.
∂15-Mar-83 1201 BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM next search committee mtg
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 15-Mar-83 12:01 PST
Date: Tue 15 Mar 83 11:54:32-PST
From: Bruce Buchanan <BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: next search committee mtg
To: search-committee: ;
Pls mark your calendars for Thurs 3/24 (next week, not this week), 4:00.
We will need to have periodic meetings to review progress.
thanks,
bgb
-------
∂15-Mar-83 1218 RPG Computer Usage
Well, if we charge 23% for computer usage to this renewal the amount is
$47,350. Make that $48k and with the $12k on the Common Lisp budget,
we get $60k, which is the $5k per month you suggested as a total.
At 18% it is $37k or $49k with Common Lisp added in. We use $4.1k per
month now, so I suggest the 23% amount.
-rpg-
∂15-Mar-83 1447 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Ohlanders visit
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 15-Mar-83 14:46 PST
Date: Tue 15 Mar 83 13:42:15-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Ohlanders visit
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, dcl@SU-AI.ARPA, zm@SU-AI.ARPA,
tob@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, pickering@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Subsequent to his message Ron asked me to arrange meetings with the
PI's for him on March 23rd ( or their surrogates ) in the 9-5 frame.
My suggestion is
JMC 9-10:30
GIO 10:30-noon
everybody lunch noon - 1pm
DCL 1-2:30
ZM 2:30-4
TOB 4-5:30.
Please let me know if that is suitable or not.
In Paul's absence we need to move along, I'd gladly turn the responsibility
over.
Ron does not expect proposals to be mailed out before that date,
although our cover proposal can be complete at that time.
There is a channce that Machado will be there, in that case
we may also wish to have some Stanford grants people available.
Gio
-------
∂15-Mar-83 1601 BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM next meeting
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 15-Mar-83 16:01 PST
Date: Tue 15 Mar 83 15:57:57-PST
From: Bruce Buchanan <BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: next meeting
To: search-committee: ;
I have one strong request to change the day of our meetings. Would
Friday 3/25, 1:30 be ok for our next mtg?
bgb
-------
∂15-Mar-83 1736 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Arpa proposal work
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 15-Mar-83 17:36 PST
Date: Tue 15 Mar 83 17:30:44-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Arpa proposal work
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, dcl@SU-AI.ARPA, zm@SU-AI.ARPA,
tob@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, csd.rathman@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In order to have the material for the umbrella contract in discussable
form by next wednesdays meeting we proposed the following assignments:
1 Task budgets to Betty by Thursday from all PI's.
Betty will integrate them, add some percentages, and yearly increments.
She will also consider suggestions where the umbrella budget should
be expanded to allow us to take advantage of future funding opportunities.
2 Background ( What we have done and who we are to deserve this all ) from
all PI's for merging to Dick Gabriel (RPG@sail).
He will integrate the material.
He will accept material in TEX or naked text form.
3 Update Scope to include hardware to cover us for the support portion.
(JMC suggested we add the ARPA Research Equipment ModerniZation
as an appendix as backup) GIO will get that to Betty and RPG.
4 March 30th is a goal date to get the final umbrella proposal moving
through the University and to ARPA and NAVALEX.
5 Task Proposals remain the PI's responsibility and will go, if possible,
together, but not integrated to the University after the informal
agreement with ARPA for each task.
Thanks Gio
-------
∂15-Mar-83 1846 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI Expanded Scope
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 15-Mar-83 18:46 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Tue 15 Mar 83 18:39:37-PST
Date: Tue 15 Mar 83 18:33:41-PST
From: Gio <Wiederhold@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Expanded Scope
To: jmc%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, rpg%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
zm%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: csd.rathman@SU-SCORE.ARPA, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Stanford proposes to perform Research in the following Areas:
A. Basic Research in Artificial Intelligence
--------------------------------------------
1. Formalization of facts about the common sense world including laws
determining the effects of actions including mental actions.
2. Formalization (both procedural and declarative) of the heuristic knowledge
used in common sense reasoning and problem solving.
3. Formalization of common sense reasoning including non-monotonic reasoning.
4. Representation of facts in the memory of a computer. Connections between
AI representation work and database research.
5. Languages for communications among computers and between computers and
people, especially semantic aspects of such languages.
6. Techniques for computer reasoning and computer-assisted human reasoning.
7. AI Programming languages including LISP, especially Common Lisp, but also
research aimed at new languages.
8. Techniques of automatically specializing programs.
9. Programs that take advice from users and give advice in return, and
programs that decide what to do by formal reasoning.
B. Basic research in Software Engineering and Program Verification
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Languages for formal specification of systems designs including
both software and hardware.
2. Languages for formal documentation and annotation of programs.
3. Techniques for specifying and analysing systems designs.
4. Techniques for analyzing sequential and concurrent programs, including
consistency analysis, analysis of runtime behavior, analysis of communication
in concurrent programs.
5. Concurrent programming methodology.
6. Formalization of programming knowledge.
7. Techniques for systematic development of programs, and for reasoning about
programs and programming.
8. Techniques for computer-supported reasoning.
9. Design and implementation of tools for advanced programming environments
including tools for error detection and consistency analysis, and for
knowledge based programming assistance.
10. Techniques for interactive and automatic program synthesis.
11. Theorem proving techniques.
12. Logical tools for program verification and synthesis
C. DATA MANAGEMENT
------------------
We propose to investigate advanced techniques to improve database access and
management. Within this objective we will analyze the semantics inherent in
the data and in the operations persformed on data. Where the boundaries of
algorithmic approached are reached we will develop heuristic techniques. We
will stress methods which are domain-independent so that the technology can
be transferred to a wide variety of applications.
Specifically we propose to:
1. Specify and use data semantics. We will use a categorization of data
semantics to establish those semantics which can aid in designing and
distributing well-structured databases, and those which may be of operational
utility.
2. Address ambiguity, view and performance problems in database update.
3. Extend and develop semantic aids to the anlaysis of database contents.
4. Develop communication and audit-trail concepts in design databases.
5. Investigate algorithms for maintaining data on optical disks.
6. Acquire and maintain data resourses and database management systems to
support this research.
D. Image Understanding and Robotics
-----------------------------------
This project focusses on designing and implementing Intelligent and Expert
Systems for interpretation and planning actions. Its elements include:
1. Expert systems for Image Understanding and expert systems for
Manufacturing; in particular the ACRONYM system and its planned successor;
2. Subsystems for interaction with the user:
2A. Rule-based, intelligent interfaces including geometric editing,
computer graphics, incorporation of natural language, Speech I/O
and mechanical devices;
3. Subsystems for modeling the world:
3A. Geometric modeling and representation of the physical world;
3B. Learning and abstraction in building and using databases for
the physical world;
4. Subsystems for planning, interpretation and decision making;
4A. Representation of information as constraint neetworks;
4B. Geometric reasoning utilizing mathematical representations in
a rule base, including constraint resolution, domain-specific constraints
with specialized procedures for resolution of constraints; geometric
reasonong incorporating symbolic statistical distributions and
maximum-likelihood methods with subspace factorization;
4C. Problem formulation in geometric reasoning;
4D. Reasonong with space/time and sequences of events and actions;
4E. Interpretation of images by matching with generic and specific models;
4F. Planning of robot actions;
4G. navigation, path-finding, and motion control of mobile robots;
map-making and world modeling;
5. Subsystems for interaction with the world:
5A. Analysis of images and sequences of images to obtain image features
including regions, region boundaries, and junctions of boundaries;
5B. Segmentation and aggregation of image features to analyze texture
regions, canonical groupings, and figure-ground discrimination;
5C. VLSI implementation of image algorithms and architecture studies;
5D. Inference rules for interpretation of image structures as spatial
structures;
5E. Multi-sensor integration with collateral information and knowledge
bases;
5F. Stereo mapping, motion parallax and object motion in spatial
interpretation;
5G. Use of shadows combined with general and special cues to spatial
structure in image analysis;
6. Robotics:
6A. Design of robot hands and arms;
6B. Force control in assembly;
6C. Control of cooperative action of multiple fingers and arms;
6D. Programming systems for robots.
E. HARDWARE SUPPORT FOR THIS RESEARCH.
----------------------------------------
In order to carry out this research in an effective and relevant manner
substantial hardware resources are required.
We expect to need for this research the following types of equipment.
The majority of this equipment may be obtained from parallel funding
requests, so that the burden for the support equipment may not rest
fully within this particular contract.
1. File storage. The distributed systems envisaged in this proposal
cooperate to large extent by sharing data and program resources.
Both active and archival file services are seen to be needed.
The storage requirements are estimated at 80M bytes and 4000M bytes
respectively.
2. Terminals and workstations. The community involved in this and
related ARPA-sponsored research at Stanford has been estimated to need:
16 high-powered workstations
50 medium-powered workstations
50-100 terminals.
3. Networking and communication facilities. Both ARPA-net TCP and
Ethernet facilities are used to tie the research and researches into
a productive whole. Four Gateway processors are invisaged.
4. Printing. Four printers are proposed to serve the ARPA research
locations at Stanford. This printers must have the capability to
print images with adequate resolution for VLSI design.
5. Computation. Both time-shared computation and distributed
computation is foreseen. The general ARPA-sponsored research
community foresees a requirement for:
1 large scale time-shared processor.
1 VAX for VLSI design work.
and workstations as listed in item 2.
-------
∂15-Mar-83 2224 CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE Art Samuels
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 15-Mar-83 22:23 PST
Date: Tue 15 Mar 83 22:23:17-PST
From: Gene Golub <CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Art Samuels
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, dek@SU-AI.ARPA, csd.ullman@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I noticed that Art is being honored this summer at an AI conference.
The department has not really done anything for him. Do you think we
should do something, possibly in the Fall. Any suggestions?
GENE
-------
It would be nice to do something in honor of Art Samuel. I don't
have a definite idea, but I'll think. It's "Samuel" by th way.
∂16-Mar-83 0933 DFH Suppes/Fehling appt.
Appointment is at 4 pm today in Suppes office.
Also, just had a call from EE dept.-- there is a
new masters student, Dan Abramovitch, who is requesting
an appointment with you today or tomorrow--as far as I
can determine wants general information about department,
facilities, etc. I was doubtful you had time, but let me
know.
Steve Kline called. Has been working on your debate idea.
Please call him at x2176.
Diana
∂16-Mar-83 1100 HPM
∂16-Mar-83 0203 JMC L-5 article
It's an excellent article. However, does it work with the existing
shuttle or does it depend on a new rocket with the shuttle technology?
Since the shuttle is volume limited for many missions, allowing a lower
terminal velocity might not help much. Have you thought about what
revisions of the shuttle would help.
[Well, we imagined a normal shuttle with some kind of fancy quick-dock
apparatus for the payload. It is easy to imagine the modifications
becoming much more extensive when it gets down to real engineering,
though. No real knowledge of shuttle stress distributions and
aerodynamics went into our calculations. For the shuttle, every
mission is mass limited if you choose the orbit high enough. Of
course, other mass efficient schemes exist for raising orbits
slowly. We were thinking of massive space construction efforts,
since the skyhook pays off more as its utilization increases. For
those many payloads could contain a large proportion of densely
packed consumables.]
∂16-Mar-83 1121 CLT
∂15-Mar-83 2107 JMC calendar
Next week is free except for Ohlander on Wednesday and our dinner
in Berkeley on Friday. The Datamedia is working normally over the
telephone; only the private line is ill.
We have an appointment with Okner for Tues (March 22 at 2pm)
Diana: Please make out the grade change.
∂16-Mar-83 1512 JJW 206 grade
Mai Hoang's project (an algebraic simplifier) somehow got into the pile of
graded assignments without being graded. I looked at it, and it deserves
about a B. Since her exam results were among the poorest in the class (42 on
the midterm and 10 on the final), I think her final grade should be a B- which
would agree with others doing approximately the same level of work. If this
is OK with you, can you have Diana fill out the grade card?
∂16-Mar-83 1544 ME phone circuit nbr
The private telephone line between my home terminal and SAIL
has become noisy in the last day. Please complain to the phone
company by calling 611. The circuit number is 77KD1618, and one
end is at my home and the other is in room 020A or 020B in Margaret
Jacks Hall. Martin Frost can answer questions.
20 Sangamo T-202 SM1 77KD1618 JMC
∂17-Mar-83 0825 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM [OHLANDER at USC-ISI: Re: Proposed SCOPE for 1983-1986 ARPA proposal]
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 17-Mar-83 08:25 PST
Date: Wed 16 Mar 83 17:27:58-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: [OHLANDER at USC-ISI: Re: Proposed SCOPE for 1983-1986 ARPA proposal]
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, rpg@SU-AI.ARPA, zm@SU-AI.ARPA, dcl@SU-AI.ARPA, tob@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: pickering@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Return-Path: OHLANDER@USC-ISI
Received: from USC-ISI by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Wed 16 Mar 83 07:11:29-PST
Date: 16 Mar 1983 0709-PST
Sender: OHLANDER at USC-ISI
Subject: Re: Proposed SCOPE for 1983-1986 ARPA proposal
From: OHLANDER at USC-ISI
To: WIEDERHOLD at SUMEX-AIM
Cc: adams at USC-ISI, mach at USC-ECLB
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]16-Mar-83 07:09:11.OHLANDER>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat 26 Feb 83 23:46:33-PST
Gio,
When I sent my note regarding the scope of effort yesterday, I
assumed that we were just talking about the general nature of the work
proposed for the new effort. I have since learned from John Machado that
probably what you sent was a draft of the scope section that is to
go in the proposal and then lifted out for insertion in the contract. If that
is the case, it needs some work to put in a suitable form for the
contract. John will be there with me on the 23rd of March and we will
discuss the shortcomings with you and the others individually at that time.
Ron
My response:
Ok. I will also set up Machado to meet with our contracts people who
are still a bit confused about the umbrella contract process.
If we should do something preparatory about the scope a message
from either of you would be appreciated.
I hope to have a rough draft of the umbrella contract, as well as the
PI proposals available by Wednesday.
I scheduled you (Ron) from 9:00 to 5:30 and have not had any conflict
messages yet. The room to meet will probably be Margaret Jacks 252.
Thanks Gio
-------
∂17-Mar-83 0905 NILSSON@SRI-AI ( Forwarded Mail )
Received: from SU-DSN by SU-AI with PUP; 17-Mar-83 09:05 PST
Received: From SRI-AI by SU-DSN.ARPA; Thu Mar 17 09:04:10 1983
Date: 17 Mar 1983 0859-PST
From: Nilsson at SRI-AI
Subject: ( Forwarded Mail )
To: Amarel at RUTGERS, bobrow at PARC, buchanan at SUMEX,
To: BEngelmore at SRI-KL, LErman at SRI-KL,
To: csd.genesereth at SCORE, grosz at SRI-AI, hart at SRI-KL,
To: jmc at SU-AI, mcdermot at YALE, minsky at MIT-AI,
To: nilsson at SRI-AI, reddy at CMU-10A, rich at MIT-AI,
To: aaai-office at SUMEX-AIM, stan at SRI-AI, gjs at MIT-AI,
To: tenenbaum at SRI-KL, walker at SRI-AI, dwaltz at BBNG,
To: bonnie.upenn at UDEL
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SRI-AI.ARPA with TCP; Thu 17 Mar 83 08:14:38-PST
Date: Wed 16 Mar 83 15:38:19-PST
From: Louis Robinson <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Final AAAI 1983 Budget
To: Nilsson@SRI-AI.ARPA
cc: Walker@SRI-AI.ARPA, Reddy@CMU-CS-A.ARPA, AAAI-office@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Dear Nils,
The Finance Committee is pleased to submit to the AAAI Executive
Committee the 1983 budget for the AAAI.
We feel the budget approximates adequately the projected revenues
and expenses for the calender year 1983.
Sincerely,
Raj Reddy, Chairman
AAAI Finance Committee
PROJECTED 1983 Budget
SUMMARY REVENUES EXPENSES NET
1982 1983 1982 1983 1982 1983
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
MEMBERSHIP $35,987 $67,000 $57,286 $89,151 ($21,299) (22,151)
AAAI-83 CONFERENCE $145,122 $165,000 $106,899 $151,481 $38,223 $13,519
TUTORIALS $169,042 $162,000 $ 75,777 $ 72,234 $93,265 $89,766
EXHIBITS $20,444 $25,000 $11,007 $18,068 $9,437 $6,932
PUBLICATIONS $18,944 $23,200 $14,765 $16,493 $4,179 $6,707
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
$389,539 $442,200 $265,734 $347,427 $123,805 $94,773
2-1-83
!
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
COST CENTERS
MEMBERSHIP COST CENTER
objective: to operate the membership program and produce the
AI Magazine as a direct benefit from membership.
REVENUES EXPENSES
1982 1983 1982 1983
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
MEMBERSHIP
Dues
* Library ($100/100 members)
* Regular ($25/1500 members)
* Student ($15/500 members)
$31,441 $55,000
1
New database program 0 5,000
2
Membership leaflet 0 2,500
Purchase of Other Assoc. Labels 0 2,500
Membership printing 557 2,500
Membership mailing 3,062 4,500
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
subtotal $31,441 $55,000 3,619 17,000
AI MAGAZINE
3
Advertising 4,546 12,000
Garcia-Robinson (50% gross
advertising revenue) 1,410 6,000
4
AI Magazine Printing 12,940 20,000
AI Magazine typesetting 4,280 6,000
AI Magazine Graphics 2,000 4,000
5
AI Magazine Mailing 5,000 8,000
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
4,546 12,000 25,630 44,000
subtotal
AAAI staff labor
*Membership 19,014 15,000
*AI Magazine 8,250
6
AAAI Office expenses 9,023 4,901
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
subtotal 28,037 28,151
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Totals $36,987 $67,000 $57,286 $89,151
2-1-83
!
1
Membership rooster has increased to well over 2,000 members. Existing
database program can not handle over 2,000 entries.
2
Prepared the first AAAI membership brochure; printed over 12,000 brochures;
distributed to AI centers and universities.
3
Advertising revenues have increased to $3,000/issue.
4
AI Magazine is now printed in color.
5
Increased mailing expenses as adjusted to increased membership.
6
Drop resulting from tighter accounting procedures.
2-1-83
!
CONFERENCE COST CENTER
objective: to coordinate, prepare for, and conduct the National
Conference on Artificial Intelligence
REVENUES EXPENSES
1982 1983 1982 1983
------------------ ------------------
AAAI-83 Conference Registration
(1500 attendees/$90) $135,000
$126,247
Banquet
($25/person/800 tickets) 25,000 25,000
($18.50/person/750 tickets) 13,875 13,875
1
Publication Production 8,229 18,253
(other than Proceedings)
2
Catering 23,148 20,800
Program Committee 6,172 10,000
3
Advertising 0(1982) 10,000
5,000('81)
Conference-related labor 3,377 3,000
Shipping & Drayage 2,397 3,000
Fredkin Tournament 1,500 2,000
Conference Package 3,000 3,000
T-Shirts $5,000 $5,000 2,500 2,500
Other Services(conf.phones) 250 500
4
Audio-Visual 1,010 5,000
New Registration Program 0 1,000
5
Miscellaneous 3,974 1,000
AAAI staff travel 3,675 5,000
AAAI Staff labor 23,767 33,250
AAAI Office expenses 10,025 8,178
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Totals $145,122 $165,000 $106,899 $151,481
2-1-83
!
1
A breakdown of conference publications is:
1982 1983
Poster Flyer
Graphics $ Typesetting $ 513 $ 1,324
Printing $ 810 $ 9,000
(based on 1,000 pieces) (based on 21,000 pieces)
Conference Brochure(2000 pieces)
Graphics & Typesetting $ 45 $2,300
Printing $4,675 $5,143
Conference Program(based on 2000 pieces)
Graphics & Printing $ 90 $ 200
Printing $1,161 $1,277
Exhibit Guide (based on 2000 pieces)
Graphics & Printing $ 200 $ 200
Printing $ 735 $ 809
--------- ---------
$8,229 $18,253
2
Hotel catering is based on room service rate plus 8% city sales tax and
16% gratuity charge.
Breakdown of Costs:
Monday night reception $1,500.00 (based on 750 people)
Tuesday night reception $1,500.00 (based on 750 people)
Wednesday night reception $7,000.00 (based on 1500 people; no host bar)
Friday night reception $1,500.00 (based on 750 people)
Coffee Breaks ($1.24/cup/person/1500cups per day) $9,300
3
Because of the presence of another major AI conference this year and
the possibility of reduced number of conference registrants, advertising
in major computer-related magazines becomes necessary.
4
Must rent A/V equipment from private company.
5
Catch-all accounting category in 1982.
2-1-83
!
TUTORIAL COST CENTER
objective: to produce and operate a series of tutorials on
different fields within artificial intelligence.
REVENUES EXPENSES
1982 1983 1982 1983
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Tutorial Fees
(1000 attendees
@average reg fee
$135) $162,000
$169,042
Lecturers' Fees $41,121 $40,500
Garcia-Robinson Commission(10% gross) 16,904 16,200
Syllabuses Printing 14,205 11,740
Course Supplies 168 200
AAAI Staff labor 2,377 3,000
AAAI Office Expenses 1,002 594
-------------------------------------------
Totals $169,042 $162,000 $75,777 $72,234
2-1-83
!
EXHIBIT COST CENTER
objective: to solicit, coordinate, and organize industrial
exhibits of AI applied research efforts, products, or services
as a part of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
REVENUES EXPENSES
1982 1983 1982 1983
----------------------- -----------------
Space Rental
(25 exhibitors @
$1,000) $25,000
$20,440
1
Booth Fees 559 2,000
Security 3,000
Exhibit Packet
(printing, graphics,
typesetting)
Mailing 300 600
AAAI Staff labor 2,377 7,250
AAAI Office expenses 1,002 1,485
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
subtotal $20,440 $25,000 $ 4,238 $14,335
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Garcia-Robinson (35%net) $ 6,769 $ 3,733
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
------------------------------------------
Totals $20,440 $25,000 $11,007 $18,068
1
Hilton Hotel's exhibit space fee
2-1-83
!
PUBLICATION COST CENTER
objective: to distribute and sell the AI Magazine, Tutorial Syllabuses,
and AAAI
REVENUES EXPENSES
1982 1983 1982 1983
-------------------- ------------------
Sale of the AI
Magazine
($5/copy/540/yr) $1,000 $2,700
Sale of Tutorial
Syllabuses
($5/copy/40/mth/480/
yr) 700 2,400
Sale of Proceedings
($20/copy/725/yr) 13,644 14,500
W. Kaufmann, Inc.
Proceeding expense 0 $1,500
Proceeding Page Over-
run ($100/page) 3,600 3,600
Proceeding Printing &
Graphics 8,612 7,000
Proceeding Reprinting 3,491 4,000
1
Proceeding Postage 1,162 0
AAAI Staff labor 1,000 3,250
AAAI Office expenses 500 743
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
TOTALS $18,944 $23,200 $14,765 $16,493
1
W. Kaufmann, Inc. will now distribute all AAAI proceedings.
2-1-83
!
AAAI STAFF PERCENTAGE(%) ALLOCATION
CATEGORY LOU CLAUDIA KATHY (TOTAL %)
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Conference 50% 55% 30% 48%
Membership 10% 15% 55% 21%
*AI Magazine 15% 15% 0 12%
Exhibits 15% 5% 10% 10%
Tutorial Program 10% 0 0 4%
Publications 0 10% 5% 5%
The allocation of office expenses is based on the total staff labor
% allocation.
**********************************
2-1-83
!
-------
-------
∂17-Mar-83 1122 EJS
Where did you say the reminisence of early computing can be found?
∂17-Mar-83 2347 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI Schedule
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 17-Mar-83 23:47 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Thu 17 Mar 83 23:42:44-PST
Date: Thu 17 Mar 83 23:34:25-PST
From: Gio <Wiederhold@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Schedule
To: Ohlander@USC-ISI.ARPA, Adams@USC-ISI.ARPA, Mach@USC-ECLB.ARPA
cc: JMC%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, DCL%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
ZM%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, TOB%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, RPG%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
Sagalowicz@SRI-AI.ARPA, Milton@SRI-AI.ARPA, csd.Betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
Pickering@SRI-AI.ARPA, RAB%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Schedule for Ron Ohlander - technical meeting with ARPA PI's
Wenesday, March 23rd 1983, Margaret Jacks 252:
JMC 9-10:30 John McCarthy
GIO 10:30-noon Gio Wiederhold, Daniel Sagalowicz?, Jack Milton
Lunch noon - 1:30pm Everybody,
incl. John Machado, Betty Scott, SPO representative
RBG 1:30-2:30 Dick Gabriel,
ZM 2:30-4 Zohar Manna
TOB 4-5:30 Tom Binford.
DCL sees Duane Adams in Washington.
gio
-------
∂18-Mar-83 1156 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>:]
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 18-Mar-83 11:56 PST
Date: Fri 18 Mar 83 11:53:39-PST
From: Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>:]
To: Admissions-committee: ;
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-4365
Mail-From: CSD.RITA created at 18-Mar-83 11:22:13
Date: Fri 18 Mar 83 11:22:13-PST
From: Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
To: csd.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-4365
There are 176 MS folders to be read. If we plan to do this in one pass,
I strongly suggest that I have the folders set up in Paul Armer's office
(as I did for Round2) and the readers can come in as they find time.
If this is so, each reader should read approx. 90 folders. In this way,
we can have 2 or 3 ratings for each of the 176 applicants, which may be
a fair process. (These figures were based on the hopes of at least 6 readers.
If anyone out there has any objections to the above, please let me. csd.rita,
know ASAP, as I plan to have the folders set up, today, Friday, March 18, so
that anyone may start reading.
If you would like keys to either Paul's office (208) or mine (206), you may
check one out with Nancy Dorio before 12:00 noon or after 1:00 and before
5:00. I have three keys and Ken and Ross each still have borrowed copies.
Rita
-------
-------
∂18-Mar-83 1449 ME phone line
To: DFH, JMC
The phone company has found that the line from the street into John's house
is bad and needs to be replaced. They would like to replace it Monday morning
sometime. They'll need to get into the house, so they'll call you, John, at
home between 8 and 9am to arrange to get into the house to replace the wire.
∂18-Mar-83 1454 NILSSON@SRI-AI Expansion of Tutorial Program
Received: from SU-DSN by SU-AI with PUP; 18-Mar-83 14:54 PST
Received: From SRI-AI by SU-DSN.ARPA; Fri Mar 18 14:52:33 1983
Date: 18 Mar 1983 1433-PST
From: Nilsson at SRI-AI
Subject: Expansion of Tutorial Program
To: Amarel at RUTGERS, bobrow at PARC, buchanan at SUMEX,
To: BEngelmore at SRI-KL, LErman at SRI-KL,
To: csd.genesereth at SCORE, grosz at SRI-AI, hart at SRI-KL,
To: jmc at SU-AI, mcdermot at YALE, minsky at MIT-AI,
To: nilsson at SRI-AI, reddy at CMU-10A, rich at MIT-AI,
To: aaai-office at SUMEX-AIM, stan at SRI-AI, gjs at MIT-AI,
To: tenenbaum at SRI-KL, walker at SRI-AI, dwaltz at BBNG,
To: bonnie.upenn at UDEL
cc: aaai
Dear ExCom members:
I'd be interested in your reactions to the following proposal. -Nils
A PROPOSAL FOR AN EXTENDED AAAI TUTORIAL PROGRAM
February 15, 1983
One strength of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
is the extension of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence's
charter to provide educational services to the public through the tutorial
program. Because of the increasing interest in AI, these tutorials provide a
necessary, high quality educational service both to the AI community as well
as to the business, educational and non-AI scientific communities.
Numerous organizations and individuals are now offereing "courses"
in AI: Technology Transfer Society, Data Processing Management Association,
etc. Others, on the periphery or even outside the mainstream AI development,
are offering inexact or incomplete perspectives of AI.
So, its been recommended that AAAI sponsor its own annual
seminar/tutorial program as an extension of its educational
responsibilities as a non-profit organization and as a means of
controlling the possibility of AI being misrepresented by unqualified
individuals or organizations.
We surveyed the American Chemical Society (ACS), the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), the American
Institute of Chemical Engineering (AIChE), the American Society of
Metallurgists (ASM), the American Society of Manufacturing Engineers
(ASME), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE),
the Society for Mechanical Engineers (SME), Information Science
Association (ISA) and the American Society for Quality Control (ASQC).
The selection of the societies was based on the size of the membership
(>5,000) and the types of services and benefits given to their
members. It should be recognized that these organizations have been
in existence for many years and have large elaborate staffs that
operate their different continuing educational programs.
The following is a survey of the continuing educational programs
presented by other scientific and technical societies.
NON-MEMBER MEMBER
SOCIETY PROGRAM NO.OF COURSES DURATION COST DISCOUNT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACS SHORT COURSES 2 1-1/2 days $495,595 $70
45 2 days $465,565, $70
13 3 days $695
2 4 days
5 5 days
AUDIO COURSES 55 2-1/2 -10 hrs $150-445 --
FILM/VIDEO COURSES 11 1/2-20 hrs $15-900 rental --
COMPUTER ASSISTED
INSTRUCTION 4 n.a. $100-125 rental --
$25-500 purchased
INTERACTION 2 n.a. $125-150 --
(correspondence
courses)
!
NON-MEMBER MEMBER
SOCIETY PROGRAM NO.OF COURSES DURATION COST DISCOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AIAA SHORT COURSES 63 2 days $325 $55
15 3 days $420 $50
1 4 days
3 5 days
PROF. STUDY
SEMINARS n.a. 2 days $325 $55
STATE-OF-THE 18 2 days n.a. n.a.
ART COURSES
CASE STUDIES 14 30-200 pp. $15 --
RECORDED LECTURES 25 1-12 hrs $15.5-$170 $2.50-25
AIChE SHORT COURSES 5 1 day $125,225 $25,35
230 2 days $400,450 $50
25 3 days $500 $50
MODULAR INSTRUCTION
SERIES 6 volumes $30 $15
ASM ACADEMY SEMINARS 2 2 days $495 $30
(short courses) 14 3 days $595 $30
3 4 days $695 $30
1 5 days $795 $30
INSTITUTE INTENSIVE
COURSES 2 2 days n.a. n.a.
ASME SHORT COURSES 15-20 1 day $240 $50
35-40 2 days $440 $90
12 3 days $600 $100
3 4 days $765 $115
1 5 days $975 $130
-2-
!
NON-MEMBER MEMBER
SOCIETY PROGRAM NO.OF COURSES DURATION COST DISCOUNT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
IEEE SHORT COURSES 40 1 day n.a. n.a.
89 2 days n.a. n.a.
22 3 days n.a. n.a.
1 4 days n.a. n.a.
HOME STUDY
COURSES 9 n.a. n.a. n.a.
HEATH KIT
HOME STUDY 2 n.a. n.a. n.a.
VIDEO TAPE SHORT
COURSES 18 varies $600-800 $100-175
rental IEEE's section
rebate
SME CLINICS, SEMINARS 100 1 day $185 $30
WORKSHOPS (short 30 2 days $450 $60
courses) and 100 3 days $450 $60
CONFERENCES
VIDEO PROGRAMS 12 1/4-36 hrs $40-940 $5-15
$150-3790 $30-100
TECHNICAL BOOKS
& PERIODICALS $9-190 $0-20
ISA SHORT COURSES 1 1 day $325 $25
20 2 days $320-420 $25
8 3 days $395-575 $25
1 4 days $450 $25
VIDEO COURSES 22 varies $1,200 per n.a.
60 min.tape
ASQC SHORT COURSES 7 2-1/2 days $420 $45
5 3 days $495 $45
10 5 days $695-840 $45
VIDEO COURSES 2 various $680 $160
$850
-3-
!
Our findings from this survey are as follows:
* The most popular courses (+30 attendees per workshop) were
short courses, ranging in length from one to five days. The
two-day short courses were offered more frequently than others.
Also, the State-of-the-Art courses were quite popular among the
membership.
* Most seminar programs do not require large amounts of
capital to prepare for a seminar. Promotional expenses will
decrease over time as the popularity of the seminar series
increases and the word spreads to others.
* Most courses were open to the public as well as membership.
The fees for short courses ranged for 2 day fees between
$325 and $595 and for 3 day fees between $420 and $595.
* All societies interviewed refused to discuss the profitability
of their 1982 tutorial program. However, they did express the
general sentiment that last year's (1982) revenues were down
as much as 25%. They did not identify which seminars were the
most profitable.
RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------
* We recommend that AAAI expand its tutorial program beyond
the scope of its conferences. We recommend that this
expansion be undertaken on a trial basis: a two-day seminar
in Palo Alto.
Given the general enthusiam of the public about artificial
intelligence, the proliferation of seminars about different
fields within artificial intelligence and the financial success
of the pre-conference tutorial program (1982 revenues were
$165,000), we should still proceed cautiously in developing a
tutorial/seminar program operated by qualified AI professionals.
-4-
!
The proposed budget for the test case follows:
TEST CASE: 2 day Seminar
SUBJECT: ?
DATE: Late Spring
PLACE: Palo Alto
CATEGORY REVENUES EXPENSES
--------------------------------------------------------
Conference Registration $29,625
Fee (max 75 registrants
@ $395)
Lecturer's Fee $7,406
Syllabi Materials $ 800
Purchase of Mailing Labels $1,500
Promotional Materials $3,000
Mailing 700
Hotel Catering 800
Miscellaneous 200
AAAI staff labor 1,000
AAAI Office Expenses 200
------------- -----------
TOTALS $29,625 $15,606
net $14,019
The break-even point for this test will be a minimum of 20 registrants
to compensate for direct tutorial/seminar expenses (excluding
lecturers' fees).
* If this seminar is successful, it is recommended that
a technical advisor be appointed. This person would assist
the AAAI staff in determining the scope of each seminar,
selecting speakers, assist in the preparation of the promotional
materials and generally be the interface with rest of
the AI community.
The AAAI office will coordinate all logistics for all continuing
educational program, prepare and mail all promotional materials
and conduct all advertising for the program.
-5-
!
* A possible budget for an annual tutorial/semimar program follows:
Four - 2 Day Seminars
Date: Late Spring and Early Fall
Location: High-technology growth areas (i.e. Rte 128, Silicon
Valley, Research Triangle)
CATEGORY REVENUES EXPENSES
----------------------------------------------------------
Conference Registration
Fees
(75 registrants/session/
4 sessions per year/ $118,500
$395/session)
Lecturers' Fees (25%
of gross revenues) $29,625
Syllabi Production $3,500
Purchase of Mailing Labels $3,000
Promotion Materials Production $1,500
Hotel Catering ($8/person) $2,400
Travel (AAAI, Lecturers and Technical
Advisor) $5,000
AAAI Staff Labor $4,000
AAAI Office Expenses 400
------------------ ------------
TOTALS $118,500 $49,425
NET $69,075
prepared by: Claudia C. Mazzetti
-6-
-------
18-Mar-83 11:01:36-PST,5033;000000000001
Date: Fri 18 Mar 83 11:01:36-PST
From: Louis G. Robinson <AAAI@SRI-AI>
Subject: [Louis Robinson <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>: Executive Summary of the Annual Tutorial Program]
To: Nilsson
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SRI-AI.ARPA with TCP; Thu 17 Mar 83 10:26:05-PST
Date: Thu 17 Mar 83 10:17:38-PST
From: Louis Robinson <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Executive Summary of the Annual Tutorial Program
To: aaai@SRI-AI.ARPA
Telephone: (415) 328-3123
Postal-Address: 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A PROPOSAL FOR AN EXTENDED AAAI TUTORIAL PROGRAM
MARCH 15, 1983
One strength of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
is the extension of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence's
charter to provide educational services to the public through its tutorial
program. Because of the increasing interest in AI, these tutorials provide a
necessary, high quality educational service both to the AI community as well
as to the business, educational and non-AI scientific communities.
Numerous organizations and individuals are now offering "courses"
in AI: Technology Transfer Society, Data Processing Management Association,
etc. Others, on the periphery or even outside the mainstream AI development,
are offering inexact or incomplete perspectives of AI.
So, its been recommended that AAAI sponsor its own annual
seminar/tutorial program as an extension of its educational
responsibilities as a non-profit organization and as a means of
controlling the possibility of AI being misrepresented by unqualified
individuals or organizations.
We surveyed eight technical and scientific societies. The
selection of the societies was based on the size of the membership
(>5,000) and the types of services and benefits given to their
members. It should be recognized that these organizations have been
in existence for many years and have large elaborate staffs that
operate their different continuing educational programs.
Our findings from this survey are as follows:
* The most popular courses (+30 attendees per workshop) were
short courses, ranging in length from one to five days. The
two-day short courses were offered more frequently than others.
Also, the State-of-the-Art courses were quite popular among the
membership.
* Most seminar programs do not require large amounts of
capital to prepare for a seminar. Promotional expenses will
decrease over time as the popularity of the seminar series
increases and the word spreads to others.
* Most courses were open to the public as well as membership.
The fees for short courses ranged for 2 day fees between
$325 and $595 and for 3 day fees between $420 and $595.
!
* All societies interviewed refused to discuss the profitability
of their 1982 tutorial program. However, they did express the
general sentiment that last year's (1982) revenues were down
as much as 25%. They did not identify which seminars were the
most profitable.
RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------
* We recommend that AAAI expand its tutorial program beyond
the scope of its conferences. We recommend that this
expansion be undertaken on a trial basis by conducting
a two-day seminar in Palo Alto.
Given the general enthusiam of the public about artificial
intelligence, the proliferation of seminars about different
fields within artificial intelligence and the financial success
of the pre-conference tutorial program (1982 revenues were
$165,000), we should still proceed cautiously in developing a
tutorial/seminar program operated by qualified AI professionals.
The proposed budget for the test case would be based on
anticipated revenues from seminar registration fees (max 75
registrants @ $395 per person or $29,625) with anticipated
expenditures of approximately $16,000 (excluding lecturers' fee). The
net profit would be a minimum of $13,625.
The break-even point for this test will be a minimum of 20 registrants
to compensate for direct tutorial/seminar expenses (excluding
lecturers' fees).
* If this seminar is successful, it is recommended that
a technical advisor be appointed. This person would assist
the AAAI staff in determining the scope of each seminar,
selecting speakers, assist in the preparation of the promotional
materials and generally be the interface with rest of
the AI community.
The AAAI office will coordinate all logistics for all continuing
educational program, prepare and mail all promotional materials
and conduct all advertising for the program.
If you are interested in reading the entire report, it is
availabe from the AAAI office.
-------
∂18-Mar-83 1632 JMM IBM fellowship
I am applying for the IBM Graduate fellowship in Computer Science. I wonder
if you could write me a letter of recommendation for it. I am asking Tom Binford
for the other letter. It has to be done in a hurry as it has to be given to Gene
by Monday. I am really sorry about this short notice , but I found out about it
only today. If I could pick it up from your secretary sometime on Monday, I would
be really thankfull.
Jitendra
∂20-Mar-83 1408 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM AI Qual
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 20-Mar-83 14:08 PST
Date: Sun 20 Mar 83 14:03:29-PST
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: AI Qual
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
John,
There is pressure building from students to announce a date for the
AI Qualifying Exam. Will you take on the job of getting it organized
for this year? Departmental administrative people have pointed the
students at me. But I dont want to do it because I did the AI
portion of the comprehensive exam twice in a row (last two times), so I
dont feel it's my turn. Lenat has been chairman of the Comp recently.
Terry is on leave. Will you do it?
Ed
-------
∂21-Mar-83 1410 CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE Re: Art Samuel day
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 21-Mar-83 14:10 PST
Date: Mon 21 Mar 83 14:10:37-PST
From: Gene Golub <CSD.GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Art Samuel day
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 21 Mar 83 13:54:00-PST
Good thoughts.
GENE
-------
∂21-Mar-83 1430 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE [Brian Reid <reid at Shasta>: notification status]
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 21-Mar-83 14:30 PST
Date: Mon 21 Mar 83 14:30:31-PST
From: Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [Brian Reid <reid at Shasta>: notification status]
To: csd.herriot@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, Pratt@SU-NAVAJO.ARPA,
csl.lantz@SU-SCORE.ARPA, csd.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-4365
Please let me know if you will or have contacted any of these that Brian did
not reach. I would like to keep an currrent list, so that we don't overlap.
As for Martin Abadi, he stopped by last Friday and was informed that he made
the list of those recommended for admission.
Thanks for your cooperation.
csd.rita
---------------
Received: from Shasta with Pup; Mon 21 Mar 83 05:04:52-PST
Date: Monday, 21 Mar 1983 05:04-PST
To: admissions at Shasta
Cc: Kovach at Shasta
Subject: notification status
From: Brian Reid <reid at Shasta>
As I prepare to leave for England there are a few admittees whom I have
not reached, for one reason or another. Here is the list. Could some
faculty member of the committee please try to reach the ones that I
have not yet gotten through to?
Abadi, Martin not notified
Bier, Eric Allan left message by telephone and computer mail
Blatt, Miriam notified. Probably won't come because we didn't
accept her boyfriend named Wing. Anybody know
what happened to Wing?
Carpenter, Clyde notified. Deciding between us and CMU.
Casley, Ross not notified. No answer at telephone numbers
given.
Crew, Roger Reached. Not coming. Will take a 1-year
fellowship at Cambridge and reapply next year.
Davis, Helen Reached. Probably coming.
Dwyer, Rex Left message with wife. No indication if coming.
Gibson, James Reached. Coming.
Greenberg, Ronald Reached. Wants to talk to AA faculty. DEK will
call.
Haddad, Ramsey Reached. Might come. Deciding MIT/CMU/Stanford.
Hall, Keith Reached. Coming.
Hall, Robert Reached. Will probably come. He is deciding
whether or not he really wants to quit his job
and go for a Ph.D.
Kaplan, Jonathan Unable to reach.
Kells, Kathleen Reached. Coming.
Kent, Mark Reached (Golub). don't know if he will come.
Lamping, John Reached. Might come. Deciding between us and MIT
Lang, Kevin Not reached.
Larrabee, Tracy Reached. Coming.
Macrander, Cathryn Reached. Deciding between us and Berkeley,
leaning towards Berkeley.
McCall, Kim Reached. Coming.
Mills, Michael Unable to reach.
Moore, Douglas Reached. Prefers Cornell. DEK, JDU, VRP have called.
Pallas, Joseph Unable to reach.
Ramsey, Norman Unable to reach.
Roy, Shaibal Did not try to reach (India)
Schaffer, Alex Sent computer mail. No telephone answer.
Scholz, Karen Reached. Will probably come.
Shieber, Stuart Reached (Grosz). Will come.
Subramanian, Ashok Did not try to reach (India)
Swami, Arun Did not try to reach (India)
Tevanian, Avis Reached (Lantz).
Tjiang, Steven Reached. Deciding between us and staying at Toronto.
Walz, Janet Reached. Prefers Cornell. Sue Owicki will call.
Warren, Joe Reached. Prefers Cornell. DEK, JDU, VRP have called.
-------
∂21-Mar-83 1630 Nilsson at SRI-AI Re: meeting with Knuth
Received: from USC-ECL by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 21 Mar 83 16:30:05 PST
Received: from SRI-AI by USC-ECL; Mon 21 Mar 83 16:27:15-PST
Date: 21 Mar 1983 1626-PST
From: Nilsson at SRI-AI
Subject: Re: meeting with Knuth
To: JMC%SU-AI at USC-ECL
cc: NILSSON
Ok, thanks, I'll try to see him in the next few days. -Nils
-------
∂21-Mar-83 2052 NILSSON@SRI-AI.ARPA Irving Brown
Received: from SU-DSN by SU-AI with PUP; 21-Mar-83 20:52 PST
Received: From SRI-AI by SU-DSN.ARPA; Mon Mar 21 20:52:40 1983
Date: 21 Mar 1983 2049-PST
From: Nilsson at SRI-AI
Subject: Irving Brown
To: jmc at SU-AI
cc: Nilsson
A reminder for you to send me his address. Thanks, -Nils
-------
∂21-Mar-83 2250 JMM IBM fellowship
To: JMC
CC: DFH
The IBM fellowship letter is to be addressed to
I would really appreciate it if you could do it sometime tonight. In that
case I would be able to get it out in tomorrow's morning mail.
As I had told you in the afternoon, I've got my other recommendation from
TOB. I worked for you as an RA Spr and Summer 1980-81 and as a TA in Fall 81-82.
I was in your 206 and Epistemology classes. I had worked on EKL proofs mainly
other than the dabbling in Formal Reasoning related stuff.
Actually I suppose most of this information is unnecessary...anyway. If it
is of any use/relevance ,Tom's recommendation is in TLET[1,FFL]
Thanks
Jitendra
∂22-Mar-83 0945 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI Background
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 22-Mar-83 09:45 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Tue 22 Mar 83 09:28:14-PST
Date: Tue 22 Mar 83 09:17:47-PST
From: Gio <Wiederhold@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Background
To: rpg%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, jmc%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: csd.rathman@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Did anyone describe any of the S-1 support work done by McCarthy and me.
Since there will be some supercomputter money coming in (next year?)
it would be good to have some references to such work in the scope
and in the background. Gio
-------
∂22-Mar-83 1527 HHB robotics problem
Have you a few minutes today that I could steal to talk with you about
a space problem we've just been given? We've been planning moving to Cedar
Hall in the early summer, and are about to be clobbered by a strange
decision by a strange committee. We need an ally.
Thanks
Harlyn Baker
∂23-Mar-83 0000 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI a candidate paragraph for the background section
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 22-Mar-83 23:59 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Tue 22 Mar 83 23:57:38-PST
Date: Tue 22 Mar 83 23:47:49-PST
From: Gio <Wiederhold@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: a candidate paragraph for the background section
To: jmc%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, rpg%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
-------
∂23-Mar-83 0905 LER s here.
To: JMC
CC: ARG
ron is here. gio.
∂23-Mar-83 0909 NILSSON@SRI-AI.ARPA Vita
Received: from SU-DSN by SU-AI with PUP; 23-Mar-83 09:09 PST
Received: From SRI-AI by SU-DSN.ARPA; Wed Mar 23 09:08:14 1983
Date: 23 Mar 1983 0904-PST
From: Nilsson at SRI-AI
Subject: Vita
To: csd.ullman at SU-SCORE
cc: Nilsson, jmc at SU-AI
Attached is my c.v. -Nils
CURRICULUM VITAE
NILS J. NILSSON
MARCH, 1983
150 Coquito Way Director
Portola Valley, CA 94025 Artificial Intelligence Center
(415) 854-5265 SRI International
Soc. Sec. No: 551-48-1937 Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415) 859-2311
ARPAnet: NILSSON@SRI-AI
Personal:
Born, 6 Feb. 1933, Saginaw, Mich.
Married to Karen Elizabeth Braucht
Two children; Kristen 21, junior at Whitman College;
Lars, 18, freshman at UC San Diego.
Education:
Stanford University--1951 through 1958
*National Science Foundation Fellowship 1955-56.
*M.S. in Electrical Engineering in 1956 (no B.S. degree).
*Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering 1958
(Information Theory)
Dissertation: "An Application of the Theory of Games to
Radar Reception Problems."
Employment:
1961- SRI International
Artificial Intelligence Center
Director since August 1980
*Research in various topics in Artificial Intelligence (AI)
such as pattern recognition, heuristic search,
robot systems, rule-based systems, computer-based
consultant systems and automatic theorem proving, problem
solving, and deduction.
*Planning, promotion and direction of major projects
including large ARPA projects in robot systems
and computer-based consultants.
*Head, Artificial Intelligence Group (1963-67).
*Staff Scientist, 1968-1980
1958-1961 Lieutenant, U.S. Air Force
Rome Air Development Center
Griffiss Air Force Base, New York
*Research on radar signal processing techniques and
statistical communication theory.
*Project monitor of several Air Force sponsored radar
research projects.
1955- University Lecturing:
*Summer Course on Artificial Intelligence
at Univ. of Calif. Santa Cruz. 1982.
*Courses and seminars at Stanford University. 1976-
Including:
Artificial Intelligence Research, CS 225.
Survey of AI Research at SRI, CS 229.
Problem Solving Seminar, CS 320.
Simulation of Cognitive Processes, CS 224.
Structured Objects Seminar
*Courses and seminars at Univ. of Massachusetts. 1977.
Artificial Intelligence, COINS 583
Expert Systems, COINS 791A
*Course on Artificial Intelligence at Stanford
University, Computer Science Dept. CS 224. 1969.
*Various guest lectures on Artificial Intelligence
at Stanford University, Computer Science and Electrical
Engineering Depts. 1969-
*Seminar on AI Languages at Stanford University,
Computer Science Dept. 1969.
*UCLA short courses on "Applications of
Artificial Intelligence to Control System Design."
July 1967.
*Special Stanford Computer Science Dept. Seminar
on robots. 1967.
*Course on Learning Machines (EE 298) at the
University of California, Electrical Engineering Dept.
1964.
*Course on Learning Machines (EE 353) at Stanford
University, Electrical Engineering Dept. 1962.
*Course on Circuit Analysis at Syracuse University,
Electrical Engineering Dept. 1960.
*Course on Statistical Communication Theory, Uni-
versity of California Extension. 1958.
*Course on Fundamentals of Electric Circuits at
Stanford University, Electrical Engineering Dept. 1955.
1961- Supervision of Ph.D. Dissertations at
Stanford University:
(Thomas Cover, C. Cordell Green, Robert Kling,
Ira Pohl, Earl Sacerdoti, Peter Friedland,
Jan Aikins, Douglas Appelt, Kurt Konolige).
Professional Associations:
Tau Beta Pi
Sigma Xi
Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behavior
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Assoc. for Computing Machinery
Cognitive Science Society
American Assoc. for AI
Professional Activities:
Adviser to National Swedish Board for Technical
Development (STU). 1983-
Member of Artificial Intelligence Panel of the
NSF-sponsored National Survey of Science and
Engineering Research (COSERS). 1979.
Editor, North-Holland Monograph Series on Artificial
Intelligence. 1973-1981
Member of Editorial Board, "Artificial Intelligence: An
International Journal." 1971-
Member of Editorial Board, "Pattern Recognition
Journal." 1967-74.
Organizer and Program Chairman of International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1973.
Member of International Joint Council on Artificial
Intelligence. 1969-
Artificial Intelligence Area Editor, JACM. 1979-1983.
Member of American Assoc. for AI Exec. Comm. 1980-
President, American Assoc. for AI. 1982-1983.
Member of Nat. Inst. of Health Biotechnology Resources
Review Committee, 1980-
Major Invited Lectures:
Lecturer in Univ. of Minnesota Distinguished
Lecture Series, May 1982.
("Artificial Intelligence Research"
Lecturer in Carnegie Mellon Univ. Distinguished
Lecture Series, April 1981.
("Artificial Intelligence: Engineering, Science, or Slogan?")
Keynote Address, Internat. Joint Conf. on AI,
August, 1981, Vancouver, British Columbia
Keynote Talk, Artificial Intelligence and Medicine
Conference, August 1980.
International Meeting on Artificial Intelligence
Sponsored by Scientific Council on Artificial
Intelligence, USSR Academy of Sciences, Leningrad
USSR, 18-24 April, 1977.
("Automatic Deduction Systems")
XXI International Congress of Psychology, Paris,
France, July, 1976.
("Some Examples of AI Mechanisms for Goal Seeking,
Planning, and Reasoning")
IFIP-1974, Stockholm, Sweden, August, 1974
("Artificial Intelligence")
New York Academy of Sciences Conference on
The Use of Data Mechanization and Computers
in Clinical Medicine, Jan. 1968.
("Survey of Pattern Recognition")
Publications:
Books
Principles of Artificial Intelligence, (Tioga Publishing Company,
Palo Alto, 1980). (Translated into Japanese.)
Problem-Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence, (McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, 1971). (Translated into Russian, Japanese, and
Italian.)
Learning Machines: Foundations of Trainable Pattern Classifying Systems,
(McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1965). (Translated into Russian,
Polish, and Japanese.)
Papers
"Artificial Intelligence: Engineering, Science, or Slogan," The
AI Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 1, Winter, 1981/82
"The Interplay Between Experimental and Theoretical Methods in Artificial
Intelligence," Cognition and Brain Theory, January, 1981.
"Multiple Agent Planning Systems," by Kurt Konolige and Nils Nilsson,
Proc. AAAI, Stanford Univ., August 1980.
"A Production System for Automatic Deduction," in Machine Intelligence 9,
edited by D. Michie, et al. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1979.
"State of Technology in Artificial Intelligence," by R. O. Duda, N. J.
Nilsson, and B. Raphael. Chapter of a book entitled "Research Directions
in Software Technology," edited by P. Wegner and W. Wulf. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass, 1979.
"Semantic Network Representations in Rule-Based Inference Systems," by
R. O. Duda, P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and G. L. Sutherland, Proc. of
a Workshop on Pattern-Directed Inference Systems, edited by A. Water-
man and R. Hayes-Roth, Hawaii, May, 1977.
"Some Examples of AI Mechanisms for Goal Seeking, Planning, and Reason-
ing," Invited paper, XXI International Congress of Psychology, Paris,
France, July, 1976.
"Subjective Bayesian Methods for Rule-Based Inference Systems," by R.
O. Duda, P. E. Hart, and N. J. Nilsson, Proc. of 1976 National
Computer Conference.
"Artificial Intelligence," (Invited paper, IFIP-1974), Information
Processing 74, pp 778-801, (No. Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1974).
"Robots and Artificial Intelligence," in Enclycopedia of Modern Science,
(Kodansha Publishing Co., Japan, 1973).
"Some New Directions in Robot Problem Solving," by R. E. Fikes, P. E.
Hart and N. J. Nilsson, in Machine Intelligence 7, Meltzer and
Michie, eds., pp 405-430 (Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1972).
"Learning and Executing Generalized Robot Plans," by R. E. Fikes, P. E.
Hart, and N. J. Nilsson, in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, no. 4,
pp 251-288, Winter, 1972.
"STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to
Problem Solving," by R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson, in Artificial
Intelligence, vol. 2, nos. 3/4, pp 189-208, 1971.
"Extracting Information from Resolution Proof Trees," by D. Luckham
and N. J. Nilsson, in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 1,
pp 27-54, 1971.
"Survey of Pattern Recognition," (Invited paper), Annals of NY
Academy of Sciences, vol. 161, no. 2, p 380, Sept. 1969.
"Searching Problem-Solving and Game-Playing Trees for Minimal Cost
Solutions," Information Processing 68, (North Holland Publishing
Co., Amsterdam, 1969).
"A Mobile Automaton: An Application of Artificial Intelligence Tech-
niques," Proc. Int'l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence,
Washington, DC, May, 1969.
"A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths,"
by P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, IEEE Trans. on Systems
Science and Cybernetics, vol. SSC-4, no. 2, pp 100-107, July, 1968.
"Adaptive Pattern Recognition: A Survey," Cybernetic Problems in
Bionics, (Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Inc., New York, 1968).
"Some Ideas on Information Processing in the Cerebellum," by M. A.
Arbib, G. F. Franklin, and N. J. Nilsson, Proc. 1967 Summer School
on Math Models of Neuronic Networks, June, 1967.
"Preliminary Design of an Intelligent Robot," by N. J. Nilsson and
B. Raphael, Computer and Information Sciences-II, pp 235-259,
(Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1967).
"An Intelligent Automaton," by C. A. Rosen and N. J. Nilsson, Proc.
IEEE Int'l Conv., New York, 1967.
"A Pattern-Recognition Facility with a Computer-Controlled Learning
Machine," by J. H. Munson, A. E. Brain, G. E. Forsen, D. J. Hall,
N. J. Nilsson, and C. A. Rosen, Proc. IFIP Congress, vol. 2,
pp 360-361, May 1965.
"Determination and Detection of Features in Patterns," by H. D.
Block, N. J. Nilsson, and R. O. Duda, Computer and Information Sciences,
pp 75-110, (Spartan Books, Inc., Washington, DC, 1964).
"Learning Machines," by A. E. Brain, G. E. Forsen, N. J. Nilsson, and
C. A. Rosen, Int'l Science and Technology, pp 20-30, Nov. 1962.
"On the Optimum Range Resolution of Radar Signals in Noise," IRE Trans.
on Information Theory, Oct. 1961.
"The Effects of Wide-Band Signals on Radar Antenna Design," by L. R.
Dausin, K. Niebuhr, and N. J. Nilsson, IRE WESCON Conv. Record,
vol. 3, pt. 1, pp 40-48, 1959.
"An Application of the Theory of Games to Radar Reception Problems,"
IRE Nat'l Conv. Record, 1959.
Other Interests:
Member Sierra Club, 1961-
Member of Board of Directors, Committee for
Green Foothills, 1970- (President, 1976-77)
Photography, Hiking, Skiing, Running
-------
∂23-Mar-83 1009 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: [Brian Reid <reid at Shasta>: notification status]]
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 23-Mar-83 10:09 PST
Date: Wed 23 Mar 83 10:07:29-PST
From: Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: [Brian Reid <reid at Shasta>: notification status]]
To: CSD.HERRIOT@SU-SCORE.ARPA, JGH@SU-AI.ARPA, CSL.LANTZ@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, PRATT@SU-NAVAJO.ARPA, CSD.PRATT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-4365
I would like some kind of reply. Dwyer and Greenberg have both called Jayne
Pickering and they would like to speak with a faculty member of the committee.
If you need the phone # of any of the above, I have them in my office.
Please comply and thanks for your cooperation.
Rita
---------------
Mail-From: CSD.RITA created at 21-Mar-83 14:30:31
Date: Mon 21 Mar 83 14:30:31-PST
From: Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [Brian Reid <reid at Shasta>: notification status]
To: csd.herriot@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, Pratt@SU-NAVAJO.ARPA,
csl.lantz@SU-SCORE.ARPA, csd.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-4365
Please let me know if you will or have contacted any of these that Brian did
not reach. I would like to keep an currrent list, so that we don't overlap.
As for Martin Abadi, he stopped by last Friday and was informed that he made
the list of those recommended for admission.
Thanks for your cooperation.
csd.rita
---------------
Received: from Shasta with Pup; Mon 21 Mar 83 05:04:52-PST
Date: Monday, 21 Mar 1983 05:04-PST
To: admissions at Shasta
Cc: Kovach at Shasta
Subject: notification status
From: Brian Reid <reid at Shasta>
As I prepare to leave for England there are a few admittees whom I have
not reached, for one reason or another. Here is the list. Could some
faculty member of the committee please try to reach the ones that I
have not yet gotten through to?
Abadi, Martin not notified
Bier, Eric Allan left message by telephone and computer mail
Blatt, Miriam notified. Probably won't come because we didn't
accept her boyfriend named Wing. Anybody know
what happened to Wing?
Carpenter, Clyde notified. Deciding between us and CMU.
Casley, Ross not notified. No answer at telephone numbers
given.
Crew, Roger Reached. Not coming. Will take a 1-year
fellowship at Cambridge and reapply next year.
Davis, Helen Reached. Probably coming.
Dwyer, Rex Left message with wife. No indication if coming.
Gibson, James Reached. Coming.
Greenberg, Ronald Reached. Wants to talk to AA faculty. DEK will
call.
Haddad, Ramsey Reached. Might come. Deciding MIT/CMU/Stanford.
Hall, Keith Reached. Coming.
Hall, Robert Reached. Will probably come. He is deciding
whether or not he really wants to quit his job
and go for a Ph.D.
Kaplan, Jonathan Unable to reach.
Kells, Kathleen Reached. Coming.
Kent, Mark Reached (Golub). don't know if he will come.
Lamping, John Reached. Might come. Deciding between us and MIT
Lang, Kevin Not reached.
Larrabee, Tracy Reached. Coming.
Macrander, Cathryn Reached. Deciding between us and Berkeley,
leaning towards Berkeley.
McCall, Kim Reached. Coming.
Mills, Michael Unable to reach.
Moore, Douglas Reached. Prefers Cornell. DEK, JDU, VRP have called.
Pallas, Joseph Unable to reach.
Ramsey, Norman Unable to reach.
Roy, Shaibal Did not try to reach (India)
Schaffer, Alex Sent computer mail. No telephone answer.
Scholz, Karen Reached. Will probably come.
Shieber, Stuart Reached (Grosz). Will come.
Subramanian, Ashok Did not try to reach (India)
Swami, Arun Did not try to reach (India)
Tevanian, Avis Reached (Lantz).
Tjiang, Steven Reached. Deciding between us and staying at Toronto.
Walz, Janet Reached. Prefers Cornell. Sue Owicki will call.
Warren, Joe Reached. Prefers Cornell. DEK, JDU, VRP have called.
-------
-------
∂23-Mar-83 1111 CLT
okner thursday at 4pm
∂23-Mar-83 1549 HHB document
uh, err, umm. Can you dispose of the document I left for you yesterday..
It's a good description for those who already agree with us, but not so hot
for people we have to keep from antagonizing. Tom and I are cleaning it up
and reorganizing it.
Thanks
Harlyn
∂23-Mar-83 1637 DFH
Judy of Dr. Teller's office phoned. She needs
to talk with you about SE2 section of manuscript.
She is working at home, 857-1697. (otherwise,
will be at 7-0601 after noon tomorrow (3/24)).
Diana
∂23-Mar-83 2145 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI The missed paragraph
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 23-Mar-83 21:45 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Wed 23 Mar 83 21:42:39-PST
Date: Wed 23 Mar 83 21:34:17-PST
From: Gio <Wiederhold@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: The missed paragraph
To: jmc%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, rpg%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Software for Large Computers.
-----------------------------
Under separate contracts principal investigators participating in this
project have performed research and developed software for a high-
performance multi-processor, the S-1 system at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories.
Such work has included a basic operating system, a language translation system
including as modules several compilers, optimizers, code-generators,
an interpreter, and linker and loaders.
A portable file system, developed initially under joint sponsorship,
is intended to help manage the large data quantities expected when systems
as the S-1 reach full operation.
Important research results of this work include experience in developing
software which is more modular than previous systems, so that improvements
in software technology can be more rapidly moved to evolving computer systems.
High-performance, low quantity systems present important issues of
software design of which we will be conscious in our research plans.
-------
∂23-Mar-83 2210 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI follow-up of todays visit
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 23-Mar-83 22:10 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Wed 23 Mar 83 22:07:55-PST
Date: Wed 23 Mar 83 22:00:36-PST
From: Gio <Wiederhold@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: follow-up of todays visit
To: JMC%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, DCL%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
ZM%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, TOB%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, RPG%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
Sagalowicz@SRI-AI.ARPA, Milton@SRI-AI.ARPA, csd.Betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
Pickering@SRI-AI.ARPA, RAB%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: pickering@SRI-AI.ARPA, rpg%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Could all of please respond rapidly with any alterations you see
necessary in the Umbrella proposal.
This includes expected and reasonable needs not now included in the budgets
we had.
Changes in the Scope --> statement of work statement send earlier to you.
A copy of this statement will be kept on Score as
<WIEDERHOLD>ARPA.STATEMENT-OF-WORK and
will not be read prortected (none of my files are )
The background text itself is kept by Dick gabriel as UMBRLA.TEX[ARP,RPG].
If significant changes are needed pleae extract the section to be changed
and fix and remail it back to RPG.
I'd like to have it all in resonable form by say monday, for mailout to
ARPA on March 31st. Thanks. Gio
(Any completed task proposals can be included, but that is optoonal and depends
on budget aggrements with your ARPA sponsors.)
have fun. Gio
-------
∂24-Mar-83 0827 DFH Travel arrangements
Your reservations for the Chicago/New York conferences are now as
follows:
April 4 SFO/Chicago AA182 depart 9:30am arr. 3:15 pm
Drake hotel night of April 4
April 5 Chicago/NY AA514 depart 6:00pm arr. 8:50 pm (La Guardia)
Grand Hyatt Hotel nights of 5,6,7,8,9
April 10 NY/SFO PA 5 depart 10 am (JFK) arr.12:59 pm
For the Battelle conference--
On April 19, the non-stop flights to Washington DC are either
8:45am arr. 4:50pm or 2:05pm arr. 9:55 pm.
Returning on April 22, the latest flights are at 5 and 5:30pm; other
direct flight is in morning. Let me know which you prefer, also which
hotel (Sheraton Inn or Holiday Inn).
Diana
∂24-Mar-83 0856 MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM Search committee meeting
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 24-Mar-83 08:56 PST
Date: Thu 24 Mar 83 08:53:28-PST
From: Juanita Mullen <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Search committee meeting
To: wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, csd.golub@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
csl.jlh@SU-SCORE.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, csl.ejm@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: mullen@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
There will be a meeting of the Search Committee this afternoon, Mar.24
at 4:00 pm in room 252.
-------
∂24-Mar-83 1134 EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM [Bud Spurgeon <SPURGEON@SUMEX-AIM>: New Lisp machine]
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 24-Mar-83 11:34 PST
Date: Thu 24 Mar 83 11:27:25-PST
From: Ellie Engelmore <EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: [Bud Spurgeon <SPURGEON@SUMEX-AIM>: New Lisp machine]
To: sheil%PARC-MAXC@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, rhayes-roth%SRI-KL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
warren%SRI-AI@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
FROM ED FEIGENBAUM--CIRCULATE AS WIDELY AS YOU LIKE
---------------
Mail-From: RINDFLEISCH created at 24-Mar-83 08:31:31
Date: Thu 24 Mar 83 08:08:47-PST
From: Bud Spurgeon <SPURGEON@SUMEX-AIM>
Subject: New Lisp machine
To: Cschmidt@SUMEX-AIM
cc: Pattermann, Rindfleisch
ReSent-date: Thu 24 Mar 83 08:31:31-PST
ReSent-from: T. C. Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
ReSent-to: HPP-Exec@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
The following item is taken complete from the March 24 issue of
Electronics magazine, p71.
"FUJITSU CLAIMS ITS LISP MACHINE IS FASTEST PROCESSOR
Japan's Fujitsu Ltd. is closing in on the production of artifical-
intelligence systems with the completion of two units of a prototype Lisp
machine claimed to have the fastest processing speed in the world - 2.5
to 3 million instructions per second when running simple programs. That is
faster than the 0.5- and 1-MIPS speeds cited by the company for Xerox Corp.
and Symbolics Ltd. Lisp machines also running simple programs. A standard
general-purpose computer is coupled to the new machine, called Alpha, to
maximize resources by providing it with high-speed processing and housekeeping.
Hardware to tailor Alpha for Lisp includes a 16-kiloword-by-48-bit control
memory for microcode and an 8-kiloword-by-32-bit hardware stack for high-speed
access to data. Physical memory is 4 to 8 megabytes, with a 16-megabyte virtual
address space. Fujitsu claims it can sell its new Lisp machine for about
half the price of competing machines, but will not reveal commercial plans."
-------
-------
∂24-Mar-83 1530 CSD.TAJNAI@SU-SCORE Forsythe lecture videotape
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 24-Mar-83 15:30 PST
Date: Thu 24 Mar 83 15:27:47-PST
From: Carolyn Tajnai <CSD.TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Forsythe lecture videotape
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
John, unfortunately the cameraman did not start filming at the very
beginning of your introduction to Raj Reddy's lecture. It picks up
right at the point of PDP1 computer. Would you be interested in
refilming the introduction? I would like to have your intro on the
videotape, but it is a bit amateurish the way it is (unfortunately,
we are dealing with amateur cameramen).
Please advise.
Carolyn
-------
No, I don't have time nor can I re-establish the state of mind. Also
I must say that I regard the lecture itself as a bombastic disaster.
∂24-Mar-83 1834 RSF reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 24-Mar-83 17:57-PT.]
Gee, the only message from you that I saw was the message that you sent
last Wednesday evening telling Brian that he should either give an example
of someone who should have been admitted but wasn't, or else withdraw his
`accusation'.
The controversy seems to have died down now; I just hope that Brian comes
to realize that I was not being unfair to women applicants during
the admissions process. I tried to make my position clear in my last message
on this subject (sent at 5pm last Friday); I'm afraid that any further
messages would generate more heat than light. Of course, if you'd like to
add some comments of your own, then please feel free to do so.
Ross.
∂25-Mar-83 0847 DFH
To: JMC, ZM
I will be gone about 30-45 min. extra at lunch today
unless there are any objections.
Diana
∂26-Mar-83 1551 TOB
To: FFL, JMC
Mundy re industrial professor
Dr. Joe Mundy
General Electric
Dear Joe:
I am writing to confirm our conversation of last week about considering
the possibility of an industrial professorship at Stanford University
for one quarter. As we discussed, the spring quarter of 1984 (Jan 84 - Mar 84)
might be a good time.
With best regards,
The Industrial Professorships for the year 1983-84 are already determined.
This was necessary so that we could get them into the catalog. Please
tell Mundy to apply for the academic year 84-85 in a letter to Golub
with a copy to me by January 1984. The letter should include a vita
and a catalog description of the proposed course suitable for inclusion
in the catalog without further modification.
Addendum to previous: There is nothing in principle to prevent our
having more than one Industrial Professor at a time, but we don't
know how large the demand is, and we do pay them. Therefore, I think
we should leave it as is for now.
∂26-Mar-83 1612 TOB
John:
Is there any possibility of adding an additional industrial professorship
for one quarter? I.e. is there a limitation on funds, and can we get
additional funds? I would like to get Mundy here, and would like to move
while he is thinking about it. Failing that, I would like to ask a
visiting professorship if I can support him from research funds,
or ask for help and an appointment in EE.
Tom
∂26-Mar-83 1715 JJW Hertz
The Hertz Foundation has decided to give me a fellowship for next year.
Thanks for your help.
Joe
∂26-Mar-83 2004 RPG Brooks
Martin Brooks has arrived and would like to talk to you on monday
or tuesday. I will be talking to him all monday morning about his interests.
He is indeed interested in a 50%-only position from Stanford. Could you
check your calendar and suggest a time? Thanks.
-rpg-
∂27-Mar-83 2027 LGC Home-grown Histories and Worlds
The notes in PLACON.TXT[EP,LGC]/3p might be of interest to you in connection
with Zalta's short-notice talk tomorrow. -- Lew
∂28-Mar-83 0956 CSD.RITA@SU-SCORE [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: MS Readers]]
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 28-Mar-83 09:56 PST
Date: Mon 28 Mar 83 09:36:07-PST
From: Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: MS Readers]]
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-4365
John, would you like to help us out as far as reading some MS folders. It would
be appreciated.
rita
---------------
Received: from Shasta with Pup; Mon 28 Mar 83 08:07:34-PST
Mail-from: SU-NET host SCORE rcvd at 28-Mar-83 0807-PST
Date: Mon 28 Mar 83 08:02:09-PST
From: Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: MS Readers]
To: admissions@SU-SHASTA.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-4365
OOOOPPPPPSSSS! To continue, I would like to have more than two readers. Please
try to read some folders if you are going to be around until April 1.
rita
---------------
Mail-From: CSD.RITA created at 25-Mar-83 12:48:44
Date: Fri 25 Mar 83 12:48:44-PST
From: Rita Leibovitz <CSD.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: MS Readers
To: csd.rita@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-4365
Please let me know if you will be one of the readers of the MS folders:
1) Herriot - prefers not to, out April 1-9
2) Lantz - Currently no time available, should time free up, I'll read
3) Mc Carthy -
4) Pratt - out April 1 to ?
5) Clarkson - Sure
6) Finlayson - yes
Brian will read when he returns and Barbara Grosz will not be reading this
time.
If I know how many readers, I can calculate how many folders each of you will
have to read. There are 175 total, 20 of which are missing only GREADV
(subject) scores and 2 missing TOEFL scores. That leaves 15 that have more
than one item missing and I have called them INCOMPLETE.
Let me see, 175 minus 15 leaves a balance of 160 folders to be read, but, by
how many.
Please respond.
Thanks,
rita
-------
-------
-------
∂28-Mar-83 1600 JMC*
Adams
∂28-Mar-83 1709 CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE Diana Hall
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 28-Mar-83 17:08 PST
Date: Mon 28 Mar 83 17:07:27-PST
From: Betty Scott <CSD.BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Diana Hall
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, ZM@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: CSD.BScott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
We have been requested by H & S to submit formal performance memoranda
on every staff member by April 11.
I will much appreciate receiving your comments (system message is fine)
about her work for you. Short comments are fine--I just need input from
you in order to prepare a memorandum.
Thanks,
Betty
-------
∂28-Mar-83 1900 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI Additions to the McCarthy et al Umbrella proposal
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 28-Mar-83 18:59 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Mon 28 Mar 83 18:53:37-PST
Date: Mon 28 Mar 83 18:55:42-PST
From: Gio <Wiederhold@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Additions to the McCarthy et al Umbrella proposal
To: ohlander@USC-ISI.ARPA, mach@USC-ECLB.ARPA
cc: jmc%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
rpg%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, csd.oliger@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In addition to the minor task of Gene Golub there is now
a major task proposed by HPP. I dont have the details yet.
(maybe they are actually in some unread mail)
I want to verify that these additions have your concurrence.
I will try to avoid slippage in the deadline we have set (March 31)
for processing the proposal out of Stanford.
Gio
-------
∂28-Mar-83 2217 Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A> Congratulations!
Received: from S1-A by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 28 Mar 83 22:17:11 PST; for: jmc
Date: 28 Mar 1983 2213-PST
From: Lowell Wood <LLW at S1-A>
Subject: Congratulations!
To: jmc at SU-AI
CC: LLW at S1-A
Dear John:
Congratulations! You are now the proud owner of a brand-new Hertz Fellow,
Joe Weening. Although he's not a genuinely low-mileage graduate student, I
think that you'll find that, with regular maintenance and careful use,
you'll get many years of excellent service from him.
More seriously, I couldn't help but note in the course of my interview
with him ten days ago that he spoke with much more animation of his
systems-type activities than he did of his machine reasoning work. (As is
rather self-evident, I also came to share your high opinion of him as an
individual, as expressed in your much-appreciated, better-late-than-
too-late letter-of-reference).
He spoke with particular interest of delving into the question of why, if
it takes an average of, say, 10,000 instructions executed per second to
provide truly high quality terminal service to each user of a computer
system and you have a 10 MIPS system, you can't provide such service to
1000 users (instead of the 100 or so that actually seems to be the case).
Both you and I have expressed non-trivial interest in this question in the
past. I'm becoming quite immediately intrigued by it, and wonder if you
might still be sufficiently interested in it to devote an uncommonly
capable student to at least exploratory work on the question.
I'm prepared to throw in summer support, lots of semi-continuous peer
review by similarly interested S-1 staff, and all the access to a real 10
MIPS machine which could possibly be of interest, if you would care to
commit Joe's time (and perhaps a bit of your own, in supervision) for the
coming summer quarter, with the understanding that Joe would document his
findings in either a "Here's why not" report or an ad hoc dissertation
proposal in early Fall.
Please let me know how you see this possibility.
Lowell
I'll talk to Joe about it, and if this is what he wants to do, I'll help
him. I think a good thesis in this area would be very valuable.
However, there are those who like theory and also like system
work but don't like to or can't combine them. It's worth trying.
∂29-Mar-83 0755 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM Re: Additions to the McCarthy et al Umbrella proposal
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 29-Mar-83 07:55 PST
Date: Tue 29 Mar 83 07:50:39-PST
From: T. C. Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Additions to the McCarthy et al Umbrella proposal
To: Wiederhold%SRI-AI@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, ohlander%USC-ISI@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
mach%USC-ECLB@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: jmc%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, csd.betty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, rpg%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
csd.oliger@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 28 Mar 83 18:55:32-PST
For those not knowing the background, let me elaborate on Gio's note
a bit...
The HPP task relates to an expansion of our Advanced AI Architectures
work that has been under discussion with Bob Kahn and Ron Ohlander. We
are finishing a draft of the task description/budget material now as
fast as we can.
Tom R.
-------
∂29-Mar-83 0952 RPG
∂28-Mar-83 2355 JMC
Have you probed Lowell?
Yes, but no word. This week is perhaps not the best for me since
I have 2 writing projects with friday as due dates.
-rpg-
∂29-Mar-83 1306 RJT change of advisor
To: JMC@SU-AI, CLT@SU-AI, JJW@SU-AI, JK@SU-AI, YM@SU-AI
CC: treitel@SUMEX-AIM
My new advisor will be Mike Genesereth (I am going to work on the MRS project,
meta-level reasoning).
Thank you all for the concern you have shown.
- Richard
∂29-Mar-83 1740 CLT
ive gone to practice (home)
∂29-Mar-83 1913 Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon) your schedule
Received: from USC-ECL by SU-AI with NCP/FTP; 29 Mar 83 19:13:16 PST
Received: from MIT-MULTICS by USC-ECL; Tue 29 Mar 83 19:11:22-PST
Date: 29 March 1983 22:06 est
From: Solomon at MIT-MULTICS (Richard Jay Solomon)
Subject: your schedule
To: jmc%su-ai at USC-ECL
cc: Solomon.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS (hold.sv)
Acknowledge-To: Solomon.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS
What are your plans for Sunday evening? If you are not returning early,
we are thinking of a dinner at Ithiel's house for the participants. That
is May 15th.
∂30-Mar-83 0000 TOB proposal
To: JMC@SU-AI, RPG@SU-AI, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM
The first three paragraphs are very diffuse. They should
be much more crisp.
Is your part of the proposal in?
∂30-Mar-83 0101 WIEDERHOLD@SRI-AI Editing notes for the proposal introduction
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 30-Mar-83 01:00 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Wed 30 Mar 83 00:49:55-PST
Date: Wed 30 Mar 83 00:53:37-PST
From: Gio <Wiederhold@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Editing notes for the proposal introduction
To: rpg%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, jmc%sail@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
I added some material and rearranged some, all is tentative and indicated by
french brackets.
All that is missing is the HPP arch.res. material, although I included
a sentence in the top-top level summary.
Have fun*
% suugested changes in <<< >>>, --> indicates replacement, /.../ deletion.
\ctrline{BASIC RESEARCH}
\vskip .2truein
\ctrline{IN}
\vskip .2truein
\ctrline{COMPUTER SCIENCE}
\vskip .2truein
!
\sect General Introduction.
Computer Science as a field is difficult to define, being tied intuitively
to a body of machines, artifacts of humanity. There are, though, some
common threads that join most people working in this field. We are
concerned with making the computer, as a tool, as powerful and as easy to
use as we can. We want to increase the simplicity of telling the computer
what it is that we want it to do, what it should do. We want to increase
its power to the point where it acts in some ways human, and thus we may
come to grips with our own humanity and wisdom.
The Computer Science Department of Stanford University wants to
<<<continue to >>> lead the
way in this endeavor, using the unique expertise that it has acquired and
nutured over the years.
This <<<statement of background a description of is -->
proposal indicates >>>
the ways that we feel that Stanford University can help further the goals
of Computer Science <<<and of Science in general>>>.
<<<These center --> Our proposal centers >>>on Basic Research in
Computer Science,
to replenish and enhance the stock of ideas that everyone who deals with
computers and with Computer Science must draw from. We <<<also>>>
want to <<<begin applying ---> apply >>>>these ideas to problems
common to the community <<<in order
to obtain feedback and verification of the validity of our appraches>>>.
<<<<(-moved->>>>
These directions will form the basis on which Stanford
University will enter into a tasking relationship with DARPA/NAVELEX.
These tasks will be structured to define precisely the objectives,
expectations, and available resources to attack the problems
within the scope indicated here.
<<<<<-moved->>>>
\ssect Outline
The next section <<<Number them ???>>> will outline the
general scope of the proposal.
It is followed by a summary of current research directions<<<no>>>, which
will provide some specific examples of problems being addressed
within that scope.
A much larger section <<<no>>>following will provide background and
qualification information to demonstrate our capabilities and research record.
A budget to delimit the resources required for this research in presented
in section <<<no>>>
Specific statements of the work proposed, are given in sec.\ <<no.>>.
We expect these proposal elements to become further refined through
individual tasking statements to be attached to this proposal.
<<< -> \sect <<no>> The Proposal.>>>
Our proposal is to further the boundaries of computer science along the lines
laid out <<<above-> below>>>.
<<<The proposed research spans the range from theoretical investigations
to extend the foundations of analytic and artificial intelligence to
experiments in the application of the results to challenging
problems in the design and operation of advanced computer hardware
and software. The unique qualifications which Stanford University
brings to this research are outlined in a section below.>>>
Research in the fundamental areas of Computer Science will study
the principles underlying human and machine reasoning.
Formal languages, as {\sc LISP} will be developed and utilized to capture the
processes and constraints as exactly as feasible.
Language processors and other computer software for will be designed
to be portable to support modern concepts of hybrid systems
composed of workstations and supercomputers.
In this environment we will also find distributed knowledge and databases.
We will search for new approaches to deal with the complexity and
size of the structures required to represent the information in such systems.
We propose research to simplify the tasks of programming by providing
automatic deduction of programs from specifications, and provide
tools for the analysis and verification of such programs which cannot
be automatically generated.
We propose to improve the computational task by studying algorithmic
techniques and considering how they can be exploited by improved
computer architectures.
<<<Rindfleisch->Advanced computer architectures will require
advanced techniques for their implementation. We propose
research to use techniques of heuristic programming to design
hardware which is more powerful and matches the demands
placed on it by the new concept we are helping to develop.>>>
The remainder of this document outlines some of the
research directions that the Computer Science Department has been doing
recently as well as state some examples of goals and directions that
we feel may be positive first steps towards such basic research.
!
\sect Previous and Current Work in Basic Computer Science at Stanford
<<<-> This statement of background describes the recent research and current
directions of the Formal Reasoning; Vision and Robotics; Database;
Deductive Programming; Program Analysis and Verification; and Analysis of
Algorithms groups in the Computer Science Department at Stanford
University.
As such it indicates also the immediate directions being considered
for our research, since we plan to build on the invaluable experience
obtained which is available in our institution and through our collegues.>>>
<<<->Being a broad statement it covers a spectrum of areas and problems; these
areas are presented separately with a bibliography in each section.>>>
\ssect Formal Reasoning.
Formal Reasoning is a methodology for studying the basic modes of thought,
decision-making, planning, and reasoning that people use in both their everyday
lives and in their roles as computer programmers. This methodology makes
explicit and simple the objects that fill the world as well as the
properties they have and the relations between them. The representation
used is either first-order predicate calculus or one of the well-studied
variants of it. In this way the issues of belief, knowledge, ignorance,
and epistemology are at the surface of attention rather than buried beneath
{\sl ad hoc} representations. Since these logical languages have a well-known
semantics there is never any doubt about meaning.
These techniques are applied to artifical intelligence problems, to the
study of the mathematical theory of computation, to specialized automatic
programming, and to programming languages.
\ssect Lisp.
Lisp has been and continues to be the primary language for artificial
intelligence research. Increasingly it is used a a systems language:
operating systems and compilers now being routinely written in Lisp. Since
Lisp requires a runtime system, and since the semantics of the language
are not operational semantics, neither the tactics nor the strategy of
implementation for most <<<facits ->facets >>> are pre-determined.
For instance, there is
no statement of the requirement for either deep-binding or shallow-binding
for variables. Therefore there is much room for experimentation with the
most effective strategies and tactics for implementation of Lisp given
specific machines and applications.
Since Lisp technology has matured over the years and since there seems to
be a rapid growth in the number and variety of computers available, the
need for portable Lisp implementations based on a rich dialect has become
increasingly apparent. Moreover, this variety in architectures provides
the basis for an argument that portable compilers must be able to exploit
these architectures, and that this must be accomplished by exploiting
the best compiler technologies available. A portable Lisp must be able to
run well on personal computers, supercomputers, and multiprocessors.
Being a programming system as well as simply a programming language,
a programming environment is necessary for the success and usefulness
of a Lisp implementation. A portable Lisp implementation requires a
portable Lisp environment.
The most attractive Lisp dialect for this portability is Common Lisp.
\ssect Software.
While it is true that the average programmer or computer user consumes few
resources in his typical use, there are applications and problems that
require extreme processing power. Thus it is necessary to look at both
personal workstations linked by a communications network for `normal'
computing needs as well as at supercomputers (uniprocessors and
multiprocessors) to provide the tools that scientists, engineers,
businessmen, and the military need.
High-performance and multiprocessed computers present special problems
in terms of software, especially operating systems. These problems
arise since the ability to execute instructions rapidly often requires
a non-uniform architecture (special registers, vector representations, etc),
a complex instruction set
(to take advantage of internal parallelism---increasing the work per
instruction), complex addressing modes, or non-uniform memory hierarchies. Some
high-performance architectures use simple data paths and simple addressing
modes to increase performance by decreasing the amount of overhead
per instruction fetch and decode. Nevertheless, writing compilers, for example,
for such complex machines requires matching tasks to instructions or
instruction sequences, which is often difficult.
Beyond this any multiprocessing is an added problem.
Developing tools and techniques for the effective use of complex supercomputers
and large networks of computers is the next important step for systems
research.\footnote{Under separate contracts principal investigators participating in this
project have performed research and developed software for a
high-performance multiprocessor, the S-1 system at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories.
Such work has included a basic operating system, a language translation system
including as modules several compilers, optimizers, code-generators,
an interpreter, and linker and loaders.
A portable file system, developed initially under joint sponsorship,
is intended to help manage the large data quantities expected when systems
as the S-1 reach full operation.
Important research results of this work include experience in developing
software which is more modular than previous systems, so that improvements
in software technology can be more rapidly moved to evolving computer systems.
High-performance, low quantity systems present important issues of
software design of which we will be conscious in our research plans.}
\ssect Database Management <<<and the Use of Knowledge>>>.
To be effective computers must be able to store large amounts of data
in ways that are flexible, expandable, and convenient for the types
of processing required on that data. Centralized and distributed data bases
are appropriate for different settings. The management of large quantities of
data <<<does not assume --> cannot be solved by >>>algorithmic methods
alone: in many cases the techniques required to process data are heuristic.
The architecture of computers that are designed for these applications
may not resemble standard Von Neumann machines.
Thus Database Management stands in a unique position of drawing deeply
from all aspects of computer science to achieve its goals.
\ssect Deductive Programming.
Programmers working on their task can often state clearly what they want their
program to do without being to state clearly how that can be achieved. In many
cases it may be possible to transform high-level, mathematical statements of
the specifications for a program into code that is reasonably efficient to
execute.
There are several approaches to this transformation, but one that seems
particularly attractive is to turn the specification into a mathematical
theorem stating the existence of a function that achieves te specification.
By constructively proving that theorem one can often determine enough
information to derive a program that realizes the specification.
To be more specific, a program can be thought os as a (partial)
function that takes a particular input as an argument and produces a
particular output as a value.
The value must satisfy a given predicate or be in some relation to the input.
A suitable mathematical theorem would state the existence of that function.
A constructive proof would find such a function, and care in that proof
could also produce a program.
The importance of a technique or system that accomplished this goal is that
it would place programming in the realm of stating a correct specification for
the effect of the program in a language that is well-suited to such a
clear specification. Moreover it would produce a provably correct program for
the specification: no debugging would be required.
\ssect Program Analysis and Verification.
The task of programmers is to write programs that are not only correct, but
maintainable and expandable. The tools needed to improve a programmer's ability
to do his job are currently primitive, though there are promising directions.
For example, the ability to prove that a program meets its specifications
allows the programmer to both understand his program better and to spend less
time debugging, especially when debugging holds no guarantee, in general, of
eliminating all bugs.
A second important tool that the programmer needs is a good programming
environment, including a good programming language. It is possible, by analogy,
to write understandable text using a few thousand english words and some
simple rules of grammar.
But doing so collapses many distinctions to the degree that,
while almost everything is statable, it is so statable only with extreme
effort compared to the ease that an expert writer has when using the full power
and subtlety of <<<e-->E>>>nglish.
Similarly, a rich programming language that captures the
distinctions that the programmer needs and which allows a wide range of useful
programming techniques is a requirement for correct and rapid programming.
\ssect The Analysis of Algorithms.
The study of computer science centers on computers and on algorithms.
In many cases these studies are not conducted together, and it often
happens that the design of computers takes place without direct
experience with the intended applications of those computers.
It may be possible to understand the scope and computation/communications
needs of a problem of application before much algorithmic development
has taken place. With a gauge of the problem and its requirements it would
be possible to obtain a better match between application and hardware than
is currently possible and typical.
\vfill\eject
-------
∂30-Mar-83 0935 RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM Aborted HPP Task Statement
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 30-Mar-83 09:35 PST
Date: Wed 30 Mar 83 09:31:16-PST
From: T. C. Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Aborted HPP Task Statement
To: Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Gio/John,
We just got additional information from Ron Ohlander that IPTO has
changed their minds about how they want to contract support for HPP work
on symbolic machine architectures. It will not be done as a task on
the umbrella contract you are working on. Therefore, go ahead without
the HPP task -- note that this does not affect Golub's task which I know
nothing about.
Sorry for any delays and wasted fuss this may have caused you (and us).
Tom R.
-------
∂30-Mar-83 1009 RPG
To: JMC@SU-AI, TOB@SU-AI, GIO@SU-AI
∂30-Mar-83 0000 TOB proposal
To: JMC@SU-AI, RPG@SU-AI, wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM
The first three paragraphs are very diffuse. They should
be much more crisp.
I was specifically requested to make the first section (on Computer Science)
general and `vague' (Machado's word). Some specific sentences in those three
paragraphs were dictated to me by Machado.
-rpg-
∂30-Mar-83 1020 DFH
Suppes office called. Can you come to a 4 pm
meeting today?
Diana
∂30-Mar-83 1133 TOB proposal
No, I am not finished yet.
∂30-Mar-83 1148 DFH Travel arrangements
To: JMC, CLT
Flights are now as follows:
April 4 Leave SFO at 10am on United #126. Arrive Chicago 3:59 pm
Accommodations at Drake hotel night of April 4
April 5 Leave Chicago at 5 pm on United #908; arrive NYC 8:00 pm
Your own arrangements for hotel
April 10 Return NYC/San Francisco on PA 5, departing NYC 10:00am, arrive
SFO 12:59 pm
Hope this is right now --Diana
∂30-Mar-83 1205 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 30-Mar-83 12:05 PST
Date: Wed 30 Mar 83 11:54:27-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed 30 Mar 83 10:09:00-PST
Do you consider that my changes violate mschados mandate.
There aslo seem to be some differences in emphasis between Ohlanfder and
Machado.
gio
-------
∂30-Mar-83 1214 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM Re: proposal
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 30-Mar-83 12:14 PST
Date: Wed 30 Mar 83 11:40:59-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: proposal
To: TOB@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA, RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed 30 Mar 83 00:00:00-PST
I assume you meant the introduction.
Here are some edits of mine.
Please respond with Specific markups. Gio
-------
∂30-Mar-83 1241 RPG
To: JMC@SU-AI, GIO@SU-AI, TOB@SU-AI
∂30-Mar-83 1205 WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 30-Mar-83 12:05 PST
Date: Wed 30 Mar 83 11:54:27-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed 30 Mar 83 10:09:00-PST
Do you consider that my changes violate mschados mandate.
There aslo seem to be some differences in emphasis between Ohlanfder and
Machado.
gio
-------
I incorporated most of your changes as is, rewording some to be a bit clearer.
I think Tom meant that the introduction is vaguer than any previous ARPA
proposal had the right to be. Having attended every discussion that day with
both Machado and Ohlander I did not see any substantive difference in final
opinion on this umbrella proposal between them. In addition to the day's discussions
with them, I talked for 1 hour with Machado alone, and I am very sure that
he wants the introduction to be vague. If we decide next year to try to study
the physics of gallium arsenide, this umbrella contract is supposed to cover it.
I take Tom's use of the word `crisp' to mean that it should talk definitively
about computer science and the projects that are currently going on, with specifics.
I take this as being contrary to my instructions from Ohlander and Machado.
∂30-Mar-83 1326 CT Schedule revisions
Due to some unforseen disasters last quarter, I need to change
my Master's schedule for this year. Aside from dropping CS 146
(virtually on the last day) and failing CS 162, I am concerned
about studying for the Comp, and finishing my CS 293 project.
For these reasons, I would like to substitute some old classes that
I have taken in past years: Linear Programming, and Statistical Inference.
Also, to cut down on my class load this quarter, I would like to take
OR 280 (applications of OR) and EE 384 (Computer network modelling)
instead of CS 246 and CS 163.
I have left the Change form and Program summary with Diana Hall. If
everything looks o.k., and it is not too much trouble, could you possibly
sign the change form and give both forms to Marilynn?
Please send me mail if there are any problems or complications. Again
I guess we are on different schedules and I can't seem to find you in
when I come by in general. Sorry for the rambling. Thanks very much,
Chris Tucci
∂31-Mar-83 1649 ELYSE@SU-SCORE Meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 31-Mar-83 08:15 PST
Date: Thu 31 Mar 83 08:14:55-PST
From: Elyse J. Krupnick <ELYSE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Meeting
To: Feigenbaum@SU-SCORE.ARPA, McCarthy@SU-SCORE.ARPA, CSL.JLH@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: Ullman@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Jeff would like for the four of you to get together to discuss pricing details
for the ARPA equipment. Could each of you give me an idea of when you would
be available to meet. I will coordinate and let you know when the meeting is
finally set.
-------
Please co-ordinate meeting times for me with Diana Hall, DFH@SAIL. She
has my schedule. Also I'm JMC@SAIL for ordinary messages and
JMC-LISTS@SAIL for inclusion on mailing lists, e.g. on the list for
memos to all faculty or senior faculty.
∂31-Mar-83 1658 OHLANDER@USC-ISI Re: Additions to the McCarthy et al Umbrella proposal
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 31-Mar-83 06:59 PST
Received: from USC-ISI by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Thu 31 Mar 83 06:47:46-PST
Date: 31 Mar 1983 0501-PST
Sender: OHLANDER at USC-ISI
Subject: Re: Additions to the McCarthy et al Umbrella proposal
From: OHLANDER at USC-ISI
To: Wiederhold at SRI-AI
Cc: mach at USC-ECLB, jmc%sail at SUMEX-AIM
Cc: rindfleisch at SUMEX-AIM, csd.betty at SU-SCORE
Cc: rpg%sail at SUMEX-AIM, wiederhold at SUMEX-AIM
Cc: csd.oliger at SU-SCORE
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]31-Mar-83 05:01:53.OHLANDER>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon 28 Mar 83 18:55:42-PST
Gio,
The inclusion of the Golub input is appropriate but that of HPP
is not. I have talked to Ed Feigenbaum about this and we agreed that the
HPP proposal would be submitted separately from the McCarthy et. al. proposal.
Ron
∂31-Mar-83 1719 ME lost message returned
The SU-AI remind/mail queue was clobbered Wednesday night and has been
rolled back to its state as of Wednesday morning at 4am. The following
queued mail or reminder from you was undelivered and lost from the queue
as a result. Therefore it is being returned to you so that you can
re-mail it to the appropriate destinations. I hope you remember to whom
you sent this message, as I cannot reconstruct that information. Any
message lost from the queue is being returned in this way to its sender.
Lost message follows:
∂31-Mar-83 0227 JMC
To: su-bboards@SU-AI
CIT's main need is a reduction of budget and personnel.
Central planning of computing at Stanford would be harmful,
because anyone competent to exercise the authority could
spend his time more usefully in other ways. The insufficiently competent
incompetent, like the incumbent, would involve
the whole campus, including CSD, in battles to prevent
the authority from being abused.
Central planning should not be done for computing at Stanford.
The potential benefits are small and are far outweighed by the
risk that it will be done badly or (more likely) that large amounts
of faculty time will have to be spent in politicking to prevent
it from doing harm.
Unless the situation has changed, CIT (it used to be Jon Sandelin)
had to approve the acquisition of the DEC-20 for Sierra. However,
the EE Department was entirely correct in ignoring CIT even if they
knew the nominal rule, since EE will prove competent to manage a
DEC-20, and CIT is not.
Ask David Cheriton points out, CIT is a bloated unnecessary empire
and should have as little authority as possible.
Ed Shaw moved to his position from a purely bureaucratic
one in the Provost's office. He had no technical knowledge
in computing or any other branch of information technology.
He seems to have the usual tendency to expand his organization
and its power to the maximum extent.
Siegmann's example that a central authority should require that
all computers be connectable to a specific network is precisely
the kind of thing that is more trouble than it is worth. If a
network has been set up, departments will connect to it if they
find it in their interest. The probability that a central authority
is needed to avoid rival networks is low enough to take the chance.
As I understand it, anyone with serious number crunching does it
at SLAC or outside Stanford.
The key cost of any computer installation is personnel. Any empire
This can be kept down in one of three ways:
1. The Administration has sufficient technical knowledge
to refuse unnecessary personnel increases and to force personnel
reductions when possible. This has never happened at Stanford
or at any other university or corporation or government agency
that I know about.
2. Services are bought from profit making outside organizations
that compete in price. Many will be unable to prevent personnel growth
even when the consequence is bankruptcy, but a few may survive.
3. The computing unit is small enough so that its personnel
are hired by the boss of the activity that benefits from the computing.
This person should face the choice between computing personnel and
(say) research personnel. At present this gives the lowest costs
most of the time.
The ideal isn't that new users should tell CIT what they
want. They will simply have to learn by experience whether CIT
services, outside services or the micros sold commercially is
best for them.
∂31-Mar-83 1936 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM Re: Meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 31-Mar-83 19:36 PST
Received: from SUMEX-AIM with Pup; Thu 31 Mar 83 19:37:21-PST
Date: Thu 31 Mar 83 19:29:05-PST
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Meeting
To: ELYSE@SU-SCORE.ARPA, McCarthy@SU-SCORE.ARPA, CSL.JLH@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: Ullman@SU-SCORE.ARPA, rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu 31 Mar 83 08:19:56-PST
Please regard Tom Rindfleisch as my representative on all discussions
relating to the ARPA equipment grant. I am forwarding the message to
Tom for the setting of a time.
Ed
-------
∂31-Mar-83 2051 LGC Paper for AAAI-83
I'm putting in your mailbox a copy of the paper that Dick and I are submitting
sometime tomorrow to AAAI-83. Your comments will be welcome anytime.
-- Lew
∂31-Mar-83 2126 ATP.BLEDSOE@UTEXAS-20 [Woody Bledsoe <ATP.Bledsoe@UTEXAS-20>: Centenial Lecture at UTEXAS]
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 31-Mar-83 21:26 PST
Received: from UTEXAS-20 by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 31 Mar 83 21:22:04-PST
Date: 31 Mar 1983 2315-CST
From: Woody Bledsoe <ATP.Bledsoe@UTEXAS-20>
Subject: [Woody Bledsoe <ATP.Bledsoe@UTEXAS-20>: Centenial Lecture at UTEXAS]
To: jmc@SU-AI
cc: ATP.Bledsoe@UTEXAS-20
John, did you make a decision about the Centenial Lecture here this Fall?
---------------
Date: 10 Mar 1983 0855-CST
From: Woody Bledsoe <ATP.Bledsoe@UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Centenial Lecture at UTEXAS
To: JMC@SU-AI
cc: cl.boyer, cl.moore, cmp.good, cs.dale, ATP.Bledsoe
John,
The University of Texas will celebrate 100 years of existence this
Fall with a series of Centenial lectures. The Computer Science department
will invite 8 such lectures for the areas shown below (with the speakers
who have already accepted)
AI
Theorem Proving/Verification
Modelling/performance
Distributed Systems David Gries
Architecture
Theory Jeff Ullman
Computer networks Mischa Schwartz
Numerical Software Cleve Moler
We hereby invite you to give one of these lectures in the area
of Theorem Proving/Verification. (Of course AI would have been another
natural area for you).
The following is the general instruction:
"Speakers should review developments over the past ten years
and identify major current research directions - about 1 hour
presentation.
We will pay a $500. honorarium, plus expenses.
Dates: October 20-21, Thompson Conference Center."
John, once we settle on a date, you would not have to be here both
days. Also you can do as you like about reviewing the developments
for the last ten years. In fact, you can settle on PV instead of ATP,
or vice versa, if you prefer that.
I hope you will be able to accept.
Woody
-------
-------
Woody:
I can't do automatic theorem proving at all. I could do
program verification but not a survey. It would have to be on one
of my current research topics. I could also talk abut non-monotonic
reasoning as an AI topic. I simply haven't been following the literature
well enough to do a proper survey.
∂31-Mar-83 2319 FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM AI Qual?
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 31-Mar-83 23:19 PST
Date: Thu 31 Mar 83 23:09:24-PST
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: AI Qual?
To: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, tw@SU-AI.ARPA, lenat@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: tob@SU-AI.ARPA, buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
novak@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
The students need an AI Qual, and they are asking for an organization
of same.
I am not the default value for "organizer" of this, as some of the staff
seems to think. They apparently think that the AI faculty is going to
be "self-organizing" in this regard.
I hope so, but I am not going to be the organizer. I'm copying the
acting dept. chairman just in case the AIers are not appropriately
self-organizing.
Ed
-------
∂01-Apr-83 0000 JMC*
bookstore charge slips
∂01-Apr-83 0908 ELYSE@SU-SCORE
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 01-Apr-83 09:08 PST
Date: Fri 1 Apr 83 09:09:20-PST
From: Elyse Krupnick <ELYSE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
To: JMC@SU-AI.ARPA
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-9746
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu 31 Mar 83 17:26:00-PST
Received: from SAIL with Pup; Thu 31 Mar 83 17:32:49-PST
Date: 31 Mar 83 1726 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
To: elyse@SU-SCORE
Please co-ordinate meeting times for me with Diana Hall, DFH@SAIL. She
has my schedule. Also I'm JMC@SAIL for ordinary messages and
JMC-LISTS@SAIL for inclusion on mailing lists, e.g. on the list for
memos to all faculty or senior faculty.
I did talk with Diana and found you will be in town between April 14 and 19.
I started to coordinate the meeting around your schedule when I hit a snag.
Jeff would like to have you at the meeting since you are a vital part of the
negotiations. Tom Rindfleisch, representing Ed Feigenbaum, has some concerns
about making it that late in April since he just heard from the contract people
back east that they may want a revision in the proposal and that having the
meeting that late puts the final arrangements off too long. We have a couple of
alternatives. One is that you can appoint someone to represent your point of
view at an earlier meeting or we schedule the meeting when you are here, best
date so far is April 17, Monday, and let the chips fall where they may, so to
speak. What do you think? Please let me know as soon as you can. Thanks.
-------
∂01-Apr-83 0923 CSD.LENAT@SU-SCORE Re: AI Qual?
Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with PUP; 01-Apr-83 09:23 PST
Date: Fri 1 Apr 83 09:25:24-PST
From: Doug Lenat <CSD.LENAT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: AI Qual?
To: FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: jmc@SU-AI.ARPA, tw@SU-AI.ARPA, lenat@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
tob@SU-AI.ARPA, buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
novak@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu 31 Mar 83 23:24:24-PST
I'll organize it this year.
Doug
-------
∂01-Apr-83 1307 PB computerizing the library
John,
I've been trying to persuade Llull and Manuck at the math/cs library that they
need to do more stuff electronically. What they really need is an integrated
system of some kind, rather than doing everything piecemeal, and thus entering
the same data repeatedly. I think they told me you were interested in this.
Also I gather that there is some centralized project that is supposed to do this
at some time in the indefinite future. It seems to me that a project that has
to deal with all the holdings of the university is going to be a hell of a lot
more expensive and hairy than one that deals only with a branch, and say only
with the high circulation items. I figure that a reasonable system for them to
use could be written by a knowledgeable masters student in less than a year.
But obviously there would be computation expenses to run the system. Can you
give me any background on this project at Stanford, do you think the central
system is going to allow libraries to do things like send recall notices
electronically, and is it likely to ever be finished and successful? Do you
think it is worthwhile for the math/cs library to get their own system, and
worth whatever political effort that would require? A significant element is
that presumably cs people would provide the software effort as part of their
normal activities, and of course it wouldn't be a project comparable in scale to
OS/360 (er, that's supposed to be a joke). Incidentally, there would be
benefits to us: we could do our dealings with the library electronically. That
includes getting recalls, book holds, searching the data base (i.e. using the
card catalog), seeing if material is out. I would say at least half of my time
in using the library (other than reading current journals) is spent looking
stuff up in the card catalog and trying to discover if it is on the shelf,
checked out, on reserve, or missing.
--peter
1. I have been kibitzing the library on such matters for many years, but
since I haven't volunteered to actually do anything - even politick for
money - they have been only polite.
2. To me a program for handling checkout, recalls, etc. is not enormously
interesting, and I'm willing to wait for the central library to get
around to it.
3. I did ask when we could DIAL to Arlen from SAIL and use its
facilities to look up books in the general catalog and find out
what specific library they are in. The answer was in a few months
two years ago, but the 3081 with its software has proved inadequate, and public
access has been indefinitely postponed.
4. Another feasible project has occurred to me. The library already has
its catalog in the 3081 - at least everything acquired since 1971. We
could copy the computer science part of the file onto tape and put it
on disk on SCORE or SAIL and arrange for its updating. Then we could
examine the catalog from our terminals.
5. You overestimate our ability to direct master's degree students -
at least mine.
6. Politicking to get the Stanford Library system to allocate
50 cents to an ad hoc solution of the problems of the Computer
Science Library and CSD separately from the general library system
is probably hopeless. Anyway, I'm not inclined to try.
For example,I doubt the library system pays for the library's account
on SCORE.
Therefore, what CSD does must be done with CSD resources. I believe
the Department would allocate the disk space on SCORE or SAIL or on
the future file computer to store the catalog. Whether someone can
be got to move the file is more problematical. Do you volunteer?
∂01-Apr-83 1505 BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM Systems Search Comm. mtg
Received: from SUMEX-AIM by SU-AI with PUP; 01-Apr-83 15:05 PST
Date: Fri 1 Apr 83 14:55:06-PST
From: Bruce Buchanan <BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Systems Search Comm. mtg
To: search-committee: ;
Please mark your calendars for a meeting next Friday, Apr 8, 3:30.
Chairman's Conf. Rm. unless you hear otherwise.
We should be in a position soon to make an offer, if we are going
to attract anyone. It is getting late.
bgb
-------
∂01-Apr-83 1559 LGC
∂31-Mar-83 1415 LGC New Representational Benchmark
To: JMC, RPG
Creary wonders whether Gabriel and McCarthy both believe that Zalta thinks
he knows that the Duke of Wellington wrote "Mood Indigo."
∂01-Apr-83 1707 PB library data
Well, I at least volunteer to try to get someone to move the files, if I don't do
it myself, though I won't make any promises on how fast it'll be done.
But I don't know how to do the negotiating with the library to get the data
and then the periodic updates. I'm willing to make the phone calls, but
I'm not sure they'll be willing to commit themselves to an ongoing arrangement
of supplying us with data based on talking to someone at my level (i.e.
research assistant). Also, I think it will take a fair chunk of storage:
if you figure 20,000 holdings and 5 lines of 80 chars for each holding that
makes 8 Mbytes, and 20,000 is probably a conservative estimate, plus that
doesn't take into account extra stuff for efficient access, like e.g. a
subject file. Of course there may be less since 1971.
Another issue is whether to provide the math/cs library access to the database.
Ironically, that would probably irk the central library, I figure. But I think
the local library people would be more than grateful to use the system without
making noise.
As for the masters project, I was assuming that a masters student would get
interested in it in the first place. All we can do is lead the horse to water.
Anyway, I'm willing to put some effort into it, with your guidance. I'll try
to catch you in person to talk about it soon. Thanks for the positive response.
--peter
Let's begin by talking to Harry and Richard.
∂01-Apr-83 2207 ME Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 1 April 1983
Previous Balance 0.25
Monthly Interest at 1.5% 0
Current Charges 0.40 (vending machine)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 0.65
Please deliver payments to Diana Hall, room 358, Jacks Hall.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your Pony account name on your check.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.5% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
You haven't paid your Pony bill since 12/82.
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.