perm filename W85[JNK,JMC] blob
sn#789518 filedate 1985-04-01 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00488 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00065 00002
C00066 00003 ∂07-Nov-84 0854 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH, NOV. 9TH
C00067 00004 ∂07-Nov-84 1219 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Today's Tea Topic
C00068 00005 ∂07-Nov-84 1232 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Parking at Ventura
C00071 00006 ∂07-Nov-84 1809 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter, Nov. 8, No. 4
C00086 00007 ∂07-Nov-84 2208 NISSENBAUM@SU-CSLI.ARPA colloquium dinner
C00087 00008 ∂08-Nov-84 0018 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:broder@decwrl.ARPA AFLB today!
C00088 00009 ∂08-Nov-84 0848 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA MMail
C00090 00010 ∂08-Nov-84 0855 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Postdoctoral Posters
C00092 00011 ∂08-Nov-84 0920 CLT SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
C00094 00012 ∂08-Nov-84 0934 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Parking
C00095 00013 ∂08-Nov-84 1415 chertok@ucbcogsci UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Nov. 13
C00102 00014 ∂09-Nov-84 1107 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Perception meeting (area p1)
C00104 00015 ∂09-Nov-84 1151 host MIT-MC.ARPA New user from LBL,Ludmilla Soroka,FTS/451-5011
C00105 00016 ∂09-Nov-84 1203 MORGAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA William Croft's Dissertation Proposal
C00106 00017 ∂09-Nov-84 1404 PETERS@SU-CSLI.ARPA Tickets to Bach's Magnificat
C00107 00018 ∂10-Nov-84 0235 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #32
C00131 00019 ∂11-Nov-84 1430 MACKINLAY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Bay Area Symbolics User Group Meeting 11/9
C00137 00020 ∂13-Nov-84 1715 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #34
C00149 00021 ∂14-Nov-84 0239 @SU-SCORE.ARPA,@SU-CSLI.ARPA:GOGUEN@SRI-AI.ARPA Re: Discourse Representation Theory
C00151 00022 ∂14-Nov-84 0240 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:JOHN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: Discourse Representation Theory
C00153 00023 ∂14-Nov-84 0241 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BRIGET@SU-CSLI.ARPA Lunch wagon
C00155 00024 ∂14-Nov-84 0244 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:MORGAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA William Croft's dissertation proposal
C00156 00025 ∂14-Nov-84 0247 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:MMACKEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Study Group Meeting
C00157 00026 ∂14-Nov-84 0256 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #35
C00169 00027 ∂14-Nov-84 0401 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Wednesday Tea
C00171 00028 ∂14-Nov-84 0423 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:NISSENBAUM@SU-CSLI.ARPA F-3 Meeting
C00173 00029 ∂14-Nov-84 0424 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Use of CSLI Copier
C00176 00030 ∂14-Nov-84 0453 @SU-SCORE.ARPA,@SU-CSLI.ARPA:STUCKY@SRI-AI.ARPA Tinlunch Reading
C00178 00031 ∂14-Nov-84 0947 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: NOV. 16, 1984
C00179 00032 ∂14-Nov-84 1215 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Nov. 20
C00184 00033 ∂14-Nov-84 1828 CLT SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
C00186 00034 ∂15-Nov-84 0235 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA FUnding policy
C00187 00035 ∂15-Nov-84 0237 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Draft
C00192 00036 ∂15-Nov-84 0251 @SU-SCORE.ARPA,@SU-CSLI.ARPA:RPERRAULT@SRI-AI.ARPA Funding statement
C00195 00037 ∂15-Nov-84 0257 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
C00197 00038 ∂15-Nov-84 0308 @SU-SCORE.ARPA,@SU-CSLI.ARPA:MESEGUER@SRI-AI.ARPA
C00201 00039 ∂15-Nov-84 0401 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Nov. 15, No. 5
C00218 00040 ∂15-Nov-84 1119 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Speech seminar on Tuesday
C00220 00041 ∂15-Nov-84 1141 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA AFLB talks
C00222 00042 ∂15-Nov-84 1714 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Scheduling algorithm questions
C00224 00043 ∂15-Nov-84 2311 MMACKEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Friday Study Group Meeting
C00225 00044 ∂18-Nov-84 1337 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Wednesday Tea
C00226 00045 ∂19-Nov-84 0233 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #36
C00235 00046 ∂19-Nov-84 1250 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: NOV. 23RD
C00236 00047 ∂20-Nov-84 0225 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #37
C00238 00048 ∂20-Nov-84 1519 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Nilsson's letter
C00250 00049 ∂20-Nov-84 1701 CLT SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
C00251 00050 ∂21-Nov-84 1333 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk
C00256 00051 ∂21-Nov-84 1401 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa New York Times on Karmarkar Algorithm
C00273 00052 ∂21-Nov-84 1554 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Nov. 27
C00277 00053 ∂24-Nov-84 2059 RWW correction to time
C00278 00054 ∂25-Nov-84 1250 SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA CHFINGER changed
C00280 00055 ∂26-Nov-84 1442 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: NOV. 30, 1984
C00284 00056 ∂26-Nov-84 1516 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: NOV. 30, 1984
C00288 00057 ∂26-Nov-84 1727 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Thursdays between quarters
C00289 00058 ∂27-Nov-84 1251 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Re: New York Times on Karmarkar Algorithm
C00291 00059 ∂27-Nov-84 1303 MORGAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Kurt Queller's Ph.D. proposal
C00293 00060 ∂27-Nov-84 1311 @MIT-MC:pizzi%uofm-uts.cdn%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY SYMBOLICS 3670 software
C00295 00061 ∂27-Nov-84 2202 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Karmarkar Algorithm
C00297 00062 ∂28-Nov-84 1041 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA bats 12/7
C00299 00063 ∂28-Nov-84 1148 ROOTH@SU-CSLI.ARPA NL1 meeting
C00301 00064 ∂28-Nov-84 1715 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Dec. 4
C00307 00065 ∂28-Nov-84 1718 @MIT-MC:GAVAN%MIT-OZ@SCRC-STONY-BROOK SYMBOLICS 3670 software
C00309 00066 ∂28-Nov-84 1731 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter, Nov. 29, Vol.2 No. 6
C00327 00067 ∂28-Nov-84 1851 CLANCEY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Kolodner talk: Dec 5/M-112/noon
C00329 00068 ∂28-Nov-84 2331 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA AFLB this Thursday
C00333 00069 ∂28-Nov-84 2347 CLT SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
C00336 00070 ∂29-Nov-84 0239 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA OLOG Digest V2 #38
C00345 00071 ∂29-Nov-84 0808 FISHER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Faculty Meeting
C00346 00072 ∂29-Nov-84 0820 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA TINlunch
C00349 00073 ∂29-Nov-84 0833 TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA message
C00350 00074 ∂29-Nov-84 1106 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Next Week's TinLunch
C00352 00075 ∂29-Nov-84 1216 ROOTH@SU-CSLI.ARPA NL1 meeting postponed
C00353 00076 ∂29-Nov-84 1402 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
C00354 00077 ∂29-Nov-84 1407 INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: Phil. Dept. Colloquium
C00355 00078 ∂29-Nov-84 1414 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
C00356 00079 ∂30-Nov-84 1338 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA abstracts
C00358 00080 ∂30-Nov-84 1347 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA abstracts, continued
C00366 00081 ∂30-Nov-84 1353 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA abstracts, further continued
C00367 00082 ∂30-Nov-84 1418 MS A Seminar on Programming Language
C00369 00083 ∂30-Nov-84 1504 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Lecture at Columbia University
C00372 00084 ∂30-Nov-84 1519 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Linear Progamming Algorithms.
C00375 00085 ∂30-Nov-84 1742 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:YM@SU-AI.ARPA Re: Lecture at Columbia University
C00376 00086 ∂01-Dec-84 0949 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Logics of Programs Call for Papers
C00380 00087 ∂02-Dec-84 1716 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk
C00383 00088 ∂03-Dec-84 0934 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: DEC. 7TH, 1984
C00384 00089 ∂03-Dec-84 2017 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA final request for bats headcount
C00385 00090 ∂04-Dec-84 2250 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WELCH@Ames-VMSB SIGBIG
C00389 00091 ∂05-Dec-84 2132 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter, Dec. 6, No. 7
C00406 00092 ∂06-Dec-84 1722 BRAD@SU-CSLI.ARPA CSLI TGIF
C00407 00093 ∂07-Dec-84 0845 CLT Course announcement
C00411 00094 ∂07-Dec-84 1157 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:halvorsen.pa@Xerox.ARPA Mats Rooth on Focus at 2 pm today in trailer conference room
C00412 00095 ∂07-Dec-84 1333 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
C00416 00096 ∂10-Dec-84 1444 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA meetings
C00417 00097 ∂10-Dec-84 1448 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: DEC. 14th, Friday.
C00418 00098 ∂10-Dec-84 1654 SCHOEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA File system moved
C00420 00099 ∂10-Dec-84 2258 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA New EMAIL keyword
C00422 00100 ∂12-Dec-84 0941 BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA vacation time
C00423 00101 ∂12-Dec-84 1356 SHAHN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Wavering Screen on 3600-2
C00424 00102 ∂12-Dec-84 1718 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA meeting
C00425 00103 ∂12-Dec-84 1758 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter, Dec. 13, No. 8
C00433 00104 ∂13-Dec-84 0015 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Tomorrow is the last AFLB of the quarter
C00435 00105 ∂13-Dec-84 1048 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA AFLB today - abstract
C00439 00106 ∂13-Dec-84 1518 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa baby
C00441 00107 ∂13-Dec-84 1822 BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Marriage
C00443 00108 ∂14-Dec-84 0238 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA ROLOG Digest V2 #39
C00461 00109 ∂14-Dec-84 1007 HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Talk/Tutorial/Discussion on Data Semantics with
C00463 00110 ∂14-Dec-84 1121 HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA December rather than September
C00464 00111 ∂14-Dec-84 1721 halpern.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA Course on reasoning about knowledge
C00474 00112 ∂17-Dec-84 0238 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA ROLOG Digest V2 #40
C00498 00113 ∂17-Dec-84 1306 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Holiday Tea
C00499 00114 ∂17-Dec-84 2356 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Annual report
C00500 00115 ∂18-Dec-84 0857 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH DURING THE HOLIDAYS
C00501 00116 ∂19-Dec-84 1838 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA teacher wanted
C00502 00117 ∂19-Dec-84 1849 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Dec. 20, No. 9
C00514 00118 ∂20-Dec-84 0957 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Tea
C00515 00119 ∂21-Dec-84 1351 G.GAZDAR@SU-CSLI.ARPA password hacker
C00516 00120 ∂28-Dec-84 0244 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #40
C00540 00121 ∂29-Dec-84 1257 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Workshop in Combinatorics
C00546 00122 ∂02-Jan-85 0957 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa FOCS Call for Papers
C00554 00123 ∂02-Jan-85 1730 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Dec. 20, No. 10
C00564 00124 ∂02-Jan-85 2347 YM Talk on Rewrite rules at IBM San Jose.
C00567 00125 ∂03-Jan-85 1239 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa bibliography announcement
C00575 00126 ∂03-Jan-85 1707 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:YM@SU-AI.ARPA TALK BY NARENDRA KARMARKAR
C00579 00127 ∂03-Jan-85 2322 CLT Special meeting of the Seminar in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics
C00580 00128 ∂04-Jan-85 1444 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
C00583 00129 ∂04-Jan-85 1636 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WELCH@Ames-VMSB SIGBIG
C00587 00130 ∂04-Jan-85 1657 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics class
C00590 00131 ∂07-Jan-85 0817 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Course on reasoning about knowledge
C00600 00132 ∂07-Jan-85 1252 CLT Course announcement update
C00604 00133 ∂07-Jan-85 1927 halpern.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA Course on reasoning about knowledge
C00606 00134 ∂09-Jan-85 0922 OLENDER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Senior Faculty Meeting
C00607 00135 ∂09-Jan-85 1059 ACZEL@SU-CSLI.ARPA sets and processes course.
C00608 00136 ∂09-Jan-85 1733 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Jan. 10, No. 11
C00617 00137 ∂10-Jan-85 0232 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #
C00629 00138 ∂10-Jan-85 1047 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
C00634 00139 ∂10-Jan-85 1055 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Trailers
C00635 00140 ∂10-Jan-85 1055 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Parking at Ventura
C00636 00141 ∂10-Jan-85 1500 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA No SIGLUNCH
C00637 00142 ∂10-Jan-85 1614 HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA
C00638 00143 ∂10-Jan-85 1735 YAO@SU-SCORE.ARPA Adleman's talk
C00641 00144 ∂11-Jan-85 1159 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa PODC 85 CALL FOR PAPERS
C00647 00145 ∂12-Jan-85 2328 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:avi.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa BATS
C00649 00146 ∂14-Jan-85 1350 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Natural Language Colloquium
C00652 00147 ∂15-Jan-85 1033 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA message
C00654 00148 ∂15-Jan-85 1125 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
C00659 00149 ∂15-Jan-85 2139 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Wednesday's Tea
C00660 00150 ∂16-Jan-85 0829 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: January 18, 1985
C00661 00151 ∂16-Jan-85 0922 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Seminar on Logical Theory
C00662 00152 ∂16-Jan-85 1746 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Jan. 17, No. 12
C00682 00153 ∂17-Jan-85 1005 HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Papers on plurals (for Dowty's presentation Jan. 25, 2pm)
C00684 00154 ∂18-Jan-85 1010 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA Next Tues.
C00685 00155 ∂18-Jan-85 1555 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Monday, January 21
C00686 00156 ∂19-Jan-85 2239 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #2
C00705 00157 ∂21-Jan-85 2138 PETERS@SU-CSLI.ARPA Birth Announcement
C00706 00158 ∂22-Jan-85 1043 BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics Tutorial Lectures
C00708 00159 ∂22-Jan-85 1129 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: JANUARY 25, 1985
C00713 00160 ∂22-Jan-85 1142 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
C00717 00161 ∂23-Jan-85 1222 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:Halvorsen.pa@Xerox.ARPA David Dowty: On the semantics (and/or syntax) of plurals
C00720 00162 ∂23-Jan-85 1532 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Jan. 29
C00724 00163 ∂23-Jan-85 1630 CLT SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
C00725 00164 ∂23-Jan-85 1716 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Computer Music Colloquium
C00727 00165 ∂23-Jan-85 1735 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Jan. 24, No. 13
C00748 00166 ∂24-Jan-85 1659 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:Kay.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Computer Music Colloquium
C00749 00167 ∂25-Jan-85 1046 NEALE@SU-CSLI.ARPA
C00751 00168 ∂25-Jan-85 1501 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:avi.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa BATS
C00761 00169 ∂25-Jan-85 1630 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA bats 2/1/85
C00762 00170 ∂25-Jan-85 2132 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA The changing of the guard
C00764 00171 ∂28-Jan-85 0241 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #3
C00778 00172 ∂28-Jan-85 0956 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Call for papers
C00783 00173 ∂28-Jan-85 1655 BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA
C00784 00174 ∂29-Jan-85 0848 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA
C00786 00175 ∂29-Jan-85 0906 CLT Seminar in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics
C00788 00176 ∂29-Jan-85 1145 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
C00792 00177 ∂29-Jan-85 1153 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
C00793 00178 ∂29-Jan-85 1328 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA bats this friday
C00794 00179 ∂30-Jan-85 0226 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:avi.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Directions for BATS
C00796 00180 ∂30-Jan-85 0954 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: FEBRUARY 1, 1985
C00800 00181 ∂30-Jan-85 1040 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa change of address
C00803 00182 ∂30-Jan-85 1701 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
C00805 00183 ∂31-Jan-85 0025 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Jan. 31, No. 14
C00827 00184 ∂31-Jan-85 1004 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter correction
C00828 00185 ∂31-Jan-85 1354 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:scholz@Navajo exciting social event
C00830 00186 ∂31-Jan-85 2019 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Feb. 5
C00835 00187 ∂01-Feb-85 1336 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
C00840 00188 ∂01-Feb-85 1451 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Machine Intelligence An International Bibliography
C00841 00189 ∂01-Feb-85 1758 PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Directions for BATS
C00845 00190 ∂01-Feb-85 2131 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:lawler%ucbernie@Berkeley Re: Directions for BATS
C00847 00191 ∂03-Feb-85 1644 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
C00859 00192 ∂04-Feb-85 1348 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Bell Labs Fellowship
C00861 00193 ∂04-Feb-85 1354 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Lunch
C00862 00194 ∂04-Feb-85 1515 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
C00867 00195 ∂04-Feb-85 1531 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA Forum Buffet Supper
C00871 00196 ∂04-Feb-85 1635 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA meeting tomorrow, the 5th, 3pm, trailers
C00873 00197 ∂05-Feb-85 0848 SELLS@SU-CSLI.ARPA Chomsky book
C00875 00198 ∂05-Feb-85 0901 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Shonhage-Strassen fast multiplication
C00879 00199 ∂05-Feb-85 0929 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Math/CS Library: Procedure for clearing up recalled and overdue material
C00882 00200 ∂05-Feb-85 0944 BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics for Non-linguists
C00884 00201 ∂05-Feb-85 1015 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics for Non-linguists
C00886 00202 ∂05-Feb-85 1112 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Meeting
C00887 00203 ∂05-Feb-85 1150 TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA class lists
C00888 00204 ∂05-Feb-85 1332 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:broder@decwrl.ARPA FOCS Follies
C00890 00205 ∂05-Feb-85 1407 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:scholz@Navajo -- PotLuck UpDate --
C00893 00206 ∂05-Feb-85 1424 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Richard Karp
C00895 00207 ∂05-Feb-85 1449 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA Forum Reply forms
C00897 00208 ∂05-Feb-85 1626 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WELCH@Ames-VMSB SIGBIG
C00901 00209 ∂05-Feb-85 1847 TOH@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: -- PotLuck UpDate --
C00903 00210 ∂06-Feb-85 0736 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Budapest Semesters in Mathematics
C00908 00211 ∂06-Feb-85 1027 HPP-SECRETARY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA siglunch Feb. 8
C00911 00212 ∂06-Feb-85 1308 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:scholz@Navajo Overwhelming Response
C00913 00213 ∂06-Feb-85 1401 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Stanford/Berkeley Cooperative Library Program
C00916 00214 ∂06-Feb-85 1538 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Advisory Panel
C00918 00215 ∂06-Feb-85 1722 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
C00921 00216 ∂06-Feb-85 1734 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Seminar Announcement
C00924 00217 ∂06-Feb-85 1738 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa CWI-Amsterdam Jobpportunity
C00930 00218 ∂06-Feb-85 1806 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Feb. 7, No. 15
C00954 00219 ∂06-Feb-85 1832 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:brassard%ucbernie@Berkeley Re: FOCS Follies
C00956 00220 ∂06-Feb-85 2123 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA CSD Colloquium CS300 Feb.12: Change of speaker => Nils Nilsson on Triangle Tables
C00959 00221 ∂07-Feb-85 1453 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Math/CS Library New Books
C00961 00222 ∂07-Feb-85 1652 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA First Inamori Prize
C00965 00223 ∂07-Feb-85 1812 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Feb. 12
C00972 00224 ∂08-Feb-85 1206 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:halvorsen.pa@Xerox.ARPA Lisa Selkirk: **The Meaning of Accent**
C00975 00225 ∂10-Feb-85 1851 SCHOLZ@SU-SCORE.ARPA Who made those truffles?
C00977 00226 ∂10-Feb-85 1939 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Who made those truffles?
C00980 00227 ∂11-Feb-85 0239 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #4
C01004 00228 ∂11-Feb-85 0847 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Chomsky Book
C01006 00229 ∂11-Feb-85 1006 BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics for Non-linguists
C01008 00230 ∂11-Feb-85 1123 FAGERSTROM@SU-SCORE.ARPA Who made those truffles?
C01009 00231 ∂11-Feb-85 1328 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics for Non-linguists
C01011 00232 ∂11-Feb-85 1454 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
C01012 00233 ∂11-Feb-85 1512 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Mathematics: People, Problems, Results edited by Douglas Campbell and John Higgins
C01014 00234 ∂11-Feb-85 1532 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Lunch
C01015 00235 ∂12-Feb-85 1120 SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA ignore this message
C01016 00236 ∂12-Feb-85 1127 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
C01017 00237 ∂12-Feb-85 1152 EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLunch - Friday - February 15
C01019 00238 ∂12-Feb-85 1306 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:AN.KTG@Lindy Course Abstracts: Spring Qtr Courses For Undergraduates
C01021 00239 ∂12-Feb-85 1608 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA BUFFET SUPPER
C01023 00240 ∂13-Feb-85 0224 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
C01029 00241 ∂13-Feb-85 0824 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Journal of Logic Programming
C01030 00242 ∂13-Feb-85 1013 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:reid@Glacier forum lunch today
C01032 00243 ∂13-Feb-85 1040 JOHN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Survey
C01035 00244 ∂13-Feb-85 1158 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA Prog. Project, Last Request
C01037 00245 ∂13-Feb-85 1201 EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA CORRECTION/SIGLunch Location/Feb. 15
C01038 00246 ∂13-Feb-85 1452 WASOW@SU-CSLI.ARPA Talk announcement
C01040 00247 ∂13-Feb-85 1519 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA [Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>: Approval of apppointments by Dean's office ]
C01042 00248 ∂13-Feb-85 1715 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA the future
C01045 00249 ∂13-Feb-85 1802 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Feb. 14, No. 16
C01061 00250 ∂13-Feb-85 1942 CLT Special Seminar in Logic and Foundations
C01062 00251 ∂13-Feb-85 2052 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA Clearly, my last msg was meant for
C01063 00252 ∂14-Feb-85 0948 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Users of SOCRATES and SCORE,SAIL, etc: Communicating Between Systems From Your Own Account and/or the Library Termina
C01067 00253 ∂14-Feb-85 1333 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Forsythe Lecturer '86
C01068 00254 ∂14-Feb-85 1422 MACKINLAY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Help
C01069 00255 ∂14-Feb-85 1449 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA CSD Colloquium, Tuesday Feb.19, Browne on Parallel Architectures
C01073 00256 ∂14-Feb-85 1459 MACKINLAY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA [Joe Karnicky <KARNICKY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: BareSlug meeting, Fri. Feb. 15]
C01081 00257 ∂14-Feb-85 1600 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Lunch, Feb. 19
C01082 00258 ∂14-Feb-85 1621 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Faculty Lunch, Feb. 19
C01083 00259 ∂14-Feb-85 1650 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Opening Position
C01086 00260 ∂14-Feb-85 1654 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Opening Position
C01089 00261 ∂15-Feb-85 1109 @MIT-MC:boys%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
C01091 00262 ∂15-Feb-85 1403 @MIT-MC:crummer@AEROSPACE Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
C01094 00263 ∂15-Feb-85 1539 hardyck%ucbcogsci@Berkeley upcoming talk
C01098 00264 ∂15-Feb-85 1549 NET-ORIGIN@MIT-MC Re: Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
C01100 00265 ∂16-Feb-85 0555 @MIT-MC:mex101@MITRE Re: Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
C01103 00266 ∂17-Feb-85 1437 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:guibas@decwrl.ARPA Re: What have you done lately?
C01109 00267 ∂18-Feb-85 1552 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA ADvisor
C01110 00268 ∂19-Feb-85 0825 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA meeting tomorrow
C01112 00269 ∂19-Feb-85 0830 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA T/Th 2:45-4
C01114 00270 ∂19-Feb-85 0837 WASOW@SU-CSLI.ARPA Summer RAships
C01116 00271 ∂19-Feb-85 0859 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Summer RAships
C01118 00272 ∂19-Feb-85 0909 kuhn%ucbcogsci@Berkeley seminar announcement
C01122 00273 ∂19-Feb-85 1051 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
C01123 00274 ∂19-Feb-85 1957 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:YM@SU-AI.ARPA travel to STOC
C01126 00275 ∂20-Feb-85 0007 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA CS300 colloquium, Feb.26, Bob Balzer of ISI on Knowledge-based Software Developmemt.
C01130 00276 ∂20-Feb-85 1052 BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Reminder
C01131 00277 ∂20-Feb-85 1146 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Michael Green
C01132 00278 ∂20-Feb-85 1342 WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA siglunch Feb. 22
C01135 00279 ∂20-Feb-85 1822 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA Borrow IBM PC
C01136 00280 ∂21-Feb-85 0304 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
C01141 00281 ∂21-Feb-85 0808 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Andrew Jones talk
C01144 00282 ∂21-Feb-85 0837 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter announcement
C01146 00283 ∂21-Feb-85 1015 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA Commencement Marshall
C01147 00284 ∂21-Feb-85 1356 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Parking ticket
C01148 00285 ∂21-Feb-85 1514 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Feb. 21, No. 17
C01157 00286 ∂21-Feb-85 1620 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa baby
C01160 00287 ∂22-Feb-85 1252 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ARK@SU-AI.ARPA CS Dept Colloquium for Spring
C01161 00288 ∂22-Feb-85 1339 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA Course renumbering
C01164 00289 ∂22-Feb-85 1406 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA renumbering
C01165 00290 ∂22-Feb-85 1416 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:lantz@Gregorio Re: Course renumbering
C01167 00291 ∂22-Feb-85 1708 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Grey Tuesday
C01169 00292 ∂22-Feb-85 1743 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Grey Tuesday Change
C01171 00293 ∂22-Feb-85 1744 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA addendum
C01172 00294 ∂22-Feb-85 1745 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Immediate Space Needs
C01174 00295 ∂25-Feb-85 0238 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #5
C01193 00296 ∂25-Feb-85 1136 SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA HPP-3600-5 added to CHFINGER
C01194 00297 ∂25-Feb-85 1159 @SUMEX-AIM.ARPA:JOCK@SU-SCORE.ARPA HPP-3600-1
C01195 00298 ∂25-Feb-85 1332 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty meeting, Tuesday, Feb. 26
C01196 00299 ∂25-Feb-85 1349 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Missing Qume
C01197 00300 ∂25-Feb-85 1439 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Public-Key Cryptography in Science-Fiction
C01200 00301 ∂25-Feb-85 1707 chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Feb. 26
C01204 00302 ∂26-Feb-85 0924 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Parking at Ventura
C01206 00303 ∂26-Feb-85 0945 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1985
C01209 00304 ∂26-Feb-85 1023 POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk announcement
C01210 00305 ∂26-Feb-85 1114 VSINGH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Silver has been resurrected
C01211 00306 ∂26-Feb-85 1246 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WALESON@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA IBM Fellowship
C01214 00307 ∂26-Feb-85 1608 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
C01219 00308 ∂26-Feb-85 1831 POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA saito talk and nl-2 meeting
C01220 00309 ∂26-Feb-85 1902 POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Sadock
C01221 00310 ∂27-Feb-85 0841 SELLS@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: Sadock
C01222 00311 ∂27-Feb-85 0919 POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: Sadock
C01223 00312 ∂27-Feb-85 1613 chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 5
C01229 00313 ∂27-Feb-85 1705 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA [WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA: talk by mike gordon, 3/6, 4:15, el381]
C01232 00314 ∂27-Feb-85 1743 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Feb. 28, No. 18
C01241 00315 ∂28-Feb-85 0229 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #6
C01250 00316 ∂28-Feb-85 1358 MARJORIE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Tedit
C01251 00317 ∂28-Feb-85 1422 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:YM@SU-AI.ARPA CS 298-3
C01252 00318 ∂28-Feb-85 2216 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA CS colloquium March 5 <= correction, it's Warren and prolog on tuesday.
C01254 00319 ∂28-Feb-85 2251 CLT Seminar in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics
C01256 00320 ∂01-Mar-85 0840 JOHN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Daniel Sagalowicz
C01259 00321 ∂01-Mar-85 0844 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA SOCRATES: Update--Important Please Read
C01262 00322 ∂01-Mar-85 0901 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Bravo!
C01264 00323 ∂01-Mar-85 0905 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 5
C01270 00324 ∂01-Mar-85 1130 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Missing Qumes
C01272 00325 ∂01-Mar-85 1443 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA Tuesday meeting
C01273 00326 ∂01-Mar-85 1506 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WELCH@Ames-VMSB SIGBIG
C01277 00327 ∂01-Mar-85 1528 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:yao.pa@Xerox.ARPA Next BATS
C01279 00328 ∂01-Mar-85 1550 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Capturing SOCRATES records into your own personal file
C01281 00329 ∂02-Mar-85 1543 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
C01285 00330 ∂02-Mar-85 1707 BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
C01287 00331 ∂02-Mar-85 1845 BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
C01288 00332 ∂02-Mar-85 1852 SANKAR@SU-SCORE.ARPA Comprehensive Exams
C01290 00333 ∂02-Mar-85 1901 PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
C01292 00334 ∂02-Mar-85 1931 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ARK@SU-AI.ARPA Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
C01296 00335 ∂02-Mar-85 2212 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:pratt@Navajo repeat of earlier message on CS vs. information processing
C01299 00336 ∂03-Mar-85 1429 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA IBM Grant
C01301 00337 ∂03-Mar-85 1447 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Course Evaluations
C01303 00338 ∂03-Mar-85 1539 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Dantzig Honor
C01304 00339 ∂04-Mar-85 0849 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Baby girl
C01306 00340 ∂04-Mar-85 0939 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA SOCRATES searching technique: How to get around the two character limitation.
C01310 00341 ∂04-Mar-85 0950 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
C01312 00342 ∂04-Mar-85 0958 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: MARCH 8, 1985
C01313 00343 ∂04-Mar-85 1142 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Lunch
C01314 00344 ∂04-Mar-85 1342 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA TGIF
C01316 00345 ∂04-Mar-85 1404 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Comprehensives
C01318 00346 ∂04-Mar-85 1616 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley Linguistics Lunchbag Colloquium--March 7
C01321 00347 ∂05-Mar-85 0243 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #7
C01347 00348 ∂05-Mar-85 1143 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
C01348 00349 ∂05-Mar-85 1753 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 12
C01356 00350 ∂06-Mar-85 0813 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA mike gordon abstract
C01358 00351 ∂06-Mar-85 1355 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA SOCRATES: Techniques for Searching--Using Browse with the call number
C01361 00352 ∂06-Mar-85 1406 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Do you need training in searching SOCRATES?
C01363 00353 ∂06-Mar-85 1715 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Math/CS Library New Books
C01365 00354 ∂06-Mar-85 1744 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Senior Faculty meeting
C01366 00355 ∂06-Mar-85 1745 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Mar. 7, No. 19
C01377 00356 ∂07-Mar-85 0851 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:E1.I85@Lindy
C01379 00357 ∂07-Mar-85 0859 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA CS300 Colloquium Tuesd. Mar.12, Hank KORTH, U.Texas on Non-normal Relations (dont take it personal).
C01384 00358 ∂07-Mar-85 0948 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA
C01388 00359 ∂07-Mar-85 1130 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:hdavis@Shasta recent comp exam
C01399 00360 ∂07-Mar-85 1159 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:reid@Glacier Re: recent comp exam
C01401 00361 ∂07-Mar-85 1324 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Robotics Applicants
C01404 00362 ∂07-Mar-85 1524 BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Telephones
C01406 00363 ∂07-Mar-85 1814 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:reid@Glacier Re: New Telephones
C01409 00364 ∂08-Mar-85 0948 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Expert Systems: the International Journal of Knowledge Engineering--Received
C01411 00365 ∂08-Mar-85 1224 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:pratt@Shasta comp. statistics
C01414 00366 ∂08-Mar-85 1301 SCHAFFER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Talking with prospective students
C01416 00367 ∂08-Mar-85 1505 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:TW@SU-AI.ARPA phones
C01419 00368 ∂08-Mar-85 1518 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:reid@Glacier Re: phones
C01420 00369 ∂08-Mar-85 1540 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Cancellation of Michael Brady visit
C01422 00370 ∂11-Mar-85 0607 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #8
C01458 00371 ∂11-Mar-85 0908 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Kant Lectures in Philosophy
C01460 00372 ∂11-Mar-85 0926 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Lunch
C01461 00373 ∂11-Mar-85 1209 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk by sten-ake tarnlund
C01463 00374 ∂11-Mar-85 1734 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: MARCH 15, 1985
C01466 00375 ∂11-Mar-85 1806 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
C01469 00376 ∂12-Mar-85 1132 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Colloquium update
C01471 00377 ∂12-Mar-85 1208 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:cheriton@Pescadero Re: recent comp exam
C01473 00378 ∂12-Mar-85 1642 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:yao.pa@Xerox.ARPA Bats Announcement
C01483 00379 ∂12-Mar-85 1718 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Baby girl.
C01486 00380 ∂13-Mar-85 0953 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Rankings of Graduate Departments in the Gourman Report: Recent Article Questions the Methodology and Data
C01490 00381 ∂13-Mar-85 1100 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Rankings of Graduate Departments in the Gourman Report: Recent Article Questions the Methodology and Data
C01494 00382 ∂13-Mar-85 1344 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Gourman Report: Ranked Stanford CS Dept. 10th: Read Message for first 9
C01496 00383 ∂13-Mar-85 1356 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA American University Programs in Computer Science--New Book in the Math/CS Library
C01498 00384 ∂13-Mar-85 1519 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:yao.pa@Xerox.ARPA Directions to BATS at Xerox PARC
C01501 00385 ∂13-Mar-85 1602 BERGMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA housing availability
C01502 00386 ∂13-Mar-85 1617 TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA housing availability
C01504 00387 ∂13-Mar-85 1724 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA friday's bats
C01505 00388 ∂13-Mar-85 1812 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa wedding announcement
C01507 00389 ∂14-Mar-85 0928 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Today
C01509 00390 ∂14-Mar-85 0944 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Ranking Research: Gourman vs National Academy of Sciences
C01512 00391 ∂14-Mar-85 1057 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: housing availability
C01514 00392 ∂14-Mar-85 1136 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ZM@SU-AI.ARPA Admissions
C01521 00393 ∂14-Mar-85 1214 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Congrats to Adm. Comm.
C01523 00394 ∂14-Mar-85 1223 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: housing availability
C01525 00395 ∂14-Mar-85 1540 BRAD@SU-CSLI.ARPA LEAF broken
C01527 00396 ∂14-Mar-85 1651 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:TW@SU-AI.ARPA Phone query
C01529 00397 ∂14-Mar-85 1709 SKIPELLIS@SU-SCORE.ARPA PARC Open House - April 10, Wednesday
C01536 00398 ∂14-Mar-85 1731 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Mar. 14, No. 20
C01549 00399 ∂14-Mar-85 1734 BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Telephones
C01550 00400 ∂15-Mar-85 0959 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH TODAY
C01551 00401 ∂15-Mar-85 1049 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Visit of Dr. Lu
C01553 00402 ∂15-Mar-85 1232 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA Final CS300 colloquium, Tuesday March 19, Rob Kling from Irvine on Social Effects of Computing.
C01557 00403 ∂15-Mar-85 1310 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Circulation re new Senior Research Associate
C01561 00404 ∂15-Mar-85 1500 BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Telephone System
C01562 00405 ∂15-Mar-85 1505 BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Phone System
C01563 00406 ∂15-Mar-85 1611 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
C01567 00407 ∂15-Mar-85 1618 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 19
C01573 00408 ∂15-Mar-85 1624 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA May BATS at Stanford
C01575 00409 ∂15-Mar-85 1806 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA SU-CSD Programming Team Wins!
C01576 00410 ∂16-Mar-85 1711 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:pratt@Navajo Getting Macsyma at Stanford
C01579 00411 ∂16-Mar-85 1822 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:RPG@SU-AI.ARPA MACSYMA
C01580 00412 ∂16-Mar-85 1926 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:pratt@Navajo macsyma on score
C01582 00413 ∂17-Mar-85 1100 NEALE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Visit by Martin Davies
C01585 00414 ∂18-Mar-85 0253 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #9
C01630 00415 ∂18-Mar-85 0813 BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA Faculty Meeting Agenda
C01632 00416 ∂18-Mar-85 0841 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
C01636 00417 ∂18-Mar-85 0853 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Reminder
C01639 00418 ∂18-Mar-85 1039 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
C01642 00419 ∂18-Mar-85 1108 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:E1.I85@Lindy
C01643 00420 ∂18-Mar-85 1229 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1985
C01648 00421 ∂18-Mar-85 1308 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA tomorrow's meeting
C01649 00422 ∂18-Mar-85 1545 KIPARSKY@SU-CSLI.ARPA P-2 meeting
C01650 00423 ∂18-Mar-85 1554 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:DEK@SU-AI.ARPA new catalog copy
C01652 00424 ∂18-Mar-85 1633 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA [AI.LENAT@MCC.ARPA: Returning from Leave of Absence]
C01654 00425 ∂19-Mar-85 0811 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk on parallel stuff
C01659 00426 ∂19-Mar-85 1246 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa PODS program
C01667 00427 ∂19-Mar-85 1407 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA parallel stuff is at SRI
C01669 00428 ∂19-Mar-85 1658 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Complexity Symposium - April 17-19
C01678 00429 ∂20-Mar-85 0535 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #10
C01695 00430 ∂20-Mar-85 1344 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Long Message
C01715 00431 ∂20-Mar-85 1619 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Mar. 21, No. 21
C01718 00432 ∂21-Mar-85 1040 INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA Lift to APA
C01719 00433 ∂21-Mar-85 1227 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:vardi@diablo Chicago Workshop on Computational Complexity
C01720 00434 ∂21-Mar-85 1629 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Workshop on TMS 320 Digital Signal Processor Applications
C01722 00435 ∂21-Mar-85 1646 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 26
C01728 00436 ∂22-Mar-85 0053 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #11
C01758 00437 ∂22-Mar-85 0920 BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Talking to Daniel
C01759 00438 ∂22-Mar-85 1202 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Spring break AFLB talk
C01763 00439 ∂22-Mar-85 1244 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Nils' message
C01765 00440 ∂22-Mar-85 1345 INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA Visit from Reidel Publishing Company
C01766 00441 ∂22-Mar-85 1400 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA General Facutly Meeting
C01767 00442 ∂22-Mar-85 1406 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Faculty Lunch
C01768 00443 ∂22-Mar-85 1537 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Gould Computer
C01770 00444 ∂22-Mar-85 1620 EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Dr. Ruqian Lu/Papers/Schedule
C01774 00445 ∂22-Mar-85 1621 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Ballots
C01776 00446 ∂22-Mar-85 1637 SKIPELLIS@SU-SCORE.ARPA Final call for Xerox PARC signup
C01778 00447 ∂23-Mar-85 1546 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Les Earnest
C01780 00448 ∂25-Mar-85 0038 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #12
C01791 00449 ∂25-Mar-85 1039 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: MARCH 29, 1985
C01792 00450 ∂25-Mar-85 1121 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Raibert Visit
C01794 00451 ∂25-Mar-85 1503 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa 1985 ICALP
C01797 00452 ∂25-Mar-85 1509 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa ICALP Program.
C01814 00453 ∂25-Mar-85 1533 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa On the 12th ICALP
C01833 00454 ∂25-Mar-85 1647 TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA San Jose phone book
C01834 00455 ∂25-Mar-85 1852 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Raibert Visit
C01835 00456 ∂26-Mar-85 0045 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #13
C01852 00457 ∂26-Mar-85 0910 reid@Glacier Re: Ballots
C01855 00458 ∂26-Mar-85 1132 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA no free lunch
C01858 00459 ∂26-Mar-85 1600 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Raibert Visit
C01859 00460 ∂26-Mar-85 2231 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Chicago Workshop
C01864 00461 ∂27-Mar-85 0055 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #14
C01891 00462 ∂27-Mar-85 0906 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books In The Math/CS Library
C01894 00463 ∂27-Mar-85 1739 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Mar. 28, No. 22
C01903 00464 ∂28-Mar-85 0030 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #15
C01912 00465 ∂28-Mar-85 0913 ULLMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA [Susan Owicki <SSO.OWICKI@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>: Seminar on parallel computers for prolog]
C01916 00466 ∂28-Mar-85 0920 ULLMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA [Susan Owicki <SSO.OWICKI@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>: Seminar time and place]
C01918 00467 ∂28-Mar-85 1121 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Mr. Kale
C01919 00468 ∂28-Mar-85 1234 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:reid@Glacier Re: Mr. Kale
C01921 00469 ∂28-Mar-85 1433 PHILOSOPHY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Sophie Hampshire-Cartwright
C01922 00470 ∂28-Mar-85 1447 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--April 2
C01929 00471 ∂28-Mar-85 1833 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cogsci Seminar--Correction
C01931 00472 ∂29-Mar-85 1148 PHILOSOPHY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Lecture by Amartya K. Sen
C01933 00473 ∂29-Mar-85 1438 SANDY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Security Changes
C01936 00474 ∂30-Mar-85 1808 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ARK@SU-AI.ARPA CS Colloq, April 2: Dennis McLeod: Object Management in Distrib DB
C01941 00475 ∂30-Mar-85 2255 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ossher@amadeus Danny Berlin
C01944 00476 ∂31-Mar-85 0939 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA PhD orals
C01945 00477 ∂31-Mar-85 1208 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Faculty Meeting
C01949 00478 ∂31-Mar-85 1729 SKIPELLIS@SU-SCORE.ARPA Details - Xerox Open House
C01954 00479 ∂31-Mar-85 1805 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ossher@Glacier Danny Berlin
C01957 00480 ∂01-Apr-85 0935 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
C01960 00481 ∂01-Apr-85 1024 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA new mailing list
C01961 00482 ∂01-Apr-85 1132 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA program synthesis seminar
C01963 00483 ∂01-Apr-85 1158 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Faculty Lunch
C01964 00484 ∂01-Apr-85 1247 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:estrin@mit-comet research on inter-organization networks
C01967 00485 ∂01-Apr-85 1424 WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Siglunch-April 5, 1985
C01971 00486 ∂01-Apr-85 1448 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ossher@amadeus Danny Berlin
C01974 00487 ∂01-Apr-85 1546 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ARK@SU-AI.ARPA Speaker on C++
C01977 00488 ∂01-Apr-85 2121 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:estrin@mit-comet research on inter-organization networks
C01992 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂07-Nov-84 0854 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH, NOV. 9TH
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Nov 84 08:54:33 PST
Date: Wed 7 Nov 84 08:51:19-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH, NOV. 9TH
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
There will be no SIGLUNCH this week.
Paula
-------
∂07-Nov-84 1219 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Today's Tea Topic
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Nov 84 12:19:12 PST
Date: Wed 7 Nov 84 12:13:13-PST
From: Emma Pease <EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Today's Tea Topic
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Computer MMail (or why your terminal might suffer defenestration)
Come discuss your favorite horror stories about computer mail, mull on
the ethics involved, imagine improvements, and, last but not least,
eat. Tea will be at 3:30, munchies provided by Tom Yamarone.
We will have several mail experts on hand.
All welcome
-------
∂07-Nov-84 1232 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Parking at Ventura
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Nov 84 12:32:42 PST
Date: Wed 7 Nov 84 12:28:34-PST
From: jamie@turing
Subject: Parking at Ventura
Sender: EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Reply-To: jamie@turing
The last two Thursdays cars have been ticketed in the Ventura parking
lot. We have talked things over with the Police and have reached some
sort of solution. You therefore have several options:
1) Buy a Stanford C sticker or A sticker ($20 or $100). This is your
best option if you a) plan to be at Ventura more than 25 days out of
the year and b) have Stanford Affiliation (Visiting Scholars card
...). Go to the Stanford Police Station on Galvez to buy the
stickers.
2) We have conference C stickers valid for Thursdays only for $5 a
quarter. These are available to Stanford and non-Stanford members of
the CSLI community. Please send a message to Jamie if you are
interested; he will see that a completed sticker is available for you
at the front desk.
3) Park in the pay parking lots (75 cents/day) and either walk to
Ventura (5 minutes) or take Marguerite (10 minutes).
4) Car pool. (It might be a good idea to do this anyway to save on
crowding in the parking lots.)
The police have asked us to ask people to use the Parking lot across
Campus drive (by the Marguerite stops) since it is less crowded than
the lot across Panama (This will also keep our relations with the
people who work in the Jordan Quad buildings friendly).
All questions should be sent to Jamie@Turing.
-------
∂07-Nov-84 1809 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter, Nov. 8, No. 4
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Nov 84 18:09:07 PST
Date: Wed 7 Nov 84 18:01:59-PST
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter, Nov. 8, No. 4
To: Newsreaders@SU-CSLI.ARPA, Friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA, BBoard@SU-CSLI.ARPA
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
November 8, 1984 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 4
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1984
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Theories of Information''
Conference Room Discussion led by Stanley Peters
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Speech Acts as Summaries of Plans,''
Room G--19 by Phil Cohen, SRI International.
Discussant will be Ivan Sag.
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Emotions and their Objects'' by Ronald de Sousa,
Room G-19 University of Toronto
←←←←←←←←←←←←
SCHEDULE FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1984
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``CSLI and Industry: Where do we go from here?''
Conference Room Discussion led by Susan Stucky
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall By John McCarthy
Room G-19 Title to be announced
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium this week.
Room G-19
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
************EMOTION WEEK AT CSLI BEGINS TODAY************
(Details on page 3)
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter November 8, 1984
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``CSLI and Industry: Where do we go from here?''
Almost from the beginning, CSLI has been a collaborative research venture.
Its present links to SRI International and Xerox PARC are particularly close
ones. But as the Center moves toward the establishment of research policy
and looks to further collaboration with other corporations, a number of
questions arise. Should we have formal programs such as the relatively
recent Sponsors Program of CIS or the Stanford University Solid-State
Affiliates Program? Do we want anything so structured? How actively should
we seek collaboration? What do we expect to get out of such involvements?
What kinds of agreements regarding proprietary access can and should be
made? What are the dangers? What are the benefits? What have we learned
from the current collaborative relationships? Not only are these complex
and interesting issues in their own right, their resolution will have direct
ramifications for the work we all do. Next week's Tinlunch will center
around these and other questions regarding university/industry relations
in general and CSLI/industry relations in particular.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI STUDY GROUP ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
Tuesday, November 13, 1984, 1:15 p.m.
Conference Room, Ventura Hall
Research on situated language at CSLI currently intersects philosophy, AI/CS
and linguistics. This research and much work in the field of psychology
share an interest in how finite agents recognize, store and use information
about the world. Yet, psychology is not fully represented in the
interdisciplinary CSLI effort. A CSLI study group is now being formed to
discuss issues and research in cognitive and informational processing from
the perspective of psychology, with topics including but by no means
restricted to the psycholinguistic study of language. One goal is the
exploration of common areas of interest for possible joint research in the
future. The format of the meetings will be informal discussions. While
the study group is open to everyone, regular attendance will be necessary
for the working group to build a shared body of knowledge. Members of the
Psychology Department are especially welcome. (Questions to Marcy Macken:
497-0388 or 497-3848; MMacken at SU-CSLI, Macken at SU-PSYCH.)
←←←←←←←←←←←←
SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
Speaker: Prof. Alexander Kechris, Cal. Tech.
Title: Examples of Pi-1-1 sets and norms.
Place: Room 381-T, 1st floor Math. Corner.
Time: Monday November 12, 4:15-5:30 p.m.
There will be a no-host dinner at a local restuarant following
the talk. (Abstract on following page.)
←←←←←←←←←←←←
!Page 3 CSLI Newsletter November 8, 1984
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT OF SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
The main aim of the talk is to discuss situations in analysis where ideas
and results of descriptive set theory might be relevant. In particular,
we will survey a number of old and new results which classify in the
projective hierarchy various natural examples, occuring in analysis, of sets
in Polish spaces (especially from real analysis, differentiation theory and
the theory of trigonometric series). In case a given set is classified to
be coanalytic (but not Borel) we will be also concerned with the further
problem of finding a coanalytic norm, which assigns in a natural way a
countable ordinal number to each member of the set in question. This
provides a canonical ranking of the elements of the set and reveals its
underlying hierarchical structure.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
NL--3 MEETING: DISCOURSE REPRESENTATION THEORY
As part of the NL--3 activities for this quarter, I will be giving a
presentation on the basic ideas behind Discourse Representation Theory as
developed by Hans Kamp, on Tuesday, November 27, at 1:15 p.m. I'll talk
about the uses two which DRSs can be put, and maybe a little about my own
work on anaphora in DRSs, and why that necessitates allowing various
operations that change the representations. Anyone who is interested is
welcome to attend. ---Peter Sells
←←←←←←←←←←←←
EMOTION WEEK AT CSLI
November 8--13
Thursday, November 8 (CSLI Colloquium)
3:15--5:00 Redwood Hall
``Emotion: Objects and Objectivity''
Ronald de Sousa, University of Toronto.
(Visiting University of British Columbia)
Friday, November 9.
2:00--3:30 Ventura Conference Room
``The Role of Cognition in Emotion; Psychological Theories''
Phoebe Ellsworth, Stanford University.
Monday, November 12.
2:00--3:30 Ventura Conference Room
``A tear is an intellectual thing''
Jerome Neu, University of California, Santa Cruz and
Humanities Center, Stanford University.
Tuesday, November 13.
3:15--5:00 Ventura Conference Room
Topic to be announced.
Ronald de Sousa.
Aside from the four scheduled talks, there will be a number of informal
discussion meetings: dinner after the colloquium, and lunches. These
additional meetings will be announced today at the CSLI Colloquium. Talks
and meetings are open to all who are interested. (Questions to Helen
Nissenbaum (497-9196 or 853-1040) NISSENBAUM at SU-TURING.)
!Page 4 CSLI Newsletter November 8, 1984
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AREA--P1 MEETING: PERCEPTUAL CATEGORIES
Tuesday, November 13, 11:00 a.m. in Conference Room, Ventura Hall.
In our first meeting Arron Bobick, a graduate student in psychology/AI at
M.I.T., will INFORMALLY discuss his thesis topic: ``Growing Natural
Perceptual Categories,'' i.e., how a priori constraints on the types of
uniformities found in the world can serve as an important constraint on the
process of forming (hypothesizing) perceptual categories. All are invited.
Questions to (Sandy) Pentland at SU-CSLI.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
-------
∂07-Nov-84 2208 NISSENBAUM@SU-CSLI.ARPA colloquium dinner
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Nov 84 22:07:55 PST
Date: Wed 7 Nov 84 22:05:01-PST
From: Helen Nissenbaum <NISSENBAUM@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: colloquium dinner
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
There will be dinner with the speaker, Ronald de Sousa, after the
colloquium tomorrow -- probably Su Hong in Menlo Park. If you are
interested in coming along please let me know so that I can book.
Send a message (nissenbaum@turing) or tell Susi at the reception
desk.
All are welcome.
Helen Nissenbaum.
-------
∂08-Nov-84 0018 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:broder@decwrl.ARPA AFLB today!
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Nov 84 00:18:38 PST
Received: from decwrl.ARPA ([26.7.0.16].#Internet) by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 8 Nov 84 00:16:03-PST
Received: from magic.ARPA by decwrl.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34)
id AA03873; Thu, 8 Nov 84 00:17:24 pst
Received: by magic.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34)
id AA24644; Thu, 8 Nov 84 00:14:55 pst
From: broder@decwrl.ARPA (Andrei Broder)
Message-Id: <8411080814.AA24644@magic.ARPA>
Date: 8 Nov 1984 0014-PST (Thursday)
To: aflb.su@score
Subject: AFLB today!
.... don't forget. - Andrei
∂08-Nov-84 0848 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA MMail
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Nov 84 08:48:42 PST
Date: Thu 8 Nov 84 08:45:24-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: MMail
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
For those of you who missed tea yesterday, we many of us learned of a
number of features of MM that we had not been aware of, like the
ability to delay when a messages is sent (try S>after ?), to get a
copy of a recently sent message that you forgot to save a copy of, to
have a copy of all you mail sent to a special file (say mail.out), and
so on. We also got to lay find out who some of the famous csli
consultants are "in the flesh". If you have questions about MM, ask
one of them or Emma.
-------
∂08-Nov-84 0855 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Postdoctoral Posters
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Nov 84 08:55:47 PST
Date: Thu 8 Nov 84 08:50:36-PST
From: Emma Pease <EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Postdoctoral Posters
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
We will shortly be sending out the posters announcing next years
Postdoctoral Fellowships. I have a tentative list of places to send
the posters; however, I would greatly appreciate it if you would look
over the list. I am primarily looking for more places, but am also
interested in knowing which places I have don't give Ph.D.'s or the
equivalent.
The list is kept online at TURING in PS:<csli>college.foreign. I will
also place a list on the front desk. This list does not include U.S.
or Canadian Institutions. The list of Canadian Institutions will also
be placed on the front desk and can be found under <csli>college.can.
Many thanks,
Emma
-------
∂08-Nov-84 0920 CLT SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
To: "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Speaker: Prof. Alexander Kechris, Cal. Tech.
Title: Examples of Pi-1-1 sets and norms.
Place: Room 381-T, 1st floor Math. Corner, Stanford University
Time: Monday November 12, 4:15-5:30 p.m.
Abstract:
The main aim of the talk is to discuss situations in analysis
where ideas and results of descriptive set theory might be
relevant. In particular, we will survey a number of old and
new results which classify in the projective hierarchy various
natural examples, occuring in analysis, of sets in Polish spaces
(especially from real analysis, differentiation theory and the
theory of trigonometric series). In case a given set is
classified to be coanalytic (but not Borel) we will be also
concerned with the further problem of finding a coanalytic norm,
which assigns in a natural way a countable ordinal number to
each member of the set in question. This provides a canonical
ranking of the elements of the set and reveals its underlying
hierarchical structure.
There will be a no-host dinner at a local restuarant following
the talk.
S. Feferman
∂08-Nov-84 0934 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Parking
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Nov 84 09:34:20 PST
Date: Thu 8 Nov 84 09:30:46-PST
From: Emma Pease <EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Parking
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Addendum to last message on parking: People with A stickers can park in
the lot outside Ventura or in the lots across Panama or Campus; people with
C stickers cannot park in the lot outside Ventura but can park in the lots
across Panama or Campus.
Drive Safely,
Emma
ps. Warning. Those who attempt to park in the Ventura Parking lot may
be drowned.
-------
∂08-Nov-84 1415 chertok@ucbcogsci UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Nov. 13
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Nov 84 14:15:29 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.31)
id AA24138; Thu, 8 Nov 84 13:23:15 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA16712; Thu, 8 Nov 84 13:23:13 pst
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 84 13:23:13 pst
From: chertok@ucbcogsci (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8411082123.AA16712@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Nov. 13
Cc: chertok@Berkeley
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
←λF←λa←λl←λl ←λ1←λ9←λ8←λ4
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A
TIME: Tuesday, November 13, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: C. R. Gallistel, Psychology Department,
University of Pennsylvania; Center for
Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
TITLE: ``The rat's representation of navigational
space: Evidence for a purely geometric
module''
ABSTRACT: When the rat is shown the location of hidden
food and must subsequently find that loca-
tion, it relies strongly upon a spatial
representation that preserves the metric
properties of the enclosure (the large scale
shape of the environment) but not the
nongeometric characteristics (color, lumi-
nosity, texture, smell) of the surfaces that
define the space. As a result, the animal
makes many ``rotational'' errors in an
environment that has a rotational symmetry,
looking in the place where the food would be
if the environment were rotated into the
symmetrically interchangeable position. It
does this even when highly salient
nongeometric properties of the surfaces
should enable it to avoid these costly rota-
tional errors. Evidence is presented that
the rat notes and remembers these
nongeometric properties and can use them for
some purposes, but cannot directly use them
to establish positions in a remembered
space, even when it would be highly advanta-
geous to do so. Thus, the rat's position-
determining system appears to be an encapsu-
lated module in the Fodorian sense. Con-
siderations of possible computational rou-
tines used to align the currently perceived
environment with the animal's map (it's
record of the previously experienced
environment) suggest reasons why this might
be so. Old evidence on the finding of hid-
den food by chimpanzees suggests that they
rely on a similar module. This leads to the
conjecture that the module is universal in
higher vertebrates.
----------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
November 20: Susan Carey, Psychology Dept, M.I.T.;
Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences
November 27: Walter Michaels and Steven Knapp, English
Dept, UC Berkeley
December 4: Thomas Bever, Psychology Dept, Columbia
University (rescheduled from October 23)
∂09-Nov-84 1107 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Perception meeting (area p1)
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Nov 84 11:06:59 PST
Mail-From: PENTLAND created at 9-Nov-84 10:56:27
Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 10:56:27-PST
From: Alex Pentland <PENTLAND@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Perception meeting (area p1)
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 11:03:34-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
This weeks CSLI perception (P1) meeting will join with this weeks NASA's
perception and cognition seminar:
Who: Susan Brennan
From: HP Labs
When: 12 noon, Wednesday, November 14, 1984.
Where: Room 177, Building 239, NASA Ames Research Center
What: Charicatures From Images
A fascinating talk and videotape about representing human faces
and automatic charicaturing of them.
For information on how to get to Ames, call 415-694-6584.
Sandy Pentland (pentland@su-csli)
-------
∂09-Nov-84 1151 host MIT-MC.ARPA New user from LBL,Ludmilla Soroka,FTS/451-5011
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Nov 84 11:51:14 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 9 Nov 84 13:56-EST
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 84 10:45 pst
From: "soroka ludmilla%CMA"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Subject: New user from LBL,Ludmilla Soroka,FTS/451-5011
To: phil-sci@mit-mc.arpa
Please,add me to your list. My MFE network address is:
14447%dmalll-mfe.arpa
I am also interested how to access some of your older stuff.
Thanks!
Ludmilla Soroka,Lawrence Berkeley Lab.,Berkeley,California.
∂09-Nov-84 1203 MORGAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA William Croft's Dissertation Proposal
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Nov 84 12:03:17 PST
Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 12:00:36-PST
From: Nannette Morgan <MORGAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: William Croft's Dissertation Proposal
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
William Croft will present his dissertation proposal "Categories
and Relations in Syntax: The organization of information
at the clause level" on Tuesday, Nov. 20th at 3:15 in bldg 200
room 217. Please try to attend.
-------
∂09-Nov-84 1404 PETERS@SU-CSLI.ARPA Tickets to Bach's Magnificat
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Nov 84 14:03:55 PST
Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 13:59:18-PST
From: Stanley Peters <PETERS@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Tickets to Bach's Magnificat
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
I have two tickets to Bach's Magnificat at Davies Symphony Hall
in San Francisco for sale at cost ($16.00 each). The performance
is Saturday, November 17th at 8:30 pm. The seats are first tier,
row C, seats 6 and 8 (adjacent). If you are interested, please
send me a message or phone me at 497-2212.
-------
∂10-Nov-84 0235 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #32
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Nov 84 02:35:14 PST
Date: Friday, November 9, 1984 7:45PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584 Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V2 #32
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Saturday, 10 Nov 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 32
Today's Topics:
Puzzle - 3ARG Meta-Solution,
Implementations - Compilation & Performance & Concurrency,
LP Library - Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 84 10:53:30 -0200
From: Udi Shapiro <Wisdom!Udi%Israel.CSNet@CSNet-Relay>
Subject: A Solution to the Three-Argument Meta-call Puzzle
/*
** Flat Concurrent Prolog Interpreter.
** Jacob Levy, Colin Mierowski, Ehud Shapiro, Steve Taylor
** 23/05/84.
**
** Meta interpreter for FCP with abort signal. The interpreter
** deadlocks if the program deadlocks, but succeeds whether or
** not the program succeeded.
**
** Also handles 'otherwise'.
*/
call(G, Result, Halt) :-
reduce(G,Result,Halt?).
reduce(G,failure,abort).
reduce(true,success,←).
reduce((A,B),R,H) :-
reduce(A,R1,H),
reduce(B,R2,H),
combine←and(R1?,R2?,R).
reduce(A,R,H) :-
clauses(A,Cs) |
resolve(A,Cs,0,ME,failure,R,H).
reduce(A,R,H) :-
system(A) |
reduce←system(A,R).
reduce←system(A,success) :- A | true.
reduce←system(A,failure) :- otherwise | true.
resolve(←,←,←,←,←,failure,abort).
resolve(A,[C|Cs],N,ME,P,R,H) :-
unify(A,C,N,ME,R1,P,H),
N1:=N+1,
combine←or(P?,R1?,P1),
resolve(A,Cs,N1,ME,P1?,R2,H),
combine←or(R1?,R2?,R).
resolve(←,[],←,←,←,failure,←).
unify(←,←,←,←,←,failure,abort).
unify(A,(A:-otherwise|B),←,←,failure,R,H) :- reduce(B,R,H).
unify(←,(←:-otherwise|←),←,←,success,failure,←).
unify(A,(A:-G|B),N,ME,P,R,H) :- G\=otherwise | unify←guard
(G,B,N,ME,P,R,H).
unify(A,←,N,ME,←,failure,←) :- otherwise | true.
unify←guard(G,B,N,N,←,R,H) :-
G | reduce(B,R,H).
unify←guard(G,B,N,ME,R,R) :-
otherwise | true.
combine←or(success,←,success).
combine←or(←,success,success).
combine←or(failure,R,R).
combine←or(R,failure,R).
combine←and(success,sucess,success).
combine←and(failure,←,failure).
combine←and(←,failure,failure).
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 25-Aug-84 2:50:50-BST
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
Subject: "Conditional Compilation" in Prolog
Here at Edinburgh we have DEC-10 Prolog, C Prolog, Prolog-X,
Poplog, and a new implementation called NIP which may or may
not see the light of day sometime. They are similar enough
that one expects to run the same programs under them, but they
aren't similar enough for this to quite work. One reason for
the "Draft Proposed Standard" for built-in predicates is to
end this situation. But even with the dialect problem fixed,
there would still remain differences between operating systems,
e.g. Twenex, UNIX, VMS, and AEGIS have different ideas about
file names. Converting the library from one dialect to another
is a pain, and it is an multiple pain to have to keep multiple
copies of files. Other languages have encountered the same
problem, and they have the same answer: conditional compilation.
One
One idea would be to have a single set of master files and
stuff them through the C preprocessor. I like that idea, I like
it a lot. Too bad we can't do it on Bottoms-10... And the
snag is that you still end up with two copies of the files and
might load the wrong one by mistake.
What looks like the best idea is to copy #+ / #- from the
MacLisp family. (Yes, I know LM Prolog had it first.) However,
not the exact syntax. What seems like a reasonable idea is for
#+ question. if←true.
to parse the question as a Prolog term, call it as a goal, and
if it has a solution read the if←true term, but if it has not,
to skip the if←true term and read what follows. Similarly,
#- question. if←false.
would check \+question. Now for commands and clauses in a file
we can implement this trivially, except that #+ and #- have to
be preceded by an arrow, viz :- #+ .... and unfortunately it
would be quite painful to make the DEC-10 compiler understand
it (in arrow form). Implementing it properly, so that our own
programs can use the same mechanism for data they read, that
means modifying the parser. Again, quite a straightforward task
(if the parser is written in Prolog).
There is a third alternative, and that is to take C-Prolog's
"term←expansion" hook into the "expand←term" predicate, and to
have some macros such as "dec10(X) -> X" on DEC-10 systems and
"dec10(X) -> true" elsewhere. I don't like that much.
So do the readers of this Digest agree that it would be a good
thing to have #+ and #- built into read/1 and read/2? We could
have standard library predicates dialect(X) and os(X) so that
#+ os(tops10) ; dialect(prologX). % not sure about the latter
endsline(31).
#+ (os(unix) ; os(vms)), \+ dialect(prologX).
endsline(10).
------------------------------
Date: 28 Sep 84 9:25:43-PDT (Fri)
From: ihnp4!MIT-EDDIE!smh @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Metering Performance: LIPS?
The speed of Prolog implementations is usually quantified in Logical
Inferences Per Second (LIPS), but I have never seen specified exactly
what qualifies as a LI. The most obvious count is the number of times
the evaluator reaches an EXIT port (in the "box model"). This would
thus count each time a rule is satisfied, recursively including
satisfaction of subclauses. Can someone confirm that this convention?
However, depending on details of benchmark code and even coding style,
the number of EXIT ports reach may not be a very good measure of the
work the evaluator is doing. (It's a little like counting *lines* of
code executed by Pascal.) As the refutation of a clause is a useful
result, perhaps it would make more sense to count CALL ports instead?
It would seem important to include in this count satisfaction of
"facts", that is, rules with no subclauses, although this might be
awkward to meter in some database implementations.
There must be any number of interesting issues lurking under the
occasional LIPS figures we see.
-- Steve Haflich
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 21-Sep-84 15:36:28-BST
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
Subject: Flat Concurrent Prolog
My previous message on this said there were some missing
predicates. Here are some calling trees generated exactly
as shown. The idea is that if A calls B and C, and B calls
D, E, and A, and C calls B C and F the tree will look like
1 A
2 B
3 A % see 1
4 D
5 E
6 C
7 B % see 2
8 C % see 6
9 F
Anyrate, here's my Prolog.Log transcript.
Prolog ToolKit version 3 (7 May 1984)
?- ixref(['toplev.pl','compil.pl','runtim.pl','kernel.pl',
| 'trace.pl',
| 'unify.pl']).
yes
| ?- ct (fcpc)/1.
1 fcpc/1 % from compil.pl
2 fcpcomp/1 % from compil.pl
3 fcpcomp/1 % see 2
4 cputime/1 % from compil.pl
5 heapused/1 % from compil.pl
6 fcpcomp1/1 % from compil.pl
7 $abolished/1 % UNDEFINED
8 c←clause/2 % from compil.pl
9 c←c/4 % from compil.pl
10 c←args/5 % from compil.pl
11 c←unify/4 % from compil.pl
12 c←unify/4 % see 11
13 c←unify←args/6 % from compil.pl
14 c←unify/4 % see 11
15 c←unify←args/6 % see 13
16 c←args/5 % see 10
17 comp←guard/2 % from compil.pl
18 c←guard/2 % from compil.pl
19 c←guard/2 % see 18
20 c←w/3 % UNDEFINED
21 c←opt/3 % UNDEFINED
22 put←queue/3 % from compil.pl
23 put←queue/3 % see 22
24 body←kernel/2 % from kernel.pl
25 c←w/3 % UNDEFINED
26 c←w←all/3 % UNDEFINED
27 c←opt/3 % UNDEFINED
28 c←make←head/5 % from compil.pl
29 c←copy←args/3 % from compil.pl
30 c←copy←args/3 % see 29
31 c←make←head/5 % see 28
32 c←post/2 % from compil.pl
33 c←post/2 % see 32
34 c←post←args/3 % from compil.pl
35 c←post←args/3 % see 34
36 c←post/2 % see 32
37 c←otherwise/1 % UNDEFINED
yes
| ?- ct (fcp)/1.
1 fcp/1 % from toplev.pl
2 cputime/1 % from compil.pl
3 do←solve←in/4 % from toplev.pl
4 put←queue/3 % from compil.pl
5 put←queue/3 % see 4
6 body←kernel/2 % from kernel.pl
7 c←w/3 % UNDEFINED
8 c←w←all/3 % UNDEFINED
9 c←opt/3 % UNDEFINED
10 c←make←head/5 % from compil.pl
11 c←copy←args/3 % from compil.pl
12 c←copy←args/3 % see 11
13 solve←in←t/6 % from toplev.pl
14 do←read←solve←t/7 % from toplev.pl
15 solve←t/6 % from toplev.pl
16 deadlock/2 % from toplev.pl
17 get←queue/3 % from trace.pl
18 get←queue/3 % see 17
19 c←copy←args/3 % see 11
20 remove←useless←ro/2 % from runtim.pl
21 remove←useless←ro/2 % see 20
22 remove←useless←ro←args/3 % from runtim.pl
23 remove←useless←ro←args/3 % see 22
24 remove←useless←ro/2 % see 20
25 lettervars/1 % from trace.pl
26 varlist/2 % from trace.pl
27 varlist/3 % from trace.pl
28 varlist1/3 % from trace.pl
29 varlist/3 % see 27
30 varlist1/3 % see 28
31 unify←vars/2 % from trace.pl
32 unify←vars/2 % see 31
33 write←all←susp/1 % from toplev.pl
34 write←all←susp/1 % see 33
35 trace←kernel←reduction/2 % from trace.pl
36 fcpspied/1 % from trace.pl
37 remove←useless←ro/2 % see 20
38 lettervars/1 % see 25
39 solve←t←nd/6 % from toplev.pl
40 solve←t/6 % see 15
41 trace←kernel←reduction/2 % see 35
42 solve←t←nd/6 % see 39
43 trace←kernel←suspension/2 % from trace.pl
44 fcpspied/1 % see 36
45 remove←useless←ro/2 % see 20
46 lettervars/1 % see 25
47 trace←reduction/4 % from trace.pl
48 fcpspied/1 % see 36
49 get←queue/3 % see 17
50 c←copy←args/3 % see 11
51 remove←useless←ro/2 % see 20
52 lettervars/1 % see 25
53 print←reduction/2 % from trace.pl
54 print←reduction/2 % see 53
55 trace←suspension/2 % from trace.pl
56 fcpspied/1 % see 36
57 c←copy←args/3 % see 11
58 remove←useless←ro/2 % see 20
59 lettervars/1 % see 25
60 trace←kernel←suspension/2 % see 43
61 solve←t/6 % see 15
62 trace←reduction/4 % see 47
63 trace←suspension/2 % see 55
64 solve←in←t/6 % see 13
65 trace←kernel←reduction/2 % see 35
66 solve←in←t←nd/6 % from toplev.pl
67 solve←in←t/6 % see 13
68 trace←kernel←reduction/2 % see 35
69 solve←in←t←nd/6 % see 66
70 trace←kernel←suspension/2 % see 43
71 trace←reduction/4 % see 47
72 trace←suspension/2 % see 55
73 trace←kernel←suspension/2 % see 43
74 solve←in←t/6 % see 13
75 trace←reduction/4 % see 47
76 trace←suspension/2 % see 55
77 solve←in/6 % from toplev.pl
78 do←read←solve/7 % from toplev.pl
79 solve/6 % from toplev.pl
80 deadlock/2 % see 16
81 solve←nd/6 % from toplev.pl
82 solve/6 % see 79
83 solve←nd/6 % see 81
84 solve/6 % see 79
85 solve←in/6 % see 77
86 solve←in←nd/6 % from toplev.pl
87 solve←in/6 % see 77
88 solve←in←nd/6 % see 86
89 solve←in/6 % see 77
90 fcpstats/3 % from toplev.pl
91 do←solve/3 % from toplev.pl
92 put←queue/3 % see 4
93 solve←t/6 % see 15
94 solve/6 % see 79
yes
| ?- ct (fcpd)/1.
1 fcpd/1 % from toplev.pl
2 cputime/1 % from compil.pl
3 do←solve←df/3 % from toplev.pl
4 put←queue/3 % from compil.pl
5 put←queue/3 % see 4
6 body←kernel/2 % from kernel.pl
7 c←w/3 % UNDEFINED
8 c←w←all/3 % UNDEFINED
9 c←opt/3 % UNDEFINED
10 c←make←head/5 % from compil.pl
11 c←copy←args/3 % from compil.pl
12 c←copy←args/3 % see 11
13 solve←df←t/6 % UNDEFINED
14 solve←df/6 % UNDEFINED
15 fcpstats/3 % from toplev.pl
yes
| ?- ↑Z
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 2 October 1984 14:57:13 EDT
From: Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-K
Subject: Uppsala Conference Proceedings
From where can one order a copy of the July(?) 1984 conference
at Uppsala?
{ Write to: UPMail, Attn: Elisabeth Askebro
Department of Computer Science
Uppsala University
P.O. Box 2059
S-750-02 Uppsala, Sweden
the cost is $30.0US }
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 21-Sep-84 3:04:30
From: Chuck Restivo <Restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Revised version of "draf standard for ..."
An updated version of Richard O'Keefes proposal for a
standard is in SCORE:<Prolog>, broken up into the following
files:
PLSTD.MSS←STINTR
PLSTD.MSS←STERRS
PLSTD.MSS←STDESI
PLSTD.MSS←STNAME
PLSTD.MSS←STSTRS
PLSTD.MSS←STINTS
PLSTD.MSS←STLIST
PLSTD.MSS←STTYPE
PLSTD.MSS←STCTRL
PLSTD.MSS←STEXPR
PLSTD.MSS←STDATA
PLSTD.MSS←STPLIO
PLSTD.MSS←STMISC
PLSTD.MSS←STAPPS
The last one includes a number of the utility files,
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂11-Nov-84 1430 MACKINLAY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Bay Area Symbolics User Group Meeting 11/9
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Nov 84 14:27:50 PST
Date: Sat 10 Nov 84 13:26:48-PST
From: Jock Mackinlay <MACKINLAY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Bay Area Symbolics User Group Meeting 11/9
To: hpp-lisp-machines@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
This is a report of the 11/9/84 BARE-SLUG meeting.
The main items of news are:
1) Symbolics has announced IP/TCP as a product.
2) We heard details about Release 6 which is scheduled for April '85.
3) I got a copy of the User group library.
Following are the details about each of these items:
1) IP/TCP
Their IP/TCP supports TELNET, FTP, TFTP, and SMTP (Mail). They claim that
it should be easy to add special purpose protocols to their basic system.
There are two ways to pay for this product. Either you pay $3000 for each
system or $15000 for a site license and $150 for each system. Since we have 7
machines the site license is the way to go. $15000 is a lot of money and we
should see what deals we can strike with Symbolics.
Having a reliable mail, telnet and ftp would make our lisp machines much more
useful. However, IP/TCP does not solve one of our major problems which is
that our lisp machine disks are filled beyond capacity. What we need is a
foreign host like a VAX to be our SYS host. (A SYS host holds the system and
binary files and can be used in conjunction with MAKE-SYSTEM to hold our own
systems like HELIOS and MRS. This would free our local disks to hold world
loads and allow us to develop a standard mechanism for making backups.)
However, IP/TCP does not have sufficent functionality to support a SYS host.
As I see it, there are a number of alternatives open to us. The simplest is
to get IP/TCP and manually maintain files on a foreign host like SAFE (system
sources would still fill up one of our machines). We could also get
additional disk capacity for our SYS host lisp machine (FLAIR has done this by
buying the disk from a disk manufacturer and formating it themselves). We can
buy a Symbolics's VAX MVS Chaos server package and use a VAX as our SYS host.
I'm sure there are many other alternatives - maybe a staff person should look
into this. This problem is growing critical.
In conclusion, I think we should buy IP/TCP and all we need to decide is
who is going to pay for it.
2) Release 6 April '85
Software Functionality
SAGE - all system documentation will be online. However, we do not
have a SYS host that can hold it.
Command Processor - Lisp listeners will accept commands along with
lisp forms.
Common Lisp - The common lisp compatibility package.
Hardware
New FEP system - will make updates easier and less expensive.
Networking
Dialmail - no FTP.
New File Protocal - more robust.
Remote Login Server.
Performance
Emphemeral GC - this is very important for some of our applications.
Bug Fixes.
There is also a group working on long term projects. They are focusing
on User Interface and Programmer Support issues.
3) SLUG Program Library
You can get the User group library cart tape from me any time. I
have not had a chance to look at it.
The next meeting is January 11 at 2pm. There is also an open house
for the new education group Nov 29 at 25 Van Ness Avenue in SF.
An announcement will come around the SLUG list shortly.
Jock
-------
∂13-Nov-84 1715 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #34
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Nov 84 17:15:37 PST
Date: Sunday, November 11, 1984 1:31PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584 Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V2 #34
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Monday, 12 Nov 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 34
Today's Topics:
Query - Logic to Functions,
Implementations - Global Variables,
LP Library - Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 2 Nov 84 11:26:00-CST
From: CMP.BARC@UTEXAS-20
Subject: Compiling Logic to Functions
What work has been done on the problem of compiling logic
programs directly to combinators or supercombinators? I
have heard of John Hughes work, but have not yet obtained
his thesis, so I don't know just what he's done. There
has been a lot of work trying to build logic on top of a
functional programming system (e.g., Lindstrom and Panangaden,
Berkling, Ciepielewski and Haridi, Reddy, Carlsson, and Bruce
Smith), but most of it does not address the environment-free
world of combinators.
-- Dallas Webster
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 23-Oct-84 20:36:16-BST
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
Subject: Global variables?
Quite a while ago, I suggested a Prolog construct
H => C
"C is provable assuming H", and discussed the amazing difficulty of
implementing this using assert and retract as they stand. In order
to make it work without the disruption of the search order caused
by repeated assertion and retraction, we need a new primitive:
H => C :-
assert(H, Ref),
( call(C),
( flag(Ref,off) ; flag(Ref,on), fail )
; erase(Ref), fail
).
[It is interesting to note that while this is ok in Prolog-as-we-
know-it, ancestral cuts would result in present day reference-
counting heap managers forgetting to reclaim the clause H. This
because the cut could prune away the flag(Ref,off).]
Anyway, while this has quite a nice logical basis, the
implementation is tricky enough to do without it. But there is a
restricted form we could manage quite happily. What is basically
happening here is that every time C refers to H, it gets a new copy.
We can program that up (see <PROLOG>METUTL.PL) or it should be in
the Prolog system. Those systems which have a "subgoal←of"
("ancestor") predicate can use it to achieve exactly this effect
for one predicate. So we have
:- keep let/2. % Don't do TRO on me!
let(Head, Goal) :-
call(Goal).
val(Head) :-
subgoal←of(let(H,←)),
copy(H, Head).
val(Head) :-
static←val(Head).
Then this acts as if we had the initial definition
val(H) :- static←val(H)
and let(H,C) were
val(H) => C
Note that it is @i<important> that val @b<copy> the ancestor;
if it unified its argument against the original goal, that would
side-effect the original goal which would then cease to act as
if it were a "clause".
Very Important Note: it seems to me that this gives us a
LOGICAL analogue of "global variables". (It is interesting that
they naturally come out deep bound.) This would seem to open
the door to a clean way of handling I/O redirection:
fwritef(File, Format, List) :- % real predicate!
let(output(File), writef(Format,List)).
This has all the nice properties one might want, such as the
binding coming undone when you exit, being redone when you redo,
going away when you abort back to top level, ... It can even work
in the presence of ancestral cuts (is this a virtue I wonder).
[I'm not claiming that it makes *I/O* cleaner, just I/O *indirec
-tion* which is another thing entirely.]
-- Richard A. O'Keefe.
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 13-Oct-84 23:40:37-BST
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
Subject: New version of Writef
Writef now has a facility inspired by MacLisp/Franz Lisp's ~S
format code which you can use to indicate singular/plural. E.g.
+N :- writef('%d kni%4 cut%5 the rope.\n', [N,N,N]).
?- +1.
writes 1 knife cuts the rope.
?- +2.
writes 2 knives cut the rope.
+N :- writef('There %j %d attempt%1j.\n', [N,was,were,N,N]).
?- +1.
writes There was 1 attempt.
?- +2.
writes There were 2 attempts.
<PROLOG>WRITEF.PL is the Prolog source code
<PROLOG>WRITEF.HLP is the documentation
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 16-Oct-84 23:00:57-BST
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
Subject: An elementary "module" facility for DEC-10 Prolog
I've written one that hacks non-nesting modules by renaming
foo/5 private to bas as 'baz:foo'/5. All that it is really
meant for is making it possible to produce a new version of
the Prolog library with no name collisions.
[ this is available as MODULE.PL on <Prolog> ]
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 8-Oct-84 23:01:06-BST
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
Subject: New library file(s)
I've just sent two files to <Prolog>: IDBACK.PL and IDBACK.DEF.
The code comes from Luis Moniz Pereira & Antonio Porto, and is
a simplified version of their "intelligent backtracking" idea.
It only works for simple function-free cut-free code, as it is
supposed to. I think the code is right, it worked on the tests
I tried.
------------------------------
Date: Sat 10 Nov 84 10:55:19-PST
From: Chuck Restivo <Restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Update
The following files have been added to the SCORE: <Prolog> library.
They can be FTP'd using anonymous login conventions. If you have
any problems, let me know.
BETWEEN.PL ! O'Keefe, generates integers
BUNDLE.PL ! O'Keefe, bundle and unbundle files
FCP←COMPILER.PL ! Colin Mierowsky + Udi Shapiro, version
! without garbage.
IDBACK.PL ! Luis Moniz Pereira + Antonio Porto,
! backtracking database interpreter.
IDBACK.DEF ! O'Keefe, "unit" interface clauses for
! IDBACK.PL
LISTUT.PL ! has some new predicates
MERGE.PL ! O'Keefe, SPELL utility
RANDOM.PL ! O'KEEFE, taken from an article in Applied
! Statistics. Has a very long period and
! doesen't have the "nonrandom lower bits
! problem".
XGPROC.PL ! Fernando Pereira's XG preprocessor
XRFTTY.PL ! David Bowen, terminal interaction for XREF
XRFOUT.PL ! Output module for XREF
XREF.HLPOO ! Documentation for Cross-Referencer
XREF ! The Cross-Referencer
XREF.DEF ! David Bowen + Chris Mellish System
! definition for use w/XREF
XREF.MICOO ! Auto load XREF
XREF.REFERENCE ! Bugs and comments about XREF
XRFCOL.PL
XRFTST.FOO
XRFTST.BAR
XRFCCLOO
XRFBUGOO
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂14-Nov-84 0239 @SU-SCORE.ARPA,@SU-CSLI.ARPA:GOGUEN@SRI-AI.ARPA Re: Discourse Representation Theory
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 02:39:16 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Nov 84 02:38:50-PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Sun 11 Nov 84 17:50:14-PST
Date: Sun 11 Nov 84 17:50:02-PST
From: Joseph A. Goguen <GOGUEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Discourse Representation Theory
To: SELLS@SU-CSLI.ARPA, folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: GOGUEN@SRI-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "PETER SELLS <SELLS@SU-CSLI.ARPA>" of Wed 31 Oct 84 16:11:42-PST
Peter,
I am very interested in your talk on Kamp's Discourse Representation
Theory -- but unfortunately, I am scheduled to give a talk in the F-1
Project meeting on how to unite qualitative and quantitative theories of
information at the same time, 1:00 on Tuesday, 27 November -- hopefully not
exactly the same place! Maybe we can find some way to avoid the conflict,
so I can attend both?
Joseph
-------
∂14-Nov-84 0240 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:JOHN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: Discourse Representation Theory
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 02:40:20 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Nov 84 02:39:50-PST
Date: Sun 11 Nov 84 18:34:14-PST
From: John Perry <JOHN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Discourse Representation Theory
To: GOGUEN@SRI-AI.ARPA
cc: SELLS@SU-CSLI.ARPA, folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, JOHN@SU-CSLI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Joseph A. Goguen <GOGUEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>" of Sun 11 Nov 84 17:50:45-PST
Except for this coming Tuesday, F1 meets alternative tuesdays at 3;15, not
1.
-------
∂14-Nov-84 0241 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BRIGET@SU-CSLI.ARPA Lunch wagon
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 02:41:18 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Nov 84 02:40:50-PST
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 09:43:01-PST
From: Briget Malone <BRIGET@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Lunch wagon
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Pentti and I were talking about the lunch wagon that stops across the street,
and he went over to talk with the woman that drives the truck, he asked her
if she wouldn't mind coming over after her rounds there. She said the only
time she could make it over would be around 1:00. She wants to know how
many people would like to take advantage of this so we could schedual it with
her. Sometimes we get so busy that we forget to take a lunch or we wait until
later so we don't get hung up with the crowds at 12:00.
So any of you that are interested please send a brief note to me so I can
make a list and then decide if enough people would be interested.
By know means does this obligate you to buy every day.
Thankyou for your attention,
Briget
-------
∂14-Nov-84 0244 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:MORGAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA William Croft's dissertation proposal
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 02:44:24 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Nov 84 02:43:56-PST
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 13:37:37-PST
From: Nannette Morgan <MORGAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: William Croft's dissertation proposal
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
William Croft will give his dissertation proposal "Categories
and Relations in Syntax: The organization of information
at the clause level" on Tuesday, Nov. 20th, at 3:15 in
Bldg. 200 room 217.
-------
∂14-Nov-84 0247 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:MMACKEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Study Group Meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 02:47:16 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Nov 84 02:46:51-PST
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 17:17:54-PST
From: Marcy Macken <MMACKEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Study Group Meeting
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
The organizational meeting for the CSLI study group on psychology
is this Tuesday at 1:15 in the Ventura conference room (November 13).
-------
∂14-Nov-84 0256 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #35
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 02:56:01 PST
Date: Tuesday, November 13, 1984 9:12AM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584 Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V2 #35
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Wednesday, 14 Nov 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 35
Today's Topics:
Implementations - Logic to Functions & LM-P & DCG's,
Puzzle - Open Problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 15:24:46 gmt
From: Bill Clocksin <WFCwfc%CamJenny@UCL-CS>
Subject: Compiling Logic to Functions
CMP.BARC asked for information concerning compilation of Prolog into
combinators. Strictly speaking, this does not make much sense, as
combinators are used (operationally) to "steer" arguments into the
appropriate parts of a lambda expression when the expression is
copied (say during beta reduction). There is, however, an *analogy*
with compilation of Prolog, which is exploited by some systems,
including Prolog-X. The machine instructions generated by the
Prolog-X compiler are very similar in *purpose* to combinators, but
I have refrained from calling them combinators for reasons of modesty.
This gives a variable-free representation (*not* environment-free
as CMP.BARC incorrectly says) in which terms are copied (instead of
structure-shared). I suppose you could say that nearly any copying
scheme (with some qualifications) could be said to use combinators
(the instructions generated; only a few are needed), modulo the fact
that we are not dealing with the lambda calculus.
The beauty of a true combinator scheme is the simplicity of the data
structures used (speaking operationally), and it would be possible
(but not very efficient) to construct Prolog terms the same way.
For more information, refer to the papers (in various Lisp
conferences) on the Cambridge SKIM machine.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 23:22:28-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-Reddy@UTAH-20>
Subject: Compiling Logic to Functions
The only work I know on compiling logic to functions:
1. Bellia , Levi, Martelli: On compiling Prolog programs on
demand driven architectures, Logic Programming Workshop,
Albufeira, '83
2. Reddy: Transformation of logic programs to functional
programs, ISLP, Atlantic City, 84.
The two pieces of work are similar. They should be distinguished
from other pieces of work cited by Webster (Lindstrom and Panangaden,
Carlsson, Bruce Smith) which interpret logic in a functional language
rather than compile a logic language into a functinal language.
The translation approach has limitations in that it needs mode
annotations (either from the programmer or chosen by the compiler)
and it cannot handle "logical variables". I don't know of any work
that overcomes these limitations. Personally, I believe they cannot
be overcome. One can probably prove this assertion, provided one
can formalize the difference between translation and interpretation.
Combinator calculus is equivalent to lambda calculus, and there are
translators available from one to the other. So, using combinators
neither simplifies nor complicates the problem.
-- Uday Reddy
------------------------------
Date: 12 Nov 84 11:06 PST
From: Kahn.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: LM-Prolog and DCG's
In answer to John Burge's questions in V2 #33:
My experiences using LM-Prolog have been very positive
but I am surely not an un-biased judge (being one of the
co-authors of the system). (I am tempted to give a
little ad for LM-Prolog here, but will refrain. Interested
parties can contact me directly.)
Regarding the Grammar Kit, the main thing that distinguishes
it from other DCGs is that it can continuously maintain a
parse tree. The tree is drawn as parses are considered and
parts of it disappear upon backtracking. I have found this
kind of dynamic graphic display very useful for explaining
Prolog and DCGs to people as well as debugging specific
grammars.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 08:58:59-PST
From: Chuck Restivo <Restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Problem
This problem is from the Association of Automated Reasoning
Newsletter No. 3.
Identities of Real Exponentiation (from C.W. Henson)
Consider terms built up from variables and the constand l using
the binary function symbols +, . , and exp. We interpret these
terms in the natural way over the positive integer N or the
positive real numbers R+. Let @i(ID) be the set of equations
t1 = t2 which are valid under these interpretations (By classical
results of G.H. Hardy, the valid identities over N are exactly the
same as over R+. The set @i(ID) is recursive by results from
Macintyre (Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 890).
We are interested in the formal derivability of identities, using
rules of inference in equational logic. For example, it is an
open problem whether there exists a finite set E!subsetID such
that every identity in ID can be derived from E.
Alfred Tarski raised the question whether every identity in ID
can be derived from the familiar set of "high school algebra
identities":
/ 1↑x=x↑1=1x=x1=x
| x+y=y+x,xy=yx
|x+(y+z)=(x+y)+z, x(yz)=(xy)z
(HS) | x(y+z)=x↑y * xz
| x↑(y+z)=x↑y * x↑z
| x↑y+z=x↑y * x↑z
| (xy)↑z=x↑z * xy↑z
\ (x↑y)↑z=x↑yz
Alec Wilkie answered the question negatively by showing that the
identity
(W) ((x+1)↑x+(x↑2+x+1)↑x)↑y ((x↑3+1)spy+(x↑4+x↑2+1)↑y))↑z
((x+1)↑y+(x↑2+x+1)↑y)↑x ((x↑3+1)↑x+(x↑4+x↑2+1)↑x)↑y
cannot be derived from (HS). (The fact that it is valid over R+
can easily be shown by considering the factorx↑2-x+1)↑xy; note
that this is not a term in the formal language being considered
here.)
v
Wilkie's argument used proof theory. More recently R. Gurevic
presented a 59-element model in which Tarski's high school
identities are true and Wilkie's identity is false. The same
kind of result can also be proved when y in (W) is replaced
by a sufficiently complicated term in x alone, for example, x↑x.
Given this background, consider the following test problems for
automated theorem-proving testing systems:
(A) Verify that (W) cannot be derived from (HS).
(B) Find a finite model for (HS) in which (W) is false. How
small can such a model be?
(C) Do (A) and (B) for identities obtained from (W) by replacing
y by x↑x or other terms in x alone. (Especially interesting is
y=x↑2.)
(D) Find "simpler" identities than (W) that are valid over R+, but
cannot be derived from (HS).
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂14-Nov-84 0401 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Wednesday Tea
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 04:01:20 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Nov 84 04:00:52-PST
Date: Tue 13 Nov 84 12:50:57-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Wednesday Tea
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
"CSLI Policy on Funding of Research"
Wednesday Tea, Nov 14, 3:30
Later today, or early tomorrow, Barbara Grosz will send out a draft of
a proposed policy on military funding of our research, one that grew
out of the meetings we had last month. We want to discuss this so
that we can give a copy to President Kennedy and Sidney Drell, who are
giving a CSLI colloquium early next month on this issue. The idea is
that they should know where we are in our general thinking, so that
they will know what kinds of points they want to make to us. So
please read the document Barbara sends out and come to tea if
possible.
-------
∂14-Nov-84 0423 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:NISSENBAUM@SU-CSLI.ARPA F-3 Meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 04:23:44 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Nov 84 04:23:07-PST
Date: Tue 13 Nov 84 12:05:43-PST
From: Helen Nissenbaum <NISSENBAUM@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: F-3 Meeting
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
F-3 MEETING
Time: Wednesday, 21st Nov. Noon.
Place: Ventura Conference Room
The F-3 group is meeting on Nov 21, to discuss Turing's "On Computable
Numbers with an Application to the Entsheidungsproblem." Anyone
interested is invited to join the discussion. Ingrid Deiwiks has
copies of the paper. (Jon Barwise suggested that we concentrate on
sections 1,2,3,8, and 9.)
This is the first of a number of meetings devoted to issues in the
foundations of computation. If you would like to attend these
meetings you should ask Emma Pease to put you on the F-3 mailing list
because future meetings will be announced through that mailing list
only.
-------
∂14-Nov-84 0424 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Use of CSLI Copier
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 04:24:50 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Nov 84 04:24:17-PST
Date: Tue 13 Nov 84 12:35:19-PST
From: Betsy Macken <BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Use of CSLI Copier
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Our copier (in Room 7) is suffering under the heavy use it is getting.
We know that the easy access we allow to it is very convenient for
you, and we'd like to keep it that way. Our intent has always been
that the copier would be used only for CSLI business, but, of course,
we knew it would occasionally be used for other purposes. We assumed,
however, that personal use would be limited; we thought monitoring to
prevent personal use would not be worth the inconvenience it would
cause you.
In fact, the total volume is much greater than we anticipated when
selecting the machine, and we think this is due to a much higher
quantity of personal use. The resulting repair bills are high, and
the down time is hampering those who do need the copier for CSLI work.
Soooo... we need to ask you not to use the copier for anything other
than CSLI work. We don't want to reduce the access to it, but will
need to if this request doesn't reduce the use.
B.
-------
∂14-Nov-84 0453 @SU-SCORE.ARPA,@SU-CSLI.ARPA:STUCKY@SRI-AI.ARPA Tinlunch Reading
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 04:53:16 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Nov 84 04:51:45-PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Tue 13 Nov 84 14:05:46-PST
Date: Tue 13 Nov 84 14:05:53-PST
From: Susan Stucky <Stucky@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Tinlunch Reading
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
The reading for Tinlunch is a bit late this week (due to some problems with
the copier and, oh, all right, the Tinlunch discussant), but it's now
available at the usual places. The subject is university/industry
relations in general, and CSLI/industry relations in particular. I
hope all of you will attend; the relevance of the topic to the whole research
community is so obvious that you should need little persuasion to come.
-Susan
-------
∂14-Nov-84 0947 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: NOV. 16, 1984
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 09:46:50 PST
Date: Wed 14 Nov 84 09:46:00-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: NOV. 16, 1984
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
There will be no SIGLUNCH this week.
Paula
-------
∂14-Nov-84 1215 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Nov. 20
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 84 12:15:40 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.39)
id AA03088; Tue, 13 Nov 84 14:44:51 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA03902; Tue, 13 Nov 84 14:40:54 pst
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 84 14:40:54 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8411132240.AA03902@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Nov. 20
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
←λF←λa←λl←λl ←λ1←λ9←λ8←λ4
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A
TIME: Tuesday, November 20, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Susan Carey; MIT Psychology Department;
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
Sciences
TITLE: ``Conceptual Change in Childhood''
ABSTRACT: In the tradition of recent Cognitive Studies
tutorials, this paper is a tutorial on the
proper description of cognitive development.
At issue is the status of the claim that
young children think differently from older
children and adults. This claim is often
contrasted with the claim that children
differ from adults ←λm←λe←λr←λe←λl←λy in knowing less.
I review the kinds of phenomena that parti-
cipants in the debate take as relevant to
deciding the issue. Finally, I argue that a
third position, in which the phenomenon of
conceptual change is taken seriously, avoids
the pitfalls of the original Piagetian posi-
tion while allowing for its successes.
I exemplify the third position by sketching
a recently completed case study of the emer-
gence of biology as an independent domain of
intuitive theorizing in the first decade of
life. I will conclude by raising the ques-
tion of the relation between conceptual
change in childhood and conceptual change in
the history of science.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
November 27: Walter Michaels and Steven Knapp, English
Dept, UC Berkeley
December 4: Thomas Bever, Psychology Dept, Columbia
University (rescheduled from October 23)
∂14-Nov-84 1828 CLT SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
To: "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Speaker: Professor Christian Mez, visiting U.C. Berkeley
Title: HNN-Extensions of algebras and applications
Place: Room 381-T, 1st floor Math. Corner, Stanford University
Time: Monday November 19, 4:15-5:30 p.m.
Abstract: HNN(Higman-Nuemann-Neumann) theorems have to do
with embeddings of recursively presented algebraic structures
in finitely presented structures of the same type, and
consequences for solvability (or unsolvability) of the word
problem for such structures.
There will be a no-host dinner at some local restuarant after
the talk.
S. Feferman
∂15-Nov-84 0235 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA FUnding policy
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Nov 84 02:35:47 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 15 Nov 84 02:34:42-PST
Date: Tue 13 Nov 84 19:47:48-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: FUnding policy
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
In the following messae I will send the most recent DRAFT of a policy
on research funding. It is a DRAFT, open for discussion, both now,
and when Kennedy and Drell meet with us.
-------
∂15-Nov-84 0237 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Draft
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Nov 84 02:37:49 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 15 Nov 84 02:36:42-PST
Date: Tue 13 Nov 84 19:48:26-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Draft
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
P
Draft of Policy Statement
Research at The Center for the Study of Language and Information
(CSLI) is directed towards the development of theories in the area of
language and information. The research is basic, rather than
mission-oriented. The effort to found CSLI reflected an appreciation
of the importance of this basic research, the advantages of pursuing
it in a multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional setting, and the
difficulty of securing long-term funding for such research.
We recognize that a large part of the importance of such basic
research is its promise for improved technology, with all the social
benefits that can bring. We also recognize that basic research
benefits by close connections with mission-oriented projects. An
appreciation of these facts is reflected in the structure of CSLI,
that it is a joint effort of university and industry.
The importance of research, however, lies not only in the improved
technology to which it can lead, but also in the improved understanding
it can provide of the limits, consequences, and dangers of technology.
In a research environment in which almost all projects are tied to
specific missions, particularly if the number of sponsors is small,
there is a well-documented tendency to exaggerate possibilities and
results to assure continued funding. The character of CSLI, and its
success in securing funding for basic research, puts us in a favorable
position to avoid this tendency, and to encourage research that
critically assesses technologies that are related to our areas of
research. This opportunity, because unusual and important, brings
with it a measure of responsibility.
In the light of these points, the Research Program of CSLI should:
1) Remain oriented towards basic research, and aim towards
diversified sources of funding;
2) Develop research projects concerned with the limitations,
consequences, and dangers of computer technology;
3) Embark on a program of education, to disperse the results
of this research;
4) Encourage, insofar as is in its power, the development of
funding sources for research in language and information
that is not tied to particular missions; and
5) Pursue research not only that is not classified, but also
that can be funded without distortion of its possibilities
and results.
It is the joint responsibility of the Director and Executive Committee of
CSLI to maintain these policies.
-------
∂15-Nov-84 0251 @SU-SCORE.ARPA,@SU-CSLI.ARPA:RPERRAULT@SRI-AI.ARPA Funding statement
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Nov 84 02:51:37 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 15 Nov 84 02:50:26-PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Nov 84 08:14:42-PST
Date: Wed 14 Nov 84 08:14:57-PST
From: Ray Perrault <RPERRAULT@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Funding statement
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: rperrault@SRI-AI.ARPA
I agree with the spirit of the funding statement, but I think that the
current order in which the five points are presented suggest that the
primary subject of our research will be the study of the social
implications of research on language and information. While I believe
that subject to be important, it is not our main enterprise.
Diversification of funding, the avoidance of mission-oriented funding,
and our refusal to engage in classified research are all justifiable
as being the best ways we can achieve the program set out in our
proposal to SDF, and therefore ought to be kept in front. I suggest
changing the five points to something like this:
1) Remain oriented towards basic research, and aim towards
diversified sources of funding;
2) Encourage, insofar as is in its power, the development of
funding sources for research in language and information
that is not tied to particular missions;
3) Pursue research not only that is not classified, but also
that can be funded without distortion of its possibilities
and results; and
4) Develop research projects concerned with the limitations,
consequences, and dangers of computer technology and
embark on a program of education to disperse the results
of this research.
-------
∂15-Nov-84 0257 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Nov 84 02:57:44 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 15 Nov 84 02:56:38-PST
Date: Wed 14 Nov 84 09:26:13-PST
From: Eckart Forster <FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Phil. Dept. Colloquium
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT COLLOQUIUM
Speaker: Barry Smith (Manchester)
Title: "On the Ontology of Cognition: Husserlian Reflections"
Time: Friday, November 16, 3:15
Place: Philosophy Seminar Room 90-92Q
Abstract: My talk will be an application of the ideas in logic and formal
ontology put forward by Husserl, particularly in his 3rd Logical
Investigation ("On the Theory of Wholes and Parts"), to the under-
standing of the structures of cognitive acts. I want to deal
especially with the relations between cognitive acts and their
objects in cases which involve indexical uses of language (the
relation between language and perception).
-------
∂15-Nov-84 0308 @SU-SCORE.ARPA,@SU-CSLI.ARPA:MESEGUER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Nov 84 03:07:49 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 15 Nov 84 03:06:43-PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Wed 14 Nov 84 10:17:34-PST
Date: Wed 14 Nov 84 10:17:38-PST
From: MESEGUER@SRI-AI.ARPA
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
2:30 p.m. (note the 15 min. delay on the usual time) CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall "Natural Language from the Standpoint of Artificial
Intelligence" by John McCarthy
Discussant will be Bob Moore
ABSTRACT
Natural language from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence
by John McCarthy
Abstract: An intelligent individual, human or computer program, must
act on the basis of what it believes in advance modified by what it
observes and what it learns from linguistic communication. Thinking
about how the achievement of goals is helped by communication leads
to a somewhat different point of view from one derived mainly from
study of the corpus of spoken and written language. Namely,
1. Communication should be regarded as a modifier of state of mind.
2. The most basic form of communication is the single word sentence
uttered under conditions in which the speaker and hearer share enough
knowledge so that the single word suffices. The complete sentence
develops under conditions in which the speaker and the hearers share
less context.
3. Many of the characteristics of language are determined by so far
unrecognized requirements of the communication situation. They will
apply to machines as well as people.
4. An effort to make a Common Business Communication Languages for
for commercial communication among machines belonging to different
organizations exhibits interesting problems of the semantics of
language.
-------
-------
∂15-Nov-84 0401 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Nov. 15, No. 5
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Nov 84 04:01:25 PST
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 15 Nov 84 04:00:08-PST
Date: Wed 14 Nov 84 17:55:17-PST
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Nov. 15, No. 5
To: Friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA, Newsreaders@SU-CSLI.ARPA
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
November 15, 1984 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 5
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1984
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``CSLI and Industry: Where do we go from here?''
Conference Room Discussion led by Susan Stucky
2:30 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Natural Language from the Standpoint of
Room G-19 Artificial Intelligence'' by John McCarthy
Discussant will be Bob Moore. (Please NOTE that
today's seminar will be held at 2:30.)
(Abstract on page 2)
3:45 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall Because of today's delayed Seminar schedule, teatime
will be at 3:45.
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium today.
Room G-19
****************************************************************************
The Newsletter will not appear on Thanksgiving Thursday,
November 22. Publication resumes on Thursday, November 29.
Have a nice Thanksgiving.
****************************************************************************
SCHEDULE FOR ***THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29,*** 1984
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Title to be announced
Conference Room Discussion led by Lauri Carlson
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Parsing Acoustic Events''
Room G-19 by Meg Withgott
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium today. The following Thursday,
Room G-19 December 6, there will be a discussion of DOD
funding by Donald Kennedy, President, Stanford,
and Sydney Drell, Dep. Dir., SLAC.
John Etchemendy, Host
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter November 15, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT COLLOQUIUM
Speaker: Barry Smith (Manchester)
Title: ``On the Ontology of Cognition: Husserlian Reflections''
Time: Friday, November 16, 3:15
Place: Philosophy Seminar Room 90-92Q
ABSTRACT: My talk will be an application of the ideas in logic and formal
ontology put forward by Husserl, particularly in his 3rd Logical
Investigation (``On the Theory of Wholes and Parts''), to the understanding
of the structures of cognitive acts. I want to deal especially with the
relations between cognitive acts and their objects in cases which involve
indexical uses of language (the relation between language and perception).
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF TODAY'S SEMINAR
``Natural language from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence''
An intelligent individual, human or computer program, must act on the basis
of what it believes in advance modified by what it observes and what it
learns from linguistic communication. Thinking about how the achievement
of goals is helped by communication leads to a somewhat different point of
view from one derived mainly from study of the corpus of spoken and written
language. Namely,
1. Communication should be regarded as a modifier of state of mind.
2. The most basic form of communication is the single word sentence
uttered under conditions in which the speaker and hearer share enough
knowledge so that the single word suffices. The complete sentence
develops under conditions in which the speaker and the hearers share
less context.
3. Many of the characteristics of language are determined by so far
unrecognized requirements of the communication situation. They will
apply to machines as well as people.
4. An effort to make a Common Business Communication Languages for
commercial communication among machines belonging to different
organizations exhibits interesting problems of the semantics of
language.
---John McCarthy
←←←←←←←←←←←←
DISSERTATION PROPOSAL
William Croft will present his dissertation proposal ``Categories and
Relations in Syntax: The organization of information at the clause level''
on Tuesday, November 20, at 3:15 p.m. in bldg 200 room 217.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI REPORT
A final edition of Report No. CSLI-9-84, ``The Implementation of Procedurally
Reflective Languages'' by Jim des Rivieres and Brian Cantwell Smith, has just
been published. Copies may be obtained by writing to Dikran Karagueuzian
at the Center (Dikran at SU-CSLI).
!Page 3 CSLI Newsletter November 15, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI WORKSHOP ON THE SEMANTICS OF PROGRAMS
Tuesday, December 4, 1984
Location: The Bach Dancing and Dynamite Society, Princeton CA
(a suburb of Half-Moon Bay)
One of the central concerns within CSLI is semantics--how forms in a
language can be characterized as conveying meaning in relation to some world
of concern. There are long-standing traditions for the study of natural
language semantics, and CSLI projects have been extending and reinterpreting
them. There is a briefer, but substantial, tradition for the study of the
semantics of programming languages. Over the past few months, there have
been a series of presentations and discussions about similarities and
differences between the semantic accounts of natural and computational
languages. Theories of natural language semantics have raised a number of
issues, of which only some have received adequate attention in the semantics
of programming languages. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss how some
of these theories can give rise to better accounts of the relation between
programs/program executions and the world. Participation in the workshop
is by invitation only. If you are interested in being invited to the
workshop, contact Ole Lehrmann Madsen (Madsen at SU-CSLI). If you have any
questions regarding the workshop you may contact Terry Winograd
(TW at SU-SAIL) or Ole Lehrmann Madsen.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA F--3 MEETING
Time: Wednesday, November 21, noon.
Place: Ventura Seminar Room
The F-3 group will meet on November 21, at noon, to discuss Turing's ``On
Computable Numbers with an Application to the Entsheidungsproblem.'' Copies
of the paper may be obtained from Ingrid Deiwiks in Ventura, Room 20 (Ingrid
at SU-CSLI). (The discussion will concentrate on sections 1,2,3,8, and 9.)
This is the first of a number of meetings devoted to issues in the foun-
dations of computation. Those who would like to attend these meetings can
ask Emma Pease (Emma at SU-CSLI) to put their names on the F-3 mailing list.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA P--1 MEETING
This week's CSLI perception (P--1) meeting will join with NASA's perception
and cognition seminar:
Who: Susan Brennan
From: HP Labs
When: 12 noon, Wednesday, November 14, 1984.
Where: Room 177, Building 239, NASA Ames Research Center
What: Charicatures From Images
A fascinating talk and videotape about representing human faces and
automatic charicaturing of them. For information on how to get to Ames,
call 415-694-6584.
!Page 4 CSLI Newsletter November 15, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF LAST WEEK'S SEMINAR
Phil Cohen of SRI gave a seminar in which he claimed that illocutionary act
recognition is not necessary for engaging in communicative interaction.
Rather, engaging in such interaction requires intent/plan recognition. In
support of this claim, he presented a formalism, being developed with Hector
Levesque (Univ. of Toronto), that showed how illocutionary acts could be
defined in terms of plans --- i.e., as beliefs about the conversants' shared
knowledge of the speaker's and hearer's goals and the causal consequences
of achieving those goals. In this formalism, illocutionary acts are no
longer conceptually primitive, but rather amount to theorems that can be
proven about a state-of-affairs. As an illustration, the definition of a
direct request was derived from an independently-motivated theory of action,
rather than stipulated. Just as one need not determine if a proof
corresponds to a prior lemma, a hearer need not actually characterize the
consequences of each utterance in terms of the IA theorems, but can simply
infer and respond to the speaker's goals. However, the hearer could
retrospectively summarize a complex of utterances as satisfying an
illocutionary act. Moreover, it was claimed that the framework can
characterize a range of indirect speech acts as lemmas, which can be derived
from and integrated with plan-based reasoning. The discussant, Ivan Sag,
related the theory to Gricean maxims of conversation, and to the ``standard''
view of how pragmatics fits into a theory of linguistic communication.
-------
∂15-Nov-84 1119 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Speech seminar on Tuesday
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Nov 84 11:18:53 PST
Return-Path: <JAR@CRVAX>
Received: from CRVAX.ARPA (SRI-VAX.ARPA.#Internet) by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Thu 15 Nov 84 09:44:12-PST
Date: Thu 15 NOV 84 09:42:28 pst
From: JAR <JAR@CRVAX>
To: FRIENDS@SU-CSLI
Subject: Speech seminar on Tuesday
ReSent-Date: Thu 15 Nov 84 11:12:36-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
SEMINAR at SRI
"Speaking up: the acoustic-phonetic consequences of talking in noise."
Prof. David Pisoni
Dept. of Psychology, Indiana University
Time: 1:30 on Tuesday November 20th.
Place: Building E at SRI, Room EL115
∂15-Nov-84 1141 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA AFLB talks
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Nov 84 11:41:05 PST
Date: Thu 15 Nov 84 11:07:37-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: AFLB talks
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Today:
11/15/84 - Chris Van Wyk (ATT - Bell Labs)
"Space Efficient Algorithms for VLSI Artwork Analysis"
Next week:
A.T.Urkey, P.O.Tatoes, and others:
"Fast algorithms for internal buffer filling"
Two weeks from now:
11/29/84 - Gilles Brassard (UC Berkeley and Universite de Montreal)
"Quantum cryptography"
Abstract will be mailed later.
-------
∂15-Nov-84 1714 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Scheduling algorithm questions
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Nov 84 17:14:12 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 15 Nov 84 17:11:39-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 15 Nov 84 19:06:35 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 15 Nov 84 11:33:14 cst
Message-Id: <8411151639.AA10860@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from RUTGERS.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Thu, 15 Nov 84 10:39:52 cst
Date: 15 Nov 84 11:38:40 EST
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Scheduling algorithm questions
To: theory@WISC-CRYS.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
I want an online algorithm for preemptive scheduling on a single processor
with release times and deadlines (no precedence relations). This problem
is trivial offline, but I want to be able to add new jobs (or determine
they cannot be added) in polylog time. Has anyone looked at this problem?
Paul Dietz (dietz@rutgers)
-------
∂15-Nov-84 2311 MMACKEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Friday Study Group Meeting
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Nov 84 23:11:45 PST
Date: Thu 15 Nov 84 23:09:17-PST
From: Marcy Macken <MMACKEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Friday Study Group Meeting
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
The organizational meeting for the CSLI study group on psychology
continues tomorrow, Friday (November 16), at 1:30 in the Ventura
conference room.
-------
∂18-Nov-84 1337 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Wednesday Tea
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Nov 84 13:37:06 PST
Date: Sun 18 Nov 84 13:35:02-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Wednesday Tea
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Because it is the day before Thanksgiving, there will not be a fixed
topic for tea this Wednesday. There will be tea, though, so come and
talk with friends and colleagues.
-------
∂19-Nov-84 0233 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #36
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Nov 84 02:33:27 PST
Date: Sunday, November 18, 1984 3:36PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584 Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V2 #36
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Monday, 19 Nov 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 36
Today's Topics:
Implementations - Compiling Logic,
Puzzles - C.Morgan Problem,
LP Library - Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu 15 Nov 84 19:31:17-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-Reddy@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Compiling Logic to Functions
To add to my previous message on the topic, the fact that the
effect of logical variables cannot be achieved in functional
languages is not a linguistic limitation but an operational one.
Specifically, all logic predicates are boolean-valued functions.
So, all Horn clauses can be directly translated into function
equations.
A :- B1, ..., Bn. => A = and(B1,...,Bn)
A. => A = true
However, in traditional functional languages the translated
logic programs can only be used for rewriting. They cannot be
used to solve goals with variables in them.
If "narrowing" rather than "rewriting" is used as the operational
semantics of functional programs, they too can be used to solve
goals and the effect of logical variables is achieved. For more
details, see
Hullot, Canonical forms and unification, Conf. Automated Deduction,
1980.
Lindstrom, Functional programming and the logical variable, to
appear, POPL 85.
Reddy, On the relationship between logic and functional languages,
to appear in, Degroot, Lindstrom, Functional and Logic programming,
Prentice-Hall, '85.
-- Uday Reddy
------------------------------
Date: Sun 18 Nov 84 15:22:44-PST
From: Chuck Restivo <Restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: C. Morgan Problem
[ From the Association of Automated Reasoning Newsletter No. 3 ]
Logic Problems
(from C. Morgan)
Charles Morgan from the University of Victoria has sent in some
logic problems. These are not open problems, but they do provide
some interesting dificulties for theorem provers or reasoning
programs in general. The axioms are as follows:
1.] P(i)x,i(y,x)))
2.] P(i(i(x,i(y,z)),i(i(x,y),i(x,z))))
3.] P(i(i(n(y)),i(y,x)))
*****
misprints
Chuck, there are obvious misprints in your axioms from C. Morgan. For
example, the parentheses don't match. I think 1 and 3 should be as
follows:
1.] P(i(x,i(y,x)))
3.] P(i(n(y),i(y,x)))
*****
4.] If P(i(x,y)) & P(x) then P(y)
Roughly speaking, P means "is provable", i means "implies", and n
means "not". Thus Axiom 4 prepresents the inference rule of modus
ponens.
Problem 1: For all x, P(i(x,n(n(x))).
Problem 2: For all x, P(i(n(n(x)),x)).
Harder problems arise when Axiom 3 is replaced by
3'.] P(i(i(y,x),i(n(x),n(y))));
So the next problem is:
Problem 3: With axiom 3 replaced by axiom 3', P(i(x,n(n(x)))) for
all x.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 84 12:59:22 pst
From: Tony Kusalik <Kusalik%UBC.CSNet@CSNet-Relay>
Subject: Concurrent Prolog Meta-interpreter
The following is a meta-interpreter for CP (Concurrent Prolog)
in a restricted from of CP. (I hesitate to call the dialect FCP,
as I have not as yet seen a precise definition of what FCP is.
c.f. Prolog Digest V2, #24 and comments preceding
{SU-SCORE} <Prolog> FCP←COMPILER.PL ) It incorporates the
three-arg meta-call facility of Clark & Gregory, though
the only binding for 'Cntrl' that is recognized is 'stop'.
This meta-interpreter appears to be a good basis from implementing
a CP interpreter in a procedural language. Notice that predicates
always succeed, whether or not a specific goal succeeds.
The resolution of a predicate may also suspend. This makes
writing subroutines/functions to perform specific operations
of the resolution cycle quite straightforward. Since there
is no backtracking, garbage collection is much easier.
I have implemented the meta-interpreter in Prolog. I have also
written a fair portion of the resolution cycle in C to convince
myself of the applicability of the meta-interpreter to a
procedural language. If anyone is interested in pursuing such
an implementation, I would be happy to share what I have to date.
There appears to be two typos in the FCP meta-interpreter
in Prolog Digest V2, N32. In particular, the second clause for
'resolve' reads
resolve( A, [C|Cs], N, ME, P, R, H ) :-
unify( A, C, N, ME, R1, P, H ),
...
I believe that it should be instead
resolve( A, [C|Cs], N, ME, P, R, H ) :-
unify( A, C, N, ME, P, R1, H ),
...
As well, the head of the second clause for 'unify←guard' is missing
a final argument.
-- Anthony J. Kusalik
[ this is available from the SCORE: <Prolog> library as:
FCP←Meta←Compiler.PL ]
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂19-Nov-84 1250 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: NOV. 23RD
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Nov 84 12:50:11 PST
Date: Mon 19 Nov 84 09:44:12-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: NOV. 23RD
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
There will be no SIGLUNCH due to Thanksgiving Holiday!
Paula
-------
∂20-Nov-84 0225 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #37
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Nov 84 02:25:07 PST
Date: Monday, November 19, 1984 8:15PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584 Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V2 #37
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Tuesday, 20 Nov 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 37
Today's Topics:
Puzzle - Misprint
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon 19 Nov 84 09:51:53-PST
From: Chuck Restivo <Restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Misprint correction (C.Morgan Problem)
[cwr] My apology for the misprint in the C.Morgan problem reprinted
from
the Automated Reasoning Journal in the Prolog Digest V2 #36.
1 and 3 should be as follows:
1.] P(i(x,i(y,x)))
3.] P(i(i(n(x),n(y)),i(y,x)))
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂20-Nov-84 1519 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Nilsson's letter
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Nov 84 15:18:50 PST
Date: Tue 20 Nov 84 15:17:44-PST
From: Gene Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Nilsson's letter
To: Academic-Council: ;
HERE IS A COPY OF NILS' THOUGHTFUL LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE TO ME.
-GENE
150 Coquito Way
Portola Valley, CA 94025
November 19, 1984
Professor Gene H. Golub
Chairman
Computer Science Department
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
Dear Gene:
Thank you very much for your letter of November 6, 1984 inviting me to
become the chairman of the Computer Science Department at Stanford as
a full professor. I have received a similar letter from Dean Bower.
Let me first say that I find the specific terms of these letters
entirely satisfactory. I also agree to fulfill Stanford's expectation
that I will remain as chairman until at least September 1990.
In accepting Stanford's invitation, I want to describe some of my
goals for the department. My discussions with you, with Deans
Wessells, Bower, and Gibbons, and with people in the department have
led me to believe that these goals are, by and large, shared by all of
us. Steady progress toward achieving them will make the next few
years especially rewarding, and I look forward to my new position with
excitement. Here are some of the more important objectives that I
will be working very hard to achieve.
1. The Stanford Computer Science Department must remain the top such
department in the world. I want Stanford to continue to lead the
leading scientific discipline of the information age.
2. In order to remain on top, the CSD must grow commensurately with
the growth and importance of computer science. It must have coverage
in the most important branches of a field that is adding new branches
at a rather rapid rate. This means that the department must have a
tenured and tenure-track faculty of at least 30 full-time equivalents
by 1990. (It has about 20 now.) This growth should be achieved by
selecting and retaining only the very best people in the world--people
dedicated to the dual goals of education and research of the highest
quality. The need for this grwoth must be recognized at the
University-wide level in order to make available the resources needed
to hire outstanding people when they become available. Top priority
must be given to establishing at least two more endowed chairs in
computer science by 1990.
We must also be ready to use non-tenure track people to help in our
educational and research goals. Lecturers, consulting and visiting
professors, and professors (research) can all help us meet expanding
responsibailities. If care is taken to see that these people also
meet Stanford's unusually high standards of quality, then their
presence at Stanford will enhance and not diminish our reputation.
3. I hope that the CSD can become more cohesive than it has been
during thef past few years. Although individual research is
important, I want to work to nurture the idea that the CSD is a
community of scholars, of students and faculty, of people proud to be
working together in an outstanding department.
4. Close attention must be paid to the balance between education and
research. An important part of how we judge ourselves must be on the
quality of the students we turn out. I would like to see some
additional faculty involvement in our undergraduate courses and close
interaction between faculty and graduate student research. Achieving
these goals may require some adjustment of teaching load requirements.
5. Computer Science is a discipline that has important connections
with other subjects and activities. I want to work for increased
cooperation between the CSD and other university entities with an
interest in computing. Even a partial list of these is long: the
Electrical Engineering Department, the Center for Integrated Systems,
the Center for the Study of Language and Information, the Stanford
Institute for Manufacturing Automation, Information Technology
Services, Academic Computing, the Program in Mathematical and
Computational Science, and other departments with interests in
computation. We should also continue our productive associations with
nearby computer-related industrial research laboratoreis. These
relationships contribute importantly to both our educational and
research goals.
6. Stanford can no longer postpone having an undergraduate major in
computer science. The CSD has an important role in bringing such a
major about. I'm confident that a program can be created that will
have the support of both Humanities and Sciences and of Engineering.
My present inclination is that the appropriate home for such a major
is in the Computer Science Department. Multiple tracks and special
interdepartmental programs should enable the major to serve the needs
of students with varying interests. As the case with most other
Stanford undergraduate programs, an undergraduate major in Computer
Science ought to have as its main goal the preparation of students
for further study in graduate schools.
7. The CSD must look carefully at the matter of faculty and student
involvement with outside business. In addition to adhering to
university policies concerning consulting, we must also make sure that
our first concern is Stanford's educational and scholarly goals when
weighing opportunities for outside entrepreneurship. Perhaps a
"blue-ribbon" committee can help us formulate an appropriate approach
to this matter.
8. The CSD and the Schools of Engineering and Humanities and Sciences
should begin discussions abaout whether or not CSD should remain in
Humanities and Sciences. One possibility is to set up in the
Engineering School a new department that would include the present
Computer Science Department and elements of the Computer Systems
Laboratory. If such a transfer were to take place, I would want to
see very specific steps taken to ensure that the basic "scientific"
nature of thef CSD not drift toward heavily technological orientation.
In my opinion, it is especially important for a new undergraduate
major in computer science to establish new directions toward
CS-relevant course requirements and broader choices about electives
than has been traditional for engineering students.
9. Although the CSD has a very high-quality location in Margaret
Jacks Hall, we are all aware that we have outgrown that space.
Unfortunately, CSD has had to locate some of its faculty, staff, and
students in outlying sites in ERL, in Cedar Hall and on Welch Road.
These geographic divisions work against the cohesiveness that we will
be struggling to achieve. Therefore, it is of critical importance
that a new location, adequate in both size and technical arrangements,
be found for the CSD. Planning and fund raising for these needs
should begin immediately with a view toward occupancy well before my
term as chairman is over.
It will be challenging to work towards these goals, and I will be
gauging my success as a department chairman on how close we can come
to them. In accepting Stanford's invitation to lead the CSD, I am
confident that I will have the University's full support in these
efforts.
Sincerely,
Nils J. Nilsson
-------
-------
∂20-Nov-84 1701 CLT SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
To: "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Speaker: Paolo Mancosu, Stanford Philosophy Department
Title: Non-Standard Models of Arithmetic and Indicator Theory
Place: Room 381-T, 1st floor Math. Corner, Stanford University
Time: Monday November 26, 4:15-5:30 p.m.
S. Feferman
∂21-Nov-84 1333 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Nov 84 13:33:04 PST
Date: Wed 21 Nov 84 12:47:04-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: sharon@SU-SCORE.ARPA, hanrahan@SU-SCORE.ARPA
11/29/84 - Gilles Brassard (UC Berkeley and Universite de Montreal)
"Quantum cryptography"
Conventional cryptosystems, such as Enigma, DES and even RSA are based
on a mixture of mathematics, guesswork and wishful thinking. In particular,
the theory of computational complexity, which serves as basis for public-
key cryptography and probabilistic encryption, is not yet well enough
understood to produce any proof of security that does not ultimately rely
on some unproved conjecture. The need for definite proofs was clearly
established when Shamir broke the knapsack scheme a few years ago.
The purpose of this talk is to provide a radically different foundation
for cryptography: the uncertainty principle of quantum physics. Quantum
cryptography achieves most of the benefits of public key cryptography,
with the additional advantage of being provably secure even against an
opponent with superior technology and unlimited computing power, barring
fundamental violations of accepted physical laws. These results would
still hold true even should P=NP!
The most basic tool provided by quantum cryptography is a communication
channel whose transmissions cannot be read or copied reliably by an
eavesdropper ignorant of certain key information used in creating the
transmission. Some applications are: unforgeable money, information
multiplexing, eavesdrop detecting channel, self-winding one-time pad,
secret key expansion, public key distribution, and coin tossing.
In particular, we can prove about one of the coin-tossing opponents
that any systematic advantage he could get on the outcome of the coin
toss could be used to effectively transmit information faster than the
speed of light.
No previous acquaintance with quantum physics or with cryptography
will be expected from the audience.
***** Time and place: November 29, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ****
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 497-1787, (415) 853-2118, and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are
wanted and welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have
been filled so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂21-Nov-84 1401 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa New York Times on Karmarkar Algorithm
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Nov 84 14:00:27 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 21 Nov 84 12:58:26-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Wed, 21 Nov 84 10:55:40 cst
Message-Id: <8411210522.AA03046@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 20 Nov 84 23:22:26 cst
Date: 20 Nov 84 2120 PST
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: New York Times on Karmarkar Algorithm
To: theory@WISC-RSCH.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
18 Nov 84
By JAMES GLEICK
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
NEW YORK - A 28-year-old mathematician at AT&T Bell Laboratories has
made a startling theoretical breakthrough in the solving of systems
of equations that often grow too vast and complex for the most
powerful computers.
The discovery, which is to be formally published next month, is
already circulating rapidly through the mathematical world. It has
also set off a deluge of inquiries from brokerage houses, oil
companies and airlines, industries with millions of dollars at stake
in problems known as linear programming.
These problems are fiendishly complicated systems, often with
thousands of variables. They arise in a variety of commercial and
government applications ranging from allocating time on a
communications satellite to routing millions of telephone calls over
long distances, or whenever time must be allocated most efficiently
among competing users. Investment companies use them to devise
portfolios with the best mix of stocks and bonds.
The Bell Labs mathematician, Dr. Narendra Karmarkar, has devised a
radically new procedure that may speed the routine handling of such
problems by businesses and government agencies and also make it
possible to tackle problems that are now far out of reach.
''This is a path-breaking result,'' said Dr. Ronald L. Graham,
director of mathematical sciences for Bell Labs in Murray Hill, N.J.
''Science has its moments of great progress, and this may well be one
of them.''
Because problems in linear programming can have billions or more
possible answers, even high-speed computers cannot check every one.
So computers must use a special procedure, an algorithm, to examine
as few answers as possible before finding the best one - typically
the one that minimizes cost or maximizes efficiency.
A procedure devised in 1947, the simplex method, is now used for
such problems, usually in the form of highly refined computer codes
sold by the International Business Machines Corp., among others.
The new Karmarkar approach exists so far only in rougher computer
code. Its full value will be impossible to judge until it has been
tested experimentally on a wide range of problems. But those who have
tested the early versions at Bell Labs say that it already appears
many times faster than the simplex method, and the advantage grows
rapidly with more complicated problems.
''The problems that people would really like to solve are larger
than can be done today,'' Karmarkar said. ''I felt strongly that
there must be a better solution.''
American Airlines, among others, has begun working with Karmarkar to
see whether his technique will speed their handling of linear
programming problems, from the scheduling of flight crews to the
planning of fuel loads. Finding the best answer to the fuel problem,
where each plane should refuel and how much it should carry, cuts
fuel costs substantially.
''It's big dollars,'' said Thomas M. Cook, American's director of
operations research. ''We're hoping we can solve harder problems
faster, and we think there's definite potential.''
The Exxon Corp. uses linear programming for a variety of
applications, such as deciding how to spread its crude oil among
refineries. It is one of several oil companies studying the Karmarkar
algorithm.
''It promises a more rapid solution of linear programming
problems,'' said David Smith of Exxon's communications and computer
sciences department. ''It's most important at times when conditions
are changing rapidly, for example, the price of crude oil.''
If Karmarkar's procedure performs as well as expected, it will be
able to handle many linear programming problems faster than the
simplex method can, saving money by using less computer time. But it
may also be applied to problems that are left unsolved now because
they are too big and too complex to tackle with the simplex method.
For example, AT&T believes the discovery may provide a new approach
to the problem of routing long-distance telephone calls through
hundreds or thousands of cities with maximum efficiency. Because of
the different volumes of calls between different places, the
different capacities of the telephone lines and the different needs
of users at different hours, the problem is extraordinarily difficult.
-
Valuable though it may be, like some other discoveries that have
come out of the American Telephone and Telegraph Co.'s research
laboratory in the past, the Karmarkar algorithm may not be salable in
itself. An algorithm cannot be patented or copyrighted, although
specific computer code can be. Bell Labs is one of several companies
that are working on putting it into code.
''A creation of pure thought cannot be protected,'' said Graham at
Bell Labs. ''There will be a whole industry spawned by this as people
get a better idea of what's going on.''
-
Karmarkar, the son and nephew of mathematicians, was born in
Gwalior, India, and grew up in Poona, near Bombay. He joined Bell
Labs last year after attending the California Institute of Technology
at Pasadena and getting his doctorate from the University of
California at Berkeley.
News of his discovery has been spreading through the computer
science community in preprinted copies of Karmarkar's paper and in
informal seminars. His paper is to be formally published in the
journal Combinatorica next month and will be a central topic at the
yearly meeting of the Operations Research Society of America this
week in Dallas.
''I've sensed a lot of excitement in the field,'' said Dr. Joseph F.
Traub, chairman of Columbia University's computer science department.
Mathematicians visualize such problems as complex geometric solids
with millions or billions of facets. Each corner of each facet
represents a possible solution. The task of the algorithm is to find
the best solution, say the corner at the top, without having to
calculate the location of every one.
The simplex method, devised by the mathematician George B. Dantzig
in 1947, in effect runs along the edges of the solid, checking one
corner after another but always heading in the direction of the best
solution. In practice it usually manages to get there efficiently
enough for most problems, as long as the number of variables is no
more than 15,000 or 20,000.
The Karmarkar algorithm, by contrast, takes a giant short cut,
plunging through the middle of the solid. After selecting an
arbitrary interior point, the algorithm warps the entire structure -
in essence, reshaping the problem - in a way designed to bring the
chosen point exactly into the center. The next step is to find a new
point in the direction of the best solution and to warp the structure
again, bringing the new point into the center.
''Unless you do this warping,'' Karmarkar said, ''the direction that
appears to give the best improvement each time is an illusion.''
The repeated transformations, based on a technique known as
projective geometry, lead rapidly to the best answer. Computer
scientists who have examined the method describe it as ingenious.
''It is very new and surprising - it has more than one theoretical
novelty,'' said Laszlo Babai, visiting professor of computer science
at the University of Chicago. ''The real surprise is that the two
things came together, the theoretical breakthrough and the practical
applicability.''
Dantzig, now professor of operations research and computer science
at Stanford University, cautioned that it was too early to assess
fully the usefulness of the Karmarkar method. ''We have to separate
theory from practice,'' he said. ''It is a remarkable theoretical
result and it has a lot of promise in it, but the results are not all
in yet.''
Many mathematicians interested in the theory of computer science
have long been dissatisfied with the simplex method, despite its
enormous practical success. This is because the program performs
poorly on problems designed specificaly to test its weaknesses,
so-called worst possible case problems.
These problems tend to shed light on the most fundamental issues of
solvability. Business users, however, are most concerned with how
well an algorithm performs on the average, and how well it handles
the kinds of problems that tend to crop up in the real world.
Mathematicians designed problems to frustrate the simplex method,
forcing it to step from corner to corner until it had examined all or
most of the possible solutions. From a practical point of view, that
made the problem unsolvable.
But fortunately for computer science, the worst-case problems almost
never arise in the real world. ''You had to work hard to produce
these examples,'' Graham said. And the simplex method performs far
better on average than its worst-case limit would suggest.
-
Five years ago, a group of Soviet mathematicians devised a new
algorithm, the ellipsoid method, that handled those worst-case
problems far better than the simplex method. It was a theoretical
advance - but the ellipsoid had little practical significance because
its average performance was not much better than its worst-case
performance.
The Soviet discovery, however, stimulated a burst of activity on the
problem and led to Karmarkar's breakthrough. The new algorithm does
far better in the worst case, and the improvement appears to apply as
well to the kinds of problems of most interest to industry.
''For a long time the mind-set that the simplex method was the way
to do things may have blocked other methods from being tested,'' said
Dr. Richard Karp, professor of computer science at the University of
California at Berkeley. ''It comes as a big surprise that what might
have been just a curiosity, like the ellipsoid, turns out to have
such practical importance.''
nyt-11-18-84 2204est
***************
∂21-Nov-84 1554 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Nov. 27
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Nov 84 15:54:00 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.39)
id AA05296; Wed, 21 Nov 84 15:53:24 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA05385; Wed, 21 Nov 84 14:02:39 pst
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 84 14:02:39 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8411212202.AA05385@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Nov. 27
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
←λF←λa←λl←λl ←λ1←λ9←λ8←λ4
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A
TIME: Tuesday, November 27, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Walter Michaels and Steven Knapp, English
Department, UC Berkeley
TITLE: ``Against Theory''
ABSTRACT: A discussion of the role of intention in the
interpretation of text. We argue that
linguistic meaning is always intentional;
that linguistic forms have no meaning
independent of authorial intention; that
interpretative disagreements are necessarily
disagreements about what a particular author
intended to say; and that recognizing the
inescapability of intention has fatal conse-
quences for all attempts to construct a
theory of interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALK
December 4: Thomas Bever, Psychology Dept, Columbia
University (rescheduled from October 23)
UPCOMING ELSEWHERE ON CAMPUS
Philosophy Dept Colloquium: November 29
Cora Diamond speaks on ``Throwing Away the Ladder: How to
Read the ←λT←λR←λA←λC←λT←λA←λT←λU←λS'', 4 pm, President's Room, Alumni House
∂24-Nov-84 2059 RWW correction to time
To: "@NEW.DIS[NEW,RWW]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Memo: #2
From: RWW
To: FOL interest group
Date: NOV 24 1984
URGENT correction to time mentioned in the previous memo.
It should have read
4) The next "full" meeting of the group will be Monday NOV 26 at
10am starting in my office. Bring your friends.
Sorry
Richard
∂25-Nov-84 1250 SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA CHFINGER changed
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Nov 84 12:50:28 PST
Date: Sun 25 Nov 84 12:47:11-PST
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: CHFINGER changed
To: HPP-Lisp-Machines@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: Genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Nii@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
Brown@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Delagi@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Rosenbloom@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
Friedland@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Pattermann@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA,
Veizades@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Yeager@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "T. C. Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>" of Thu 22 Nov 84 15:05:50-PST
I added the two 3600s at MJH (Iguana and Coax) to the CHFINGER PCL
command on SUMEX so we can track availability of those machines more easily.
--Christopher
-------
∂26-Nov-84 1442 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: NOV. 30, 1984
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Nov 84 14:41:49 PST
Date: Mon 26 Nov 84 11:15:02-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: NOV. 30, 1984
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
SIGLUNCH
DATE: Friday, November 30, 1984
LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Richard Fikes, Director
Knowledge Systems Research and Development
IntelliCorp, Inc.
ABSTRACT: The KEE System - An Integration of Knowledge-Based
Systems Technology
IntelliCorp has developed an integrated collection of representation,
reasoning, and interface facilities for building knowledge-based
systems called the Knowledge Engineering Environment (KEE). The
system's components include (1) a frame-based representation facility
incorporating features of UNITS, LOOPS, and KL-ONE that supports
taxonomic definition of object types, structured descriptions of
individual objects, and object-oriented programming; (2) a logic
language for asserting and deductively retrieving facts; (3) a
production rule language with user-controllable backward and forward
chainers that supports PROLOG-style logic programming; and (4) a
graphics work bench for creating display-based user interfaces. KEE
uses interactive graphics to facilitate the building, editing,
browsing, and testing of knowledge bases. A primary goal of the
overall design is to promote rapid prototyping and incremental
refinement of application systems. KEE has been commercially
available since August 1983, and has been used by customers to build a
wide range of application systems. In this talk I will give an
overview of the KEE system with particular emphasis on its
representation and reasoning facilities, and discuss ways in which the
system provides significant leverage for its users.
Paula
-------
∂26-Nov-84 1516 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: NOV. 30, 1984
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Nov 84 15:16:23 PST
Date: Mon 26 Nov 84 11:15:02-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: NOV. 30, 1984
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
SIGLUNCH
DATE: Friday, November 30, 1984
LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Richard Fikes, Director
Knowledge Systems Research and Development
IntelliCorp, Inc.
ABSTRACT: The KEE System - An Integration of Knowledge-Based
Systems Technology
IntelliCorp has developed an integrated collection of representation,
reasoning, and interface facilities for building knowledge-based
systems called the Knowledge Engineering Environment (KEE). The
system's components include (1) a frame-based representation facility
incorporating features of UNITS, LOOPS, and KL-ONE that supports
taxonomic definition of object types, structured descriptions of
individual objects, and object-oriented programming; (2) a logic
language for asserting and deductively retrieving facts; (3) a
production rule language with user-controllable backward and forward
chainers that supports PROLOG-style logic programming; and (4) a
graphics work bench for creating display-based user interfaces. KEE
uses interactive graphics to facilitate the building, editing,
browsing, and testing of knowledge bases. A primary goal of the
overall design is to promote rapid prototyping and incremental
refinement of application systems. KEE has been commercially
available since August 1983, and has been used by customers to build a
wide range of application systems. In this talk I will give an
overview of the KEE system with particular emphasis on its
representation and reasoning facilities, and discuss ways in which the
system provides significant leverage for its users.
Paula
-------
∂26-Nov-84 1727 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Thursdays between quarters
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Nov 84 17:27:05 PST
Date: Mon 26 Nov 84 17:22:00-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Thursdays between quarters
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
There will be no center wide Thursday activites between quarters, on
Dec 20, 27 or Jan 3. The first of the new quarter will take place on
Jan 10.
-------
∂27-Nov-84 1251 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Re: New York Times on Karmarkar Algorithm
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Nov 84 12:51:18 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 27 Nov 84 12:45:52-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 27 Nov 84 14:39:47 cst
Message-Id: <8411260215.AA24188@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: from Xerox.ARPA by wisc-rsch.arpa; Sun, 25 Nov 84 20:15:21 cst
Received: from Burger.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 24 NOV 84 19:32:59 PST
Date: 24 Nov 84 19:32:54 PST (Saturday)
From: Printis.PA@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: New York Times on Karmarkar Algorithm
In-Reply-To: <8411210522.AA03046@wisc-rsch.arpa>
To: theory@WISC-RSCH.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
Has anyone actually seen or been present at a technical presentation of the technique?
Bob
∂27-Nov-84 1303 MORGAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Kurt Queller's Ph.D. proposal
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Nov 84 13:03:44 PST
Date: Tue 27 Nov 84 12:58:50-PST
From: Nannette Morgan <MORGAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Kurt Queller's Ph.D. proposal
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
On Tues. Dec 4TH, 3:15-5:05, Bldg. 200-217, Kurt Queller will talk
about "Active Exploration with syntagmatic routines in the
child's construction of grammar: Some Phonological perspectves".
Based on detailed longitudinal analysis of data from 3 one-year-
olds, the proposed dissertation will provide a typology of syntag-\
matic phonological routines or "word-recipes" used by young children
in bulding a repertoire of pronounceable works. Then, it will show
how individual children exploit particular combinations of
routines in constructing a coherent phonological system. Extensive
synchronic variability and changes over time will be accounted for
in terms of the chld's systematic exploration of the options
implicit in the resulting system.
-------
∂27-Nov-84 1311 @MIT-MC:pizzi%uofm-uts.cdn%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY SYMBOLICS 3670 software
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Nov 84 13:11:32 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 27 Nov 84 16:08-EST
Received: from ubc by csnet-relay.csnet id a018673; 27 Nov 84 16:06 EST
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 84 13:01:07 pst
Received: by ubc.csnet id AA08162; Tue, 27 Nov 84 13:01:07 pst
From: nick pizzi <pizzi%uofm-uts.cdn%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: phil-sci@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-Id: <170:pizzi@uofm-uts.cdn>
Subject: SYMBOLICS 3670 software
Would anyone happen to know whether or not the SYMBOLICS machines
(specifically, the 3670) have PROLOG and/or C as available language
options?
Furthermore, does the 3670 have any available software packages
for image processing (especially, symbolic image processing)?
Thank-you in advance for any information which you might provide!
Sincerely,
nick pizzi
∂27-Nov-84 2202 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Karmarkar Algorithm
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Nov 84 22:02:38 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 27 Nov 84 22:00:09-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 27 Nov 84 22:11:49 cst
Message-Id: <8411272236.AA29641@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: from ibm-pronet.uwisc by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 27 Nov 84 16:36:20 cst
Received: from MAILER@CUNYVM.BITNET by WISCVM.ARPA on 11/27/84 at
16:36:29 CST
Received: from YKTVMX by CUNYVM id 0760; Tue, 27 Nov 84 17:23:13
EST
Date: 27 Nov 1984 17:19:38-EST (Tuesday)
From: S.Miller@wisc-rsch.arpa
To: @THEORY@WISC-RSCH>
Subject: Karmarkar Algorithm
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
The Karmarkar algorithm was presented at STOC (Symposium on Theory of
Computing) on May 1, 1984 (STOC '84, p. 302)
"A New Polynomial time Algorithm on Linear Programming".
The STOC proceedings are available from the ACM if your
location doesn't have them.
∂28-Nov-84 1041 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA bats 12/7
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Nov 84 10:41:09 PST
Date: Wed 28 Nov 84 10:24:15-PST
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: bats 12/7
To: aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
i need to know as soon as possible whether you want to go to BATS on
friday, december 7, in berkeley. the speakers will be Cynthia Dwork,
from MIT, Alice Wong from Berkeley, John Hobby from Stanford, and Larry
Stockmeyer from IBM. i will send abstracts as soon as they are available.
please let me know whether you can drive, and if so how many passengers you
can take, you need a ride, or neither (i.e. will find your own way there
and back).
asap so that the berkeley coordinator can order lunch.
thanks,
joan
-------
∂28-Nov-84 1148 ROOTH@SU-CSLI.ARPA NL1 meeting
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Nov 84 11:48:21 PST
Date: Wed 28 Nov 84 11:42:26-PST
From: Mats Rooth <ROOTH@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: NL1 meeting
To: NL1@SU-CSLI.ARPA, NLInterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
I will speak on "Association with Focus" in the trailer seminar room
at 2:00 Friday Nov 30. The content will overlap with but be non-identical
to the presentation I gave in the intonation seminar.
Abstract:
In the context of adverbs of quantification, conditionals, and "only",
focus can have truth conditional significance. Suppose Mary introduced
Bill and Tom to Sue, and performed no other introductions. Then "Mary
only introduced Bill to SUE" is true, while "Mary only introduced BILL to
Sue" is false. Similarly, "MARY always takes Sue to the movies" and
"Mary always takes SUE to the movies" have different truth conditions.
My general claim is that focus influences truth conditions indirectly:
the semantics of the constructions in question involve contextual
parameters, typically unspecified domains of quantification, which are
fixed by a focus-influenced component of meaning. This idea is executed
in a Montague grammar framework.
-------
∂28-Nov-84 1715 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Dec. 4
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Nov 84 17:15:00 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.39)
id AA21815; Wed, 28 Nov 84 17:14:23 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA07295; Wed, 28 Nov 84 17:13:33 pst
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 84 17:13:33 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8411290113.AA07295@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Dec. 4
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Fall 1984
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A
TIME: Tuesday, December 4, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Thomas G. Bever, Psychology Department,
Columbia University
TITLE: The Psychological basis of aesthetic experi-
ence: implications for linguistic nativism
ABSTRACT: We define the notion of Aesthetic Experience
as a formal relation between mental
representations: an aesthetic experience
involves at least two conflicting represen-
tations that are resolved by accessing a
third representation. Accessing the third
representation releases the same kind of
emotional energy as the 'aha' elation asso-
ciated with discovering the solution to a
problem. We show how this definition applies
to various artforms, music, literature,
dance. The fundamental aesthetic relation
is similar to the mental activities of a
child during normal cognitive development.
These considerations explain the function of
aesthetic experience: it elicits in adult-
hood the characteristic mental activity of
normal childhood.
The fundamental activity revealed by consid-
ering the formal nature of aesthetic experi-
ence involves developing and interrelating
mental representations. If we take THIS
capacity to be innate (which we surely
must), the question then arises whether we
can account for the phenomena that are usu-
ally argued to show the unique innateness of
language as a mental organ. These phenomena
include the emergence of a psychologically
real grammar, a critical period, cerebral
asymmetries. More formal linguistic
properties may be accounted for as partially
uncaused (necessary) and partially caused by
general properties of animal mind. The
aspects of language that may remain unex-
plained (and therefore non-trivially innate)
are the forms of the levels of representa-
tion.
∂28-Nov-84 1718 @MIT-MC:GAVAN%MIT-OZ@SCRC-STONY-BROOK SYMBOLICS 3670 software
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Nov 84 17:18:45 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 28 Nov 84 20:15-EST
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 84 20:15 EST
From: Gavan Duffy <GAVAN%MIT-OZ@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: SYMBOLICS 3670 software
To: pizzi%uofm-uts.cdn%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, phil-sci@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-reply-to: <170:pizzi@uofm-uts.cdn>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 84 13:01:07 pst
Received: by ubc.csnet id AA08162; Tue, 27 Nov 84 13:01:07 pst
Would anyone happen to know whether or not the SYMBOLICS machines
(specifically, the 3670) have PROLOG and/or C as available language
options? Furthermore, does the 3670 have any available software packages
for image processing (especially, symbolic image processing)? Thank-you
in advance for any information which you might provide!
Ahem! PHIL-SCI is not the appropriate forum for questions that are better
addressed to the sales force of a private corporation. PHIL-SCI, in general,
is limited to discussions of the philosophy of science and its relation to
artificial intelligence.
∂28-Nov-84 1731 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter, Nov. 29, Vol.2 No. 6
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Nov 84 17:31:44 PST
Date: Wed 28 Nov 84 17:24:47-PST
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter, Nov. 29, Vol.2 No. 6
To: newsreaders@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
November 29, 1984 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 6
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1984
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Title to be announced
Conference Room Discussion led by Lauri Carlson
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Parsing Acoustic Events''
Room G-19 by Meg Withgott
Discussant will be Alex Pentland.
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium today.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
SCHEDULE FOR ***THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6,*** 1984
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Syntactic Features, Semantic Filtering,
Conference Room and Generative Power''
Discussion led by Peter Sells
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``The Structures of Discourse Structure''
Room G-19 by Barbara J. Grosz
Discussant will be Ray Perrault.
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall Discussion of DOD Funding
Room G-19 Donald Kennedy, President, Stanford
Sydney Drell, Dep. Dir., SLAC
John Etchemendy, discussion leader
←←←←←←←←←←←←
*****THURSDAY CSLI ACTIVITIES BETWEEN QUARTERS*****
There will be no center-wide Thursday activites between quarters (on
December 20, 27, and January 3). Regular Thursday activities will resume
on January 10.
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter November 29, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF TODAY'S SEMINAR
``Parsing Acoustic Events''
This seminar addresses the problem of formulating a language-independent
representation of the acoustic aspects of natural, continuous speech from
which a general parser using language-specific grammars can recover
linguistic structure. This decomposition of the problem permits a
representation that is stable over utterance situations and provides
constraints that handle some of the difficulties associated with partially
obscured or ``incomplete'' information. A system will be described which
contains a grammar for parsing higher-level (phonological) events as well
as an explicit grammar for low-level acoustic events. It will be shown that
the same techniques for parsing syntactic strings apply in this domain. The
system thus provides a formal representation for physical signals and a way
to parse them as part of the larger task of extracting meaning from sound.
--Meg Withgott
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``The Structures of Discourse Structure''
This talk will introduce a theory of discourse structure that attempts to
answer two rather simple questions, namely: What is discourse? What is
discourse structure? In this work (being done jointly with Sidner at BBN)
discourse structure will be seen to be intimately connected with two
nonlinguistic notions--intention and attention. Intentions will be seen to
play a primary role not only in providing a basis for explaining discourse
structure, but also in defining discourse coherence, and providing a coherent
notion of the term ``discourse'' itself. A main thesis of the theory is that
the structure of any discourse is a composite of three interacting
constituents: the structure of the actual sequence of utterances in the
discourse, a structure of intentions, and an attentional state. Each of these
constituents of discourse structure both affects and is affected by the
individual utterances in the discourse. The separation of discourse
structure into these three components allows us to generalize and simplify a
number of previous results and is essential to explaining certain discourse
phenomena. In particular, I will show how the different components contribute
to the proper treatment of various kinds of interruptions, as well as to
explanations of the use of certain types of referring expressions and of
various expressions that function directly to affect discourse structure.
--Barbara J. Grosz
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
Syntactic Features, Semantic Filtering, and Generative Power
There is a trade-off in linguistic description using grammars with a syntax
and a separate semantics, such as GPSG. One can often either use a
syntactic feature or appeal to semantic filtering to achieve the same ends.
Current GPSG countenances no semantic filtering, i.e. does not overgenerate
strings in the syntax and then let the semantics throw some away as
`uninterpretable'. In the Tinlunch I would like to discuss this position
in light of some work I did in my dissertation which looks like it requires
semantic filtering, and in light of a paper by Marsh & Partee which shows
that adding certain types of semantic filtering to a grammar greatly
increases the generative power. --Peter Sells
!Page 3 CSLI Newsletter November 29, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA P LECTURE
``Parallel distributed processing:
New explanations for language behavior''
Jeff Elman (Department of Linguistics, UCSD)
December 11, 1984, 11.00 A.M.
Ventura Hall Conference Room
ABSTRACT: Many students of human behavior have assumed that it is fruitful
to think of the brain as a very powerful digital computer. This metaphor
has had an enormous impact on explanations of language behavior. In this
talk I will argue that the metaphor is incorrect, and that a better
understanding of language is gained by modelling language behavior with
parallel distributed processing (PDP) systems. These systems offer a more
appropriate set of computational operations, provide richer insights into
behavior, and have greater biological plausibility. I will focus on three
specific areas in which PDP models offer new explanations for language
behavior:
(1) the ability to simulate rule-guided behavior without explicit rules;
(2) a mechanism for analogical behavior; and
(3) explanations for the effect of context on interpretation and for
dealing with variability in speech.
Results from a PDP model of speech perception will be presented.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
Speaker: Prof. Rolando Chuaqui, Catholic University of Chile and IMSSS
Title: A Semantical Definition of Probability
Place: Room 381-T, 1st floor Math. Corner
Time: Monday, December 3, 4:15-5:30 p.m.
ABSTRACT: The analysis proposed in this lecture is an attempt to formalize
both chance and degree of support. Chance is considered as a dispositional
property of the objects plus the experimental conditions (i.e. what is
called the chance set-up). Degree of support measures the support that the
evidence we have (i.e. what we accept as true) gives to propositions.
Chance, in this model, is determined by the set K of possible outcomes (or
results) of the chance set-up. Each outcome is represented by a relational
structure of a certain kind. This set of structures determines the algebra
of events, an algebra of subsets of K, and the probability measure through
invariance under a group of symmetries. The propositions are represented
by the sentences of a formal language, and the probability of a sentence,
phi in K, P[K](phi), is the measure of the set of models of phi that are
in K. P[K](phi) represents the degree of support of phi given K. This
definition of probability can be applied to clarify the different methods
of statistical inference and decision theory.
!Page 4 CSLI Newsletter November 29, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI WORKSHOP ON THE SEMANTICS OF PROGRAMS
Tuesday, December 4, 1984
Location: The Bach Dancing and Dynamite Society, Princeton CA
(a suburb of Half-Moon Bay)
There are long-standing traditions for the study of natural language
semantics and CSLI projects have been extending and reinterpreting them.
There is a briefer, but substantial, tradition for the study of the
semantics of programming languages. Over the past few months, there have
been a series of presentations and discussions about similarities and
differences between the semantic accounts of natural and computational
languages. Theories of natural language semantics have raised a number of
issues. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss how some of these
theories can give rise to better accounts of the relation between
programs/program executions and the world. Participation in the workshop
is by invitation only. If you are interested in being invited to the
workshop, contact Ole Lehrmann Madsen (Madsen at SU-CSLI). If you have any
questions regarding the workshop you may contact Terry Winograd (TW at
SU-SAIL) or Madsen.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
PH.D. PROPOSAL
On Tuesday, December 4, from 3:15 p.m. to 5:05 p.m., in Bldg. 200-217, Kurt
Queller will talk about ``Active Exploration with syntagmatic routines in
the child's construction of grammar: Some phonological perspectves.'' Based
on detailed longitudinal analysis of data from 3 one-year-olds, the proposed
dissertation will provide a typology of syntag-matic phonological routines
or ``word-recipes'' used by young children in bulding a repertoire of
pronounceable works. Then, it will show how individual children exploit
particular combinations of routines in constructing a coherent phonological
system. Extensive synchronic variability and changes over time will be
accounted for in terms of the chld's systematic exploration of the options
implicit in the resulting system.
-------
∂28-Nov-84 1851 CLANCEY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Kolodner talk: Dec 5/M-112/noon
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Nov 84 18:51:07 PST
Date: Wed 28 Nov 84 17:27:31-PST
From: William J. Clancey <CLANCEY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Kolodner talk: Dec 5/M-112/noon
To: MIS-Colloquium: ;
cc: siglunch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
We have scheduled a special colloquium for Janet Kolodner of Georgia
Tech to present her work on Wednesday, December 5, from 12-1:30, in the
medical school, room M-112.
The title of the talk is, "The role of experience in clinical reasoning,"
concerning a knowledge representation for diagnostic problem solving
that facilitates learning from case experience. An early paper describing
this work is in the Proceedings of AAAI-82.
-------
∂28-Nov-84 2331 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA AFLB this Thursday
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Nov 84 23:30:54 PST
Date: Wed 28 Nov 84 23:26:06-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: AFLB this Thursday
To: aflb.local@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
11/29/84 - Gilles Brassard (UC Berkeley and Universite de Montreal)
"Quantum cryptography"
Conventional cryptosystems, such as Enigma, DES and even RSA are based
on a mixture of mathematics, guesswork and wishful thinking. In particular,
the theory of computational complexity, which serves as basis for public-
key cryptography and probabilistic encryption, is not yet well enough
understood to produce any proof of security that does not ultimately rely
on some unproved conjecture. The need for definite proofs was clearly
established when Shamir broke the knapsack scheme a few years ago.
The purpose of this talk is to provide a radically different foundation
for cryptography: the uncertainty principle of quantum physics. Quantum
cryptography achieves most of the benefits of public key cryptography,
with the additional advantage of being provably secure even against an
opponent with superior technology and unlimited computing power, barring
fundamental violations of accepted physical laws. These results would
still hold true even should P=NP!
The most basic tool provided by quantum cryptography is a communication
channel whose transmissions cannot be read or copied reliably by an
eavesdropper ignorant of certain key information used in creating the
transmission. Some applications are: unforgeable money, information
multiplexing, eavesdrop detecting channel, self-winding one-time pad,
secret key expansion, public key distribution, and coin tossing.
In particular, we can prove about one of the coin-tossing opponents
that any systematic advantage he could get on the outcome of the coin
toss could be used to effectively transmit information faster than the
speed of light.
No previous acquaintance with quantum physics or with cryptography
will be expected from the audience.
***** Time and place: November 29, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ****
-------
∂28-Nov-84 2347 CLT SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
To: "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Speaker: Prof. Rolando Chuaqui, Catholic University of Chile and IMSSS
Title: A Semantical Definition of Probability
Place: Room 381-T, 1st floor Math. Corner, Stanford University
Time: Monday December 3, 4:15-5:30 p.m.
Abstract:
The analysis proposed in this lecture, is an attempt to formalize
both chance and degree of support. Chance is considered as a
dispositional property of the objects plus the experimental
conditions (i.e. what is called the chance set-up). Degree of
support measures the support that the evidence we have
(i.e. what we accept as true) gives to propositions. Chance,
in this model, is determined by the set K of possible outcomes
(or results) of the chance set-up. Each outcome is represented
by a relational structure of a certain kind. This set of
structures determines the algebra of events, an algebra of subsets
of K, and the probability measure through invariance under a
group of symmetries. The propositions are represented by the
sentences of a formal language, and the probability of a sentence,
phi in K, P[K](phi), is the measure of the set of models of phi
that are in K. P[K](phi) represents the degree of support of
phi given K. This definition of probability can be applied to
clarify the defferent methods of statistical inference and
decision theory.
S. Feferman
∂29-Nov-84 0239 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA OLOG Digest V2 #38
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Nov 84 02:39:15 PST
Date: Wednesday, November 28, 1984 9:21AM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584 Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V2 #38
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Thursday, 29 Nov 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 38
Today's Topics:
Query - Occur Check & Tarski,
Puzzles - Integers,
LP Library - Book
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Nov 84 16:24:50 PST (Sun)
From: Sanjai Narain <Narain@Rand-Unix>
Subject: Occur Check
I am doing a project on rewrite rules and am running into the
problem that unification (without the occur check) leads to
the creation of infinite terms. For example, f(X,X) unifies
with f(g(U),U) and yields X = g(g(g(g(.....
Is there a simple way to check if a unification has led to
such infinite terms?
In other words can we define a predicate 'infinite←term(X)'
so it could be used to cause failure when infinite terms
are generated, E.g.
A=B, not(infinite←term(A)).
I would be very grateful for an answer.
-- Sanjai Narain
------------------------------
Date: 21 November 1984 20:21-EST
From: William G. Dubuque <WGD @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Tarski's High-School Algebra Problem
Do you happen to have references to Wilkie's and Gurevic's
work on "Tarski's High-School Algebra Problem"? I would
suspect that one would be able to construct models in the
manner that Winkler has done for disproving conjectures in
other equational varieties. I would be most interested in
any other references you might have in this area.
(P.S. I am a member of the Macsyma group which explains
my interest.)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 84 20:52 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%UPenn.CSNet@CSNet-Relay>
Subject: Integers Problem
Will Dowling of Drexel University sent me the follwing
problem which he thought would be appropriate for encoding
(and solving!).
There are 2 integers n1 and n2 between 3 and 98 inclusive.
Person S has been told their sum and person P their product.
The following truthful conversation occurs:
P: I don't know n1 and n2.
S: I knew you didn't. Neither do I.
P: Now I know them!
S: Now I do, too!!
What are the values of n1 and n2?
Will sent me his own formalization in logic. In the interest
of not spoiling anyone's fun, I'll delay posting (for a week
or so) his formalization and my own attempt to encode this
problem.
-- Tim
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 84 13:03:28 EST
Subject: Foundations of Logic Programming
Foundations of Logic Programming
J.W. Lloyd
Springer-Verlag,ISBN 3-540-13299-6
This is the first book to give an account of the mathematical
foundations of Logic Programming. Its purpose is to collect,
in a unified and comprehensive manner, the basic theoretical
results of Logic Programming, which have previously only been
available in widely scattered research papers.
The book is intended to be self-contained, the only prerequisites
being some familiarity with Prolog and knowledge of some basic
undergraduate mathematics.
As well as presenting the technical results, the book also
contains manyillustrative examples and a list of problems
at the end of each chapter. Many of the examples and problems
are part of the folklore of Logic Programming and are not easily
obtainable elsewhere.
CONTENTS
Chapter 1. DECLARATIVE SEMANTICS
section 1. Introduction
section 2. Logic programs
section 3. Models of logic programs
section 4. Answer substitutions
section 5. Fixpoints
section 6. Least Herbrand model
Problems for chapter 1
Chapter 2. PROCEDURAL SEMANTICS
section 7. Soundness of SLD-resolution
section 8. Completeness of SLD-resolution
section 9. Independence of the computation rule
section 10. SLD-refutation procedures
section 11. Cuts
Problems for chapter 2
Chapter 3. NEGATION
section 12. Negative information
section 13. Finite failure
section 14. Programming with the completion
section 15. Soundness of the negation as failure rule
section 16. Completeness of the negation as failure rule
Problems for chapter 3
Chapter 4. PERPETUAL PROCESSES
section 17. Complete Herbrand interpretations
section 18. Properties of T'
section 19. Semantics of perpetual processes
Problems for chapter 4
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂29-Nov-84 0808 FISHER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Faculty Meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Nov 84 08:08:13 PST
Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 08:05:46-PST
From: Norine Fisher <FISHER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty Meeting
To: CSD-Tenured-Faculty: ;
cc: bscott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
There will be a tenured faculty meeting on Thursday, December 13, 1984
in conference room 252. Time 2:30 p.m. Norine
-------
∂29-Nov-84 0820 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA TINlunch
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Nov 84 08:12:20 PST
Mail-From: CARLSON created at 28-Nov-84 15:47:11
Date: Wed 28 Nov 84 15:47:10-PST
From: Lauri Carlson <CARLSON@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: TINlunch
To: emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: hans@SRI-AI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 08:05:14-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
About TINlunch on this Thursday 28.11.: The paper announced earlier
(Grosz and Sidner: A Theory of Discourse Structure) is "concerned with
developing a theory that answers [the] questions [] What is discourse?
What is discourse structure?" and suggests that discourse
structure is "a composite of three interacting constituents: the
structure of the actual sequence of utterances in the discourse, an
intentional structure, and an attentional state."
The paper is not being distributed. It will be used solely to
open discussion about the following topic. CSLI studies situated
language: lge used by "finite" agents (agents with limited memory and
processing capabilities) in "context" (natural environment of use). For
natural lge, (conversational) discourse seems a central instance of
this description. The topic is this: Can current work on NL at
CSLI be situated within Grosz and Sidner's (or anyone else's) framework
for a theory of discourse structure? More conceretely, is there any one
project implicit in the collection of interlocking NLinterests represented
at CSLI at present? Should it make sense to look for one?
-------
∂29-Nov-84 0833 TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA message
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Nov 84 08:33:00 PST
Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 08:19:27-PST
From: Kimberly Tuley <TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: message
To: jmc-lists@SU-AI.ARPA
Dr. Hwang called to confirm meeting this morning at 9 a.m.
Thank you,
Kim
-------
∂29-Nov-84 1106 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Next Week's TinLunch
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Nov 84 11:06:22 PST
Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 10:59:08-PST
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Next Week's TinLunch
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA, newsreaders@SU-CSLI.ARPA
The topic of next Thursday's (December 6) TINLunch will be ``Fodor's
`Psychosemantics'.'' The discussion will be led by Ned Block and not Peter
Sells, as reported in the online edition of today's Newsletter. Sells will
conduct the following Thursday's (December 13) TINLunch discussion on
``Syntactic Features, Semantic Filtering, and Generative Power.''
-------
∂29-Nov-84 1216 ROOTH@SU-CSLI.ARPA NL1 meeting postponed
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Nov 84 12:16:29 PST
Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 12:10:58-PST
From: Mats Rooth <ROOTH@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: NL1 meeting postponed
To: NL1@SU-CSLI.ARPA, NLInterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Because of a number of scheduling conflicts, my talk on association with focus
has been postponed to the following friday (Dec. 7).
-------
∂29-Nov-84 1402 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Nov 84 14:02:28 PST
Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 14:00:52-PST
From: Eckart Forster <FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Phil. Dept. Colloquium
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT COLLOQUIUM
Speaker: John Perry
Title: "Efficient and Benevolent Cognition"
Time: Friday, November 30, :15
Place: Philosophy Seminar Room 90-92Q
-------
∂29-Nov-84 1407 INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: Phil. Dept. Colloquium
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Nov 84 14:06:12 PST
Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 14:02:28-PST
From: Ingrid Deiwiks - 497-3084 <INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Phil. Dept. Colloquium
To: FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Eckart Forster <FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>" of Thu 29 Nov 84 14:01:45-PST
the time says :15
I
-------
∂29-Nov-84 1414 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Nov 84 14:11:19 PST
Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 14:06:32-PST
From: Eckart Forster <FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Phil. Dept. Colloquium
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Sorry, the `3' got lost somewhere along the way. John Perry's talk tomorrow
is at 3:15, in 90-92Q.
-------
∂30-Nov-84 1338 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA abstracts
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Nov 84 13:38:29 PST
Date: Fri 30 Nov 84 13:35:09-PST
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: abstracts
To: aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
here are the bats abstracts. please let me know whether you want to go and
whether you're willing to drive. one of our volunteer drivers has driven
many times before and i'd like to relieve him; so if you have not driven in
the past, think about pitching in!!!
let me know as soon as possible, because i have to tell prabhakar how many
to expect for lunch.
thanks,
joan
-------
∂30-Nov-84 1347 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA abstracts, continued
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Nov 84 13:47:20 PST
Date: Fri 30 Nov 84 13:36:35-PST
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: abstracts, continued
To: aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
here are the promised abstracts:
*****************************************************************
10:00 - John Hobby (Stanford)
11:00 - Cynthia Dwork (MIT)
12:00 - lunch
1:15 - Open Problem Session
1:30 - Alice Wong (Berkeley)
2:30 - Larry Stockmeyer (IBM)
*****************************************************************
Digitized Brush Trajectories
John Hobby (Stanford)
Given a convex brush B and trajectory T, we wish to approximate the
envelope E(T,B)={b+t: b in B, t in T} with a digital region, that is a
union of discrete pixels of the form P(m,n)={(x,y): m<=x<m+1, n<=y<n+1}.
Let the digitization D(R) of a region R be the union of all P(m,n) such
that (m+1/2,n+1/2) is in R. We develop a class of polygons such that
when B is such a polygon and T is an infinite straight line, the average
width of D(E(T,B)) is always identical to that of E(T,B). Unlike other
brush shapes, these polygons also produce strokes of relatively smooth
and accurate weight in practical circumstances. This observation is based
on a model that we shall develop for the apparent weight of digitized
strokes.
We present algorithms for approximating a given brush B with an appropriate
polygon B' so that apparent weight of D(E(T,B')) will in some sense be
closer to that of E(T,B) than is the apparent weight of the `exact'
digitization D(E(T,B)). The algorithms produce output requiring space
O(d↑(2/3)) and run in time O(I+d↑(2/3)) where I is the space required
to represent the input and d is the diameter of the brush B.
If there is time, we will generalize the class of polygons to a class of
monostrophic tracings as defined by Guibas, Ramshaw, and Stolfi.
On the Sequential Nature of Unification
Cynthia Dwork (MIT)
Unification of terms is a crucial step in resolution theorem proving,
with applications to a variety of symbolic computation problems.
It will be shown that the general problem is log-space complete for P,
even if inifinite substitutions are allowed. An NC algorithm for
term matching, an important subcase of unification, will also be presented.
This talk assumes no familiarity with unification or its applications.
LINEAR-TIME COMPUTATION OF OPTIMAL SUBGRAPHS
OF DECOMPOSABLE GRAPHS
A. L. Wong (Berkeley)
(joint work with M.W. Bern and E. L. Lawler)
A method is presented for finding optimal subgraphs of decomposable
graphs in linear time. This method unites many previously unrelated
results (domination in trees, independence in series parallel graphs,
Steiner problem for outerplanar graphs, etc.) as well as solving
a number of open problems, one of which is the problem of finding a
minimum cardinality maximal irredundant set in a tree.
The key observation is that all these problems involve a set of
decomposable graphs GG and a property P such that there exists an
endomorphism of GG that (i) has a finite range, (ii) preserves P,
and (iii) respects the decomposition operation. This endomorphism induces
a finite number of equivalence classes on GG.
The linear time algorithms produced by our method are dynamic
programming algorithms that traverse the graph in an order corresponding
to its construction. At each stage, we compute optimal representatives
of all equivalence classes.
THE EFFECTS OF ASYNCHRONY ON DISTRIBUTED AGREEEMENT
Larry Stockmeyer (IBM)
Reaching agreement among separated processors, some of which
can be faulty, is a basic problem in the area of distributed systems.
Given assumptions about the capabilities of the processors and the types
of faults which can occur, one would like to find the maximum number of
faults which can be tolerated.
Much of the previous work on these questions,
for example, the Byzantine generals problem, has assumed that
there is a known fixed upper bound on the time for
a message to be sent from one processor to another
(synchronous communication) and that the internal clocks of the
processors are synchronized to within some known fixed rate of drift
(synchronous processors). During the past two years, a number of
theoretical results have determined the effects of dropping or weakening
one or both of these assumptions, and a sample of these results
will be discussed.
Typically, it is possible to prove that in an asynchronous system even
one processor crash cannot be tolerated. However, there are some
situations, lying between the fully synchronous and fully
asynchronous cases, where some fault tolerance can be achieved.
joan
-------
∂30-Nov-84 1353 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA abstracts, further continued
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Nov 84 13:53:18 PST
Date: Fri 30 Nov 84 13:37:25-PST
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: abstracts, further continued
To: aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
in case you deleted that message but want to peruse the abstracts further,
they are in <jf>abstracts
on score
-------
∂30-Nov-84 1418 MS A Seminar on Programming Language
To: "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA, cinterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA,
su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
Speaker: Prof. Paul J. Voda, The University of British Columbia
Title: A View of Programming Languages as Symbiosis of
Meaning and Computations
Place: Room 352, Margaret Jacks Hall, Stanford University
Time: Wednesday December 5, 3:00-4:00 p.m.
Abstract:
We prpose to explain the semantics of a programming language by means of
two formal theories. One formal theory gives denotations to programs
while the other one, which is actually a subtheory of the first theory,
specifies the operations of the computing machine executing the programs.
The computations correspond exactly to proofs in the weaker theory. We
are proposing to use formal theories rather than models because we have
in mind a practical use of the theories for computer-assisted verification
and transformation of programs.
Masahiko Sato
∂30-Nov-84 1504 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Lecture at Columbia University
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Nov 84 15:04:36 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 30 Nov 84 15:00:56-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Fri, 30 Nov 84 16:52:08 cst
Message-Id: <8411302227.AA12793@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: from COLUMBIA-20.ARPA by wisc-rsch.arpa; Fri, 30 Nov 84 16:27:53 cst
Date: Fri 30 Nov 84 17:30:49-EST
From: Delores Ng <NG@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
Subject: Lecture at Columbia University
To: arpanet-bboards@MIT-MC.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
UNIVERSITY LECTURE AT COLUMBIA
J.F. Traub, Edwin Howard Armstrong Professor of Computer Science, will
present a University Lecture entitled "Information, Complexity, and
the Sciences". The lecture will be in the Rotunda, Low Memorial
Library, Columbia University on Wednesday, February 6, 1985 at 8:00p.m.
A Columbia University Association Reception will follow in the
Faculty Room. Parking is available on College Walk on campus. The public
is invited to the Lecture and Reception. Call Mrs. Achitoff, Office
of the Provost, (212) 280-2821 for further information.
-------
∂30-Nov-84 1519 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Linear Progamming Algorithms.
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Nov 84 15:19:03 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 30 Nov 84 15:03:26-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Fri, 30 Nov 84 16:54:25 cst
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 84 14:40:37 cst
From: Walter Murray <OR.MURRAY@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
Subject: Linear Progamming Algorithms.
Message-Id: <8411292040.AA08024@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 29 Nov 84 14:40:37 cst
To: su-bboard@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
Some recent bboard messages have referred to linear programming. The
algorithm by Karmarkar is almost identical with iterative reweighted
least squares (IRLS). This latter algorithm is used to solve approximation
problems other than in the l2 norm. It can be shown that the form of
LP assumed by Karmarkar is equivalent to an l infinity approximation
problem. If this problem is then solved by the IRLS algorithm the
estimates of the solution generated are identical to those of the
Karmarkar algorithm (assuming certain free choices in the definition
of the algorithms). Perhaps it should be added that the algorithm is
not held in high regard in approximation circles. To solve a
an l infinity problem it is usually transformed to an LP and solved using
the simplex method.
∂30-Nov-84 1742 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:YM@SU-AI.ARPA Re: Lecture at Columbia University
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Nov 84 17:42:23 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 30 Nov 84 17:38:58-PST
Date: 30 Nov 84 1739 PST
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Lecture at Columbia University
To: udi@WISC-RSCH.ARPA
CC: aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
[Reply to message recvd: 30 Nov 84 15:04 Pacific Time]
Anybody wants to organize a carpool?
∂01-Dec-84 0949 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Logics of Programs Call for Papers
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Dec 84 09:49:48 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sat 1 Dec 84 09:47:43-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Sat, 1 Dec 84 11:40:48 cst
Message-Id: <8412010823.AA04069@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by wisc-rsch.arpa; Sat, 1 Dec 84 02:23:02 cst
Date: 01 Dec 84 0024 PST
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Logics of Programs Call for Papers
To: theory@WISC-RSCH.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
CALL FOR PAPERS
Logics of Programs 1985
The Workshop on Logics of Programs 1985, sponsored by Brooklyn College
and IBM Corporation, will be held Monday, June 17 through Wednesday,
June 19, at Brooklyn College in Brooklyn, New York. Papers presenting
original research on logic of programs, program semantics, and program
verification are being sought.
Typical, but not exclusive, topics of interest include: syntatic and
semantic description of new formal systems relevant to computation,
proof theory, comparative studies of expressive power, programming
language semantics, specification languages, type theory, model theory,
complexity of decision procedures, techniques for probabilistic,
concurrent, or hardware verification. Demonstrations of working systems
are especially invited.
Authors are requested to submit 9 copies of a detailed abstract (not a
full paper) to the program chairman:
Professor Rohit Parikh
Logics of Programs '85
Department of Computer and Information Science
Brooklyn College
Brooklyn, New York 11210
Abstracts should be 6 to 10 pages double-spaced, and must be received no
later than January 14, 1985. Authors will be notified of acceptance or
rejection by February 18, 1985. A copy of each accepted paper, typed on
special forms for inclusion in the proceedings, will be due on March 24, 1985.
∂02-Dec-84 1716 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 84 17:15:53 PST
Date: Sun 2 Dec 84 17:10:28-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: HANRAHAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
12/6/84 - Irvin Lustig (OR Dept. - Stanford)
"Karmarkar's Algorithm: Theory, Practice, and Unfinished Business"
Recent articles in Science Magazine and the New York Times have
brought to light a new algorithm for Linear Programming by N.
Karmarkar. The excitement created by this discovery in the Operations
Research and Computer Science communities is understandable,
considering the spectacular nature of the reported results. In my
talk, I will discuss the theoretical result of Karmarkar, some of the
practical considerations of the algorithm, and how this algorithm is
leading to new heuristics for Linear Programming. I will also explain
how the result has not yet been shown to be practically efficient,
even though fairly good results have been reported in the news media.
***** Time and place: December 6, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ****
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂03-Dec-84 0934 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: DEC. 7TH, 1984
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Dec 84 09:34:03 PST
Date: Mon 3 Dec 84 09:31:16-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: DEC. 7TH, 1984
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
There will be NO Siglunch this week because of the HPP Retreat.
Paula
-------
∂03-Dec-84 2017 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA final request for bats headcount
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Dec 84 20:17:09 PST
Date: Mon 3 Dec 84 20:14:29-PST
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: final request for bats headcount
To: aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
please let me know asap whether you want to go to bats on friday and
if so whether you can drive.
thanks,
joan
-------
∂04-Dec-84 2250 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WELCH@Ames-VMSB SIGBIG
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Dec 84 22:50:08 PST
Received: from Ames-VMSB.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 4 Dec 84 19:55:30-PST
Date: 4 Dec 1984 1956-PDT
From: WELCH at Ames-VMSB
Subject: SIGBIG
To: SUPER at SU-SCORE
Reply-To: WELCH@Ames-VMSB
"SIGBIG" Special Interest Committee
For Large High Speed Computers
Meetings on the first Wednesday of each month at 7:30 PM. Speakers
who can give insights to various aspects of SUPERCOMPUTING are
featured each month.
For information contact Mary Fowler, Chairperson (415) 965-6515
or Mike Austin, Publ. Chair (415) 423-8446
Next meeting:
Wednesday, December 5,1984, 7:30 PM
Speaker: Norm Hardy/TYMSHARE
Subject: Early timesharing on SUPERCOMPUTERS
Location: Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC)
Computer Center Conference Room on third floor
2575 Sand Hill Rd. Menlo Park
Directions: Take HWY 280 to Sand Hill Road, Exit North-East
SLAC is on the right hand side about 1/4 mi fr. 280
Previous Meetings:
1-4-84 George Michaels/LLNL Survey of Supercomputing
2-1-84 Peter Denning/NASA Supercomputing circa 1995
3-7-84 Kent Koeninger/TDC Cray X-MP Performance studies
4-4-84 Cathy Schulbach/NASA Data Flow Machines
5-2-84 Leonard Shar/ELXSI Description of the ELXSI
6-6-84 Raul Mendez/Naval PGS Japanese Supercomputers
7-11-84 John Killeen/NMFE Supercomputers in Fusion Research
8-1-84 Eugene Mia/NASA-Ames Using Multiple Processors
9-5-84 Rob Schreiber/Stanford Fast algorithms in hardware
11-7-84 John Roberts/Amdahl Description of the Fujitsu VP-200
Tape-recordings of most of these meetings may be
obtained in exchange for a tape cassette or $5.00 by contacting:
Tom Attwood (415) 965-6551
Future Meetings:
1-8-85 Ken Stevens/NASA-Ames The ILLIAC IV
------
∂05-Dec-84 2132 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter, Dec. 6, No. 7
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Dec 84 21:32:07 PST
Date: Wed 5 Dec 84 21:28:17-PST
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter, Dec. 6, No. 7
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA, newsreaders@SU-CSLI.ARPA
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
December 6, 1984 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 7
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1984
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Fodor's ``Psychosemantics''
Conference Room Discussion led by Ned Block.
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``The Structures of Discourse Structure''
Room G-19 by Barbara J. Grosz
Discussant will be Ray Perrault.
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall Discussion of DOD Funding
Room G-19 Donald Kennedy, President, Stanford
Sydney Drell, Dep. Dir., SLAC
John Etchemendy, discussion leader
←←←←←←←←←←←←
SCHEDULE FOR ***THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13,*** 1984
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Syntactic Features, Semantic Filtering,
Conference Room and Generative Power''
Discussion led by Peter Sells
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``A Generalized Framework for Speech Recognition''
Room G-19 by Marcia Bush
Discussant will be Ray Perrault.
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Data Semantics''
Room G-19 Fred Landman, Department of Philosophy,
University of Amsterdam
Peter Sells, discussion leader
(Abstract on page 2)
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter December 6, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``A Generalized Framework for Speech Recognition''
This talk will describe a framework for speaker-independent,
large-vocabulary and/or continuous speech recognition being developed at
Schlumberger (Fairchild). The framework consists of three components:
1) a finite-state pronunciation network which models relevant
acoustic-phonetic events in the recognition vocabulary;
2) a set of generalized acoustic pattern matchers; and
3) an optimal search strategy based on a dynamic programming algorithm.
The framework is designed to accommodate a variety of (typically disparate)
approaches to the speech recognition problem, including spectral template
matching, acoustic-phonetic feature extraction and lexical pruning based
on broad-category segmentation. A working system developed within this
framework and tailored to the digits vocabulary will also be described. The
system achieves high recognition accuracy on a corpus spoken by
approximately 250 talkers from 22 ``dialect groups'' within the continental
United States.
---Marcia Bush
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``Data Semantics''
Abstract: There is a growing agreement of opinion that several semantic
phenomena can only be adequately dealt with in a theory which takes
partiality seriously, a theory of partial objects. There is no agreement
about what these partial objects are; for instance, whether they represent
``pieces of the world'' or ``states of partial information about the world.''
Yet, the choice of the perspective determines in large part the potential
of the theory. I will discuss various aspects of Data Semantics, a theory
being developed by Frank Veltman and me, which takes the second
perspective as basic: the semantic behavior of several types of expressions
can best be understood if we take them to relate to our lack of information,
and regard them as patterns on how information can grow. I will argue that
problems concerning quantification and equality force us to distinguish
between different kinds of partial objects.
---Fred Landman
←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF LAST WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Parsing Acoustic Events''
Meg Withgott, CSLI
Withgott described a system for parsing low-level acoustic events using
language-independent input and language-specific formal grammars. This
decomposition of the identification/recognition problem, she argued, permits
a representation of physical signals that is stable over utterance
situations and a way to extract information from them using familiar
techniques from higher-level natural language research. Alex Pentland, who
served as the commentator, remarked on some similarities between this view
of spoken language and current work on vision.
!Page 3 CSLI Newsletter December 6, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
F1 (AND F3) PROJECT MEETING
Title: Self-propagating Search of Memory
Speaker: Pentti Kanerva
Time/Date: Tuesday, December 11, 3:15 p.m.
Place: Ventura Seminar Room
Abstract: Human memory has been compared to a film library that is indexed
by the contents of the film strips stored in it. How might one construct
a computer memory that would allow the computer (a robot) to recognize
patterns and to recall sequences the way humans do? The model presented
is a simple generalization of the conventional random-access memory of a
computer. However, it differs from it in that (1) the address space is very
large (e.g., 1,000-bit addresses), (2) only a small number of physical
locations are needed to realize the memory, (3) a pattern is stored by
adding it into a SET of locations, and (4) a pattern is retrieved by POOLING
the contents of a set of locations. Patterns (e.g., of 1,000 bits) are
stored in the memory (the memory locations are 1,000 bits wide) and they
are also used to address the memory. From such a memory it is possible to
retrieve previously stored patterns by approximate retrieval cues--thus,
the memory is sensitive to similarities. By storing a sequence of patterns
as a linked list, it is possible to index into any part of any "film strip"
and to follow the strip from that point on (recalling a sequence).
←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA C MEETING
Topic: Theories of variable types for mathematical practice,
with computational interpretations
Speaker: Solomon Feferman, Depts. of Mathematics and Philosophy
Time/Date: 1:30-3:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 12
Place: Conference Room, Ventura Hall
Abstract: A new class of formal systems is set up with the following
characteristics:
1) Significant portions of current mathematical practice (such as in
algebra and analysis) can be formalized naturally within them.
2) The systems have standard set-theoretical interpretations.
3) They also have direct computational interpretations, in which all
functions are partial recursive.
4) The proof-theoretical strengths of these systems are surprisingly
weak (e.g. one is of strength Peano arithmetic).
Roughly speaking, these are axiomatic theories of partial functions and
classes. The latter serve as types for elements and functions, but they
may be variable (or "abstract") as well as constant. In addition, an element
may fall under many types ("polymorphism"). Nevertheless, a form of typed
lambda calculus can be set up to define functions.
The result 3) gets around some of the problems that have been met with
the interpretation of the polymorphic lambda calculus in recent literature
on abstract data types. Its proof requires a new generalization of the
First Recursion Theorem, which may have independent interest.
The result 4) is of philosophical interest, since it undermines
arguments for impredicative principles on the grounds of necessity for
mathematics (and, in turn, for physics).
There are simple extensions of these theories, not meeting condition 2),
in which there is a type of all types, so that operations on types appear
simply as special kinds of functions.
!Page 4 CSLI Newsletter December 6, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NL1 MEETING
Topic: ``Association with Focus''
Speaker: Mats Rooth
Time/Date: 2 p.m., Friday, December 7
Place: Trailer Seminar Room
Note: The content will overlap with but be non-identical to the
presentation the speaker gave in the intonation seminar.
Abstract: In the context of adverbs of quantification, conditionals, and
``only,'' focus can have truth conditional significance. Suppose Mary
introduced Bill and Tom to Sue and performed no other introductions. Then
``Mary only introduced Bill to SUE'' is true, while ``Mary only introduced
BILL to Sue'' is false. Similarly, ``MARY always takes Sue to the movies''
and ``Mary always takes SUE to the movies'' have different truth conditions.
My general claim is that focus influences truth conditions indirectly: the
semantics of the constructions in question involve contextual parameters,
typically unspecified domains of quantification, which are fixed by a
focus-influenced component of meaning. This idea is executed in a Montague
grammar framework.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
*****THURSDAY CSLI ACTIVITIES BETWEEN QUARTERS*****
There will be no center-wide Thursday activites between quarters (on
December 20, 27, and January 3). Regular Thursday activities will resume
on January 10.
-------
∂06-Dec-84 1722 BRAD@SU-CSLI.ARPA CSLI TGIF
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Dec 84 17:21:50 PST
Date: Thu 6 Dec 84 17:18:52-PST
From: Brad Horak <BRAD@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: CSLI TGIF
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
You are cordially invited to celebrate the holidays at CSLI's official
TGIF and holiday party!
Date: Friday, December 7
Time: 4:00 - ?
Place: Ventura Hall Trailer Conference Room
Fun: Yes!
Food: Yes!
Drinks: Yes!
Come and celebrate with us!
-------
∂07-Dec-84 0845 CLT Course announcement
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA, "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
SETS AND PROCESSES
------------------
MATH 294 (PHIL 394) WINTER QUARTER.
COURSE ANOUNCEMENT
provisional time: Fridays, 1.15---3.15.
The standard universe of well-founded sets can be completed in a
natural way so as to incorporate every possible non-well-founded set.
The new completed universe will still model all the axioms of set
theory except that the foundation axiom must be replaced by an
anti-foundation axiom. The first part of the course will be concerned
with this new axiom, its model and its consequences. Several
interesting variants of the axiom will also be examined.
The second part of the course will be concerned with an axiomatic
approach to a general notion of abstract sequential process. These
processes are capable of interacting with each other so that a variety
of operations for their parallel composition will be available. The
notion is intended to form the foundation for an approach to the
semantics of programming languages involving concurrency. A model for
the axiom system can be extracted from recent work of Robin Milner.
But by using the anti- foundation axiom a simple purely set theoretic
model will be given.
Some familiarity with the axiomatic theory of sets and classes will be
presupposed. An understanding of the notion of a class model of ZFC
will be needed. Definition by recursion on a well-founded relation
and Mostowski's collapsing lemma will be relevent. But topics such as
the constructible universe, forcing or large cardinals will NOT be
needed. Some familiarity with computation theory would be useful.
Underlying the model constructions in both parts of the course is a
general result whose apreciation will require some familiarity with
the elements of universal algebra and category theory.
Background references will be available at the start of the course.
Auditors are very welcome. The course may be of interest to both
mathematicians and computer scientists.
PETER ACZEL
∂07-Dec-84 1157 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:halvorsen.pa@Xerox.ARPA Mats Rooth on Focus at 2 pm today in trailer conference room
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Dec 84 11:55:59 PST
Received: from Xerox.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Fri 7 Dec 84 11:53:14-PST
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 07 DEC 84 11:44:34 PST
Date: 7 Dec 84 11:43 PST
From: halvorsen.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Mats Rooth on Focus at 2 pm today in trailer conference room
(CSLI)
To: NL1@SU-CSLI.ARPA,NLInterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Reply-to:halvorsen.pa@XEROX.ARPA
A reminder.
∂07-Dec-84 1333 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Dec 84 13:32:55 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 7 Dec 84 13:03:38-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Fri, 7 Dec 84 14:56:25 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Fri, 7 Dec 84 13:08:23 cst
Message-Id: <8412071908.AA02611@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from COLUMBIA-20.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Fri, 7 Dec 84 13:08:10 cst
Date: Fri 7 Dec 84 14:08:29-EST
From: Zvi Galil <GALIL@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
To: theory@WISC-CRYS.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
Dear SIGACT member,
I have started a SIGACT institutional sponsorship program.
Institutions will pay 1K annual membership fee. The money will mainly
go to helping graduate students attending our conferences.
I have written already to
IBM TJ Watson
IBM San-Jose
ATT Bell
Bell Core
Xerox
Dec
HP
GE
SRI.
A copy of the letter went to one or two SIGACT members in the
corresponding institution.
I ask your help in the following ways.
1.If you belong to any of these institutions and can help the
appropriate people make the right decision, please do.
2.If you belong to another institution that I should write to
please let me know the name and address of the person to
contact in that institution.
3.If you know of other potential sponsors, please let me know.
Your information will be even more useful if you tell me
the name of aS SIGACT member working in this institution.
4.Do you know any SIGACT member working for:
Prime Computer,
NCR,
BBNN ?
Of course, I can use SIGACT's membership list. But not everybody is
listed with his job address.
Please let me know if you have any ideas to increase the chances of
this enterprise or if you have ideas for similar enterprises.
Seasons Greetings, Zvi
(galil@columbia-20.arpa, (212) 280-8191 )
-------
∂10-Dec-84 1444 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA meetings
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Dec 84 14:44:15 PST
Date: Mon 10 Dec 84 14:20:30-PST
From: Gene Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: meetings
To: "CSD Senior Faculty": ;
Our next meeting will be taking place on Thursday, Dec 13 at 2:30.
The agenda items are the re-appointments of Lantz and Mayr. The committees
should bring in recommendations.
The first senior faculty meeting of the winter quarter will take place on
Thursday, Jan 10, 1985.
GENE
-------
∂10-Dec-84 1448 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: DEC. 14th, Friday.
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Dec 84 14:47:50 PST
Date: Mon 10 Dec 84 14:04:45-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: DEC. 14th, Friday.
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Folks,
There will be NO Siglunch this Friday.
Paula
-------
∂10-Dec-84 1654 SCHOEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA File system moved
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Dec 84 16:54:26 PST
Date: Mon 10 Dec 84 16:52:49-PST
From: Eric Schoen <Schoen@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: File system moved
To: hpp-lisp-machines@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In preparation fo HPP-3600-1's move to MJH, I have moved files belonging to
Welch Road people onto HPP-3670-3 (and also updated the namespace server
so your home directories are also on 3673). Normally, Jerry does this sort
maintenance, but in his carefully-timed absence, I have done the (mis)deed.
Since this is the first time I've done this stuff, there is a finite
possibility that some files might not have migrated properly onto 3673.
Please let me know of any troubles you encounter.
Eric
-------
∂10-Dec-84 2258 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA New EMAIL keyword
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Dec 84 22:57:59 PST
Date: Mon 10 Dec 84 22:56:30-PST
From: Stuart Reges <REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New EMAIL keyword
To: senior-faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Office: Margaret Jacks 210, 497-9798
SCORE has the facility to define keywords that expand to mailing lists, so that
users can use the keywords rather than directly inserting the mailing list.
FACULTY is one such keyword that has been set up on SCORE. The other nice
property this has is that if someone mails a message to FACULTY@SCORE, someone
else can REPLY to ALL and have the response go to FACULTY as well.
Several people have asked me to do the same thing for the senior faculty
mailing list. I have finally gotten enough time to do so. You can now mail
to SENIOR-FACULTY@SCORE rather than using the distribution list directly.
I'm sorry to have taken so long to get this working.
-------
∂12-Dec-84 0941 BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA vacation time
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Dec 84 09:41:10 PST
Date: Wed 12 Dec 84 09:37:10-PST
From: Betsy Macken <BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: vacation time
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
I'm going to be taking vacation time from December 18 through January
2 to get married, move, and enjoy my new family. Let me know if you
need me to do somehting before then. Jamie and Ingrid will be here
during this time and will know how to reach me if necessary.
The best holiday wishes to all of you. See you in the new year.
B.
-------
∂12-Dec-84 1356 SHAHN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Wavering Screen on 3600-2
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Dec 84 13:56:33 PST
Date: Wed 12 Dec 84 12:33:28-PST
From: Sam Hahn <SHahn@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Wavering Screen on 3600-2
To: Schoen@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, HPP-Lisp-Machines@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
is pretty bad. Somebody (Jerry's proxy?) may want to take
a look at this.
-------
∂12-Dec-84 1718 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Dec 84 17:17:50 PST
Date: Wed 12 Dec 84 17:16:20-PST
From: Gene Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: meeting
To: senior-faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Please remember we have an important meeting on Thursday at 2:30.
GENE
-------
∂12-Dec-84 1758 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter, Dec. 13, No. 8
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Dec 84 17:58:05 PST
Date: Wed 12 Dec 84 17:54:25-PST
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter, Dec. 13, No. 8
To: newsreaders@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
December 13, 1984 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 8
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, December 13, 1984
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Syntactic Features, Semantic Filtering,
Conference Room and Generative Power''
Discussion led by Peter Sells
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``A Generalized Framework for Speech Recognition''
Room G-19 by Marcia Bush
Discussant will be Kris Halvorsen
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Data Semantics''
Room G-19 Fred Landman, Department of Philosophy,
University of Amsterdam
Peter Sells, discussion leader
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
*****THURSDAY CSLI ACTIVITIES BETWEEN QUARTERS*****
There will be no center-wide Thursday activites between quarters (on
December 20, 27, and January 3). Regular Thursday activities will resume
on January 10.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW REPORTS FROM OVERSEAS
CSLI has received a series of reports from Department of Computer Science,
University of Edinburgh, and ICOT Research Center of Japan. These reports
have been placed in the Reading Room in Ventura Hall for general use.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW EDITION OF CSLI REPORT NO. 8
The final edition of Report No. CSLI--84--8, entitled ``Reflection and
Semantics in LISP'' by Brian Smith, has now been published. Copies
of this report may be obtained by writing to Dikran Karagueuzian at CSLI.
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter December 13, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
COURSE ANOUNCEMENT
Sets and Processes [Math. 294 (Phil. 394)]
Provisional time: Winter Quarter, Fridays, 1:15--3:15.
The standard universe of well-founded sets can be completed in a
natural way so as to incorporate every possible non-well-founded set.
The new completed universe will still model all the axioms of set
theory except that the foundation axiom must be replaced by an
anti-foundation axiom. The first part of the course will be concerned
with this new axiom, its model and its consequences. Several
interesting variants of the axiom will also be examined. The second
part of the course will be concerned with an axiomatic approach to a
general notion of abstract sequential process. These processes are
capable of interacting with each other so that a variety of operations
for their parallel composition will be available. The notion is
intended to form the foundation for an approach to the semantics of
programming languages involving concurrency. A model for the axiom
system can be extracted from recent work of Robin Milner. But by
using the anti-foundation axiom a simple purely set theoretic model
will be given. Auditors are very welcome. The course may be of
interest to both mathematicians and computer scientists. --Peter Aczel
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF LAST WEEK'S NL1 SEMINAR
``Three-valued Hintikkian Epistemic Logic''
By Lauri Carlson
Hintikka's system of epistemic logic in K&B and Models for Modalities
contains a number of peculiar features (restricted range feature,
treatment of irreducible existential formulae) which skew the natural
interpretation of certain formulae and make it hard to ascertain
completeness of the system(s). For instance the formula (x)(Ey)Kx=y
is valid (and does not mean I "know who everyone is"), while
(Ex)(Ey)(x=y & -Kx=y) is inconsistent (and does not mean "There is
someone who might be two different people as far as I know"). Lauri
Carlson presented a version of epistemic logic which overcomes these
difficulties and can be shown complete with respect to its intended
Kripkean style semantics.
-------
∂13-Dec-84 0015 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Tomorrow is the last AFLB of the quarter
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Dec 84 00:15:33 PST
Date: Thu 13 Dec 84 00:10:25-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Tomorrow is the last AFLB of the quarter
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Sorry for the lateness of this -- I was not sure about it till the
last moment.
12/13/84 - Dr. Michael Luby (U. of Toronto)
"A simple parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem"
The abstract will be mailed later.
***** Time and place: December 13, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ****
-------
∂13-Dec-84 1048 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA AFLB today - abstract
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Dec 84 10:48:22 PST
Date: Thu 13 Dec 84 10:44:56-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: AFLB today - abstract
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Here is the promised abstract for AFLB today.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
12/13/84 - Dr. Michael Luby (U. of Toronto)
"A simple parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem"
Previously, Karp and Wigderson gave an algorithm for the MIS problem
which established that the problem is in NC↑4. The algorithms
presented in this talk are substantially faster and simpler than their
algorithm. This work establishes that the MIS problem is in NC↑2.
All three algorithms are especially noteworthy for their simplicity.
The first algorithm is a Monte Carlo algorithm with properties that
may make it a useful protocol design tool in distributed computing
environments and artificial intelligence. One of the main
contributions of this work is the development of powerful and general
techniques for converting Monte Carlo algorithms into deterministic
algorithms. A more sophisticated analysis of the first algorithm
shows that the random choices need only be pairwise independent. A
general technique is developed which converts a probability space with
mutually independent events to a new probability space with a very
small sample space where the events are only pairwise independent.
The second algorithm, which randomly samples from the new probability
space, uses a very small number of random bits to choose each sample
point. The third algorithm in parallel samples all points in the
sample space and uses the best sample point at each step. This
algorithm is deterministic.
***** Time and place: December 13, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ****
-------
∂13-Dec-84 1518 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa baby
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Dec 84 15:18:21 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 13 Dec 84 15:14:11-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 13 Dec 84 16:21:18 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 13 Dec 84 01:21:00 cst
Message-Id: <8412130720.AA28620@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from csnet-relay.arpa by wisc-crys.arpa; Thu, 13 Dec 84 01:20:52 cst
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id aa06894; 13 Dec 84 2:20 EST
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 84 21:11:54 PST
From: Avi Wigderson <avi%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: theory@WISC-CRYS.ARPA
Subject: baby
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
Hi
We have a new baby girl! Her name is Einat and she was born
Sunday afternoon, Dec. 9. Both Edna and Einat feel fine,
and are alredy at home.
Avi, Edna and Eyal Wigderson.
∂13-Dec-84 1822 BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Marriage
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Dec 84 18:22:29 PST
Date: Thu 13 Dec 84 18:18:40-PST
From: Betsy Macken <BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Marriage
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
What fun it was getting all your good wishes. Thank you so much!
Some of you asked ...
Future husband: Norm Olson
Physician, Redwood City Kaiser
New children: three teen-agers, two bouncy and one quiet
Old children: one teen-ager, quiet up until now
New address: 1443 Hamilton, Palo Alto
Introduced by: the music teacher of our two daughters who knew
we shared a love of music
Wedding plans: sometime on January 2 in Grace Luthern Church, Palo Alto
witnesses will be the music teacher and any
available children
State of mind: happy and scared (How will I do with FOUR teen-agers??)
-------
∂14-Dec-84 0238 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA ROLOG Digest V2 #39
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Dec 84 02:37:46 PST
Date: Thursday, December 13, 1984 9:30AM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584 Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V2 #39
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Friday, 14 Dec 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 39
Today's Topics:
Implementations - UNSW Availability,
Query - Burroughs Snag,
Programming - Infinite Terms,
Puzzle - Integer Solution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon 26 Nov 84 23:35:08-PST
From: Michael A. Haberler <HABERLER@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
Subject: UNSW Prolog for MS-DOS
I have ported the University of New South Wales Prolog
interpreter to an IBM PC running MS-DOS 2.0. It implements
all built-in predicates of the Unix version and can call
your favorite editor or the command line interpreter.
UNSW Prolog is closely patterned after Prolog-10, but has
no compiler.
I got the permission to redistribute the interpreter from
the author of the Unix version, Claude Sammut of UNSW. If
you want to obtain a copy, sign the license which can be FTP'ed
from [SCORE]:<Prolog>UNSW←PROLOG.LICENSE, and send the
license with 2 DSDD diskettes to the adress below. Neither
Claude nor me charge anything for it.
-- Michael Haberler
Computer Systems Laboratory ERL 403
Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
(415)497-9503
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 DEC 84 19:42:00 EDT
From: h156004%njecnvm.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA
Has anyone brought up YORK Prolog on a Burroughs 1955? We have
the latest version written in ISO Pascal; unfortunately the
Burroughs Pascal is a version of UCSD. Therefore:
(1) Dispose is not implemented
(2) Non-local GOTO's are not implemented
(3) A file may not be a component of any
structured type
Number's 1 & 2 are causing us considerable problems; we're down
to 12 compiling errors.
If anyone has compiled this implementation or has a DISPOSE
and GOTO routine written, we'd sure like to have them. We
wouldn't go to all of this difficulty if Burroughs had a
Prolog.
-- Ken Tompkins
------------------------------
Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 19:14:35-PST
From: Joseph A. Goguen <Goguen@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: References on Narrowing on Logic Programming
I would like to add two references to those mentioned by
Uday Reddy. These papers describe Eqlog, a language that
supports both predicate and functional programming, as well
as the "join" of the two via narrowing, thus allowing logical
variables in equations. (As the titles suggest, there is
more to the languge than that.)
Goguen, J. and Meseguer, J. "Equality, Types, Modules and
(Why Not?) Generics for Logic Programming, J. Logic
Programming, vol. 2, pp.179-210, 1984.
Goguen, J. and Meseguer, J. "Equality, Types, Modules and
Generics for Logic Programming, in Proceedings, Second
International Logic Programming Conference (Uppsala, Sweden),
pp.115-126, 1984.
The key idea is to use Horn clause logic *with* equality as
the logical basis, rewrite rules for the equational part, the
usual Prolog unification for the predicate part, and (the new
idea) narrowing for solving equations with logical variables.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 84 09:44:09 pst
From: Michel Boyer <Boyer%iro.udem.cdn%ubc.csnet@CSNet-Relay>
Subject: Infinite Terms
In the 29 Nov issue of the Digest, Sanjai Narain asked if
there is a way to define a Prolog predicate infinite←term
that would check if a term is infinite. Here is a solution
that assumes that the interpreter can unify such terms (the
only interpreter I have access to and that does the job
correctly is Marseilles's Prolog 2).
Given a term X, let's say that Y is a sub-term of X if Y is
a branch of X (one of its arguments) or any sub-term of such
a branch. It is known [1] that any term that Prolog can build,
finite or infinite, has only a finite set of sub-terms. A term
is infinite if and only if there is a loop in its tree-ish
representation i.e. if there is a sub-term that is a sub-term
of itself.
The idea of the following program is simply to keep a list of
all the sub-terms seen above the present position in a depth
first search of a repeating subtree. Each time we go "deeper"
in the term, we add the current term to this list if it is
not already there. We know the tree is infinite if the current
term is already in the list.
infinite(Tree) :- duplicate←in←tree(Tree, []).
duplicate←in←tree(Tree, Trees←above) :-
nonvar(Tree),
member(Tree, Trees←above), ! .
duplicate←in←tree(Tree, Trees←above) :-
nonvar(Tree),
Tree =.. [Root | Branches],
duplicate←in←branches(Branches, [Tree | Trees←above]).
duplicate←in←branches([First | Others], Trees←above ) :-
duplicate←in←tree(First, Trees←above), ! .
duplicate←in←branches([First | Others], Trees←above) :-
duplicate←in←branches(Others, Trees←above).
member(X, Y) :- nonvar(Y), Y = [A | B], X == A, ! .
member(X, Y) :- nonvar(Y), Y = [A | B], member(X, B).
In the Prolog 2 version of this program, the following
questions succeed nicely:
?- X = ff(X), Y = new←root(X), infinite(Y).
?- X = ff(arg1,gg(X)), Y = gg(X), infinite(Y).
Bibliography:
[1] Colmerauer A., Prolog and Infinite Trees, in Logic Programming
(Clark K.L. and Tarnlund S.-A. editors), Academic Press, 1982,
pp 231-251.
-- Michel Boyer
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 3-Dec-84 0:38:51-GMT
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
Subject: Detecting Infinite terms.
This is a hardy Prolog perennial; it's about the 6th
independent invention of the idea I've seen. Doing
the unification first, and then checking to see if
you have an infinite term, would indeed restore
soundness, however it is very easy to invent examples
where one infinite term is unified with another DURING
the original A=B unification. So you still lose on
termination.
I believe it to be impossible to write a predicate in
Prolog which rejects all and only infinite terms. The
reason is that to whatever finite depth you explore, there
is always at least one proper term which looks the same.
A maximum function depth check will catch infinite terms,
but will also reject infinitely many proper terms. On
the other hand, it might be a good idea anyway. There is
a predicate in the library for checking whether a term
satisfies a function depth bound, and it won't look any
deeper than that.
You could write an infinite-term checker in your implementation
language, whatever that is, but then you might as well do
proper unification. I've been saying for a while that a real
unify/2 should be provided in every Prolog, and as an interim
measure I sent one to the library, see METUTL.PL.
PS: I've seen a draft of John Lloyd's book, and I am
definitely going to buy it!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 84 11:09:11 est
From: John McLean <mclean@nrl-css>
Subject: Correction to Integer Puzzle Solution
In my last message I said that 39 is a sum that satisfies
axioms (1) and (2) of the integer puzzle. My mistake!
39 fails to satisfy axiom (2). I found this out when I ran
a Prolog program to verify my analytically derived hypothesis.
Machine wins over man again I'm afraid. In any event, the
solution generated by my fast Prolog program is not refuted by
this new information and remains unique.
-- John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 84 12:53:32 est
From: John McLean <mclean@nrl-css>
Subject: Integer Puzzle
Tim Finin sent in the following puzzle:
Find 2 integers n1 and n2 between 3 and 98 inclusive.
Person S has been told their sum and person P their product.
The following truthful conversation occurs:
P: I don't know n1 and n2.
S: I knew you didn't. Neither do I.
P: Now I know them!
S: Now I do, too!!
This information can be represented as four axioms where
(X,Y) is the solution-pair (X and Y not necessarily distinct),
all variables range between 3 and 98, and E denotes existential
quantification:
1. (EA,B distinct from X,Y)A+B=X+Y
[call this axiom onesat(X,Y)]
2. (C,D)(C+D=X+Y -> (EF,G distinct from C,D)F*G=C*D)
[call this axiom twosat(X,Y)]
3. (H,I distinct from X,Y)(H*I=X*Y -> -(onesat(H,I) & twosat
(H,I)))
[call this axiom threesat(X,Y)]
4. (J,K distinct from X,Y)(J+K=X+Y -> -threesat(J,K)).
(1) is the second half of Sum's first assertion. (2) is the
first half of this assertion (which implies Product's first
assertion.) (3) and (4) are Product's second assertion and
Sum's second assertion, respectively.
This axiomatization leads to the following straight-forward
but inefficient Prolog program:
pos(3).
:
:
pos(98).
sol(X,Y) :- pos(X), pos(Y), onesat(X,Y), twosat(X,Y), threesat(X,Y),
foursat(X,Y).
onesat(X,Y) :- pos(A), pos(B), ne(A,X), ne(A,Y), E is X+Y, E is A+B.
twosat(X,Y) :- unique(X,Y), !, fail.
twosat(X,Y).
unique(X,Y) :- pos(A), pos(B), E is X+Y, E is A+B, naltmult(A,B).
naltmult(A,B) :- altmult(A,B), !, fail.
naltmult(A,B).
altmult(A,B) :- pos(C), pos(D), ne(C,A), ne(C,B), E is A*B, E is C*D.
threesat(X,Y) :- altmultsol(X,Y), !, fail.
threesat(X,Y).
ltmultsol(X,Y) :- pos(A), pos(B), ne(A,X), ne(A,Y), E is X*Y,
E is A*B, onesat(A,B), twosat(A,B).
foursat(X,Y) :- altaddsol(X,Y), !, fail.
foursat(X,Y).
altaddsol(X,Y) :- pos(A), pos(B), ne(A,X), ne(A,Y), E is X+Y,
E is A+B, threesat(A,B).
ne(X,Y) :- X=Y, !, fail.
ne(X,Y).
Efficiency can be obtained by ordering the search, placing
bounds on variables, and most importantly, realizing that there
are only 11 possible sums that X+Y can be equal to and still
satisfy both axioms (1) and (2). The following program produced
an answer on our system in 11 seconds CPU time and checked the
whole solution space in about 3 minutes, establishing uniqueness:
goodsum(13).
goodsum(19).
goodsum(25).
goodsum(29).
goodsum(31).
goodsum(37).
goodsum(39).
goodsum(43).
goodsum(49).
goodsum(53).
goodsum(55).
pos(3).
:
:
pos(52).
sol(X,Y) :- pos(X), le(Y,X), onetwosat(X,Y), threesat(X,Y),
foursat(X,Y).
onetwosat(X,Y) :- E is X+Y, goodsum(E).
threesat(X,Y) :- altmultsol(X,Y), !, fail.
threesat(X,Y).
tmultsol(X,Y) :- E is X*Y, P is E//3, min(M,P,52), !, le(A,M),
ne(A,X), ne(A,Y), B is E/A, pos(B), onetwosat(A,B).
foursat(X,Y) :- altaddsol(X,Y), !, fail.
foursat(X,Y).
altaddsol(X,Y) :- E is X+Y, M is E-3,!, le(A,M), ne(A,X),
ne(A,Y), B is E-A, pos(B), threesat(A,B).
ne(X,Y) :- X=Y, !, fail.
ne(X,Y).
le(X,Y) :- Y < 3, !, fail.
le(X,X).
le(X,Y) :- Z is Y-1, le(X,Z).
min(X,X,Y) :- X =< Y.
min(Y,X,Y) :- X > Y.
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂14-Dec-84 1007 HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Talk/Tutorial/Discussion on Data Semantics with
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Dec 84 10:06:56 PST
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 1984 10:01 PST
Message-ID: <HALVORSEN.12071403826.BABYL@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
From: HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA
To: NL1@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: NLInterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA, CInterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Subject: Talk/Tutorial/Discussion on Data Semantics with
Fred Landman
Fred Landman, University of Amsterdam, will lead a meeting
about data semantics in the Ventura Conference Room at 2pm.,
Monday, September 17.
Susi Parker in the Ventura reception has copies of two relevant
papers (Landman: "Data semantics for Attitude Reports";
Veltman "Data Semantics").
∂14-Dec-84 1121 HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA December rather than September
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Dec 84 11:21:37 PST
Date: Fri 14 Dec 84 11:16:04-PST
From: Kris Halvorsen <HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: December rather than September
To: NL1@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: NLinterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA, CInterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Landman will of course be talking at 2pm, Monday, DECEMBER 17, not
September 17, as I said in my earlier message. (This weather makes it
seem more like September than December, though).
Per-Kristian
-------
∂14-Dec-84 1721 halpern.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA Course on reasoning about knowledge
Received: from SU-AIMVAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Dec 84 17:21:30 PST
Received: from csnet-relay by diablo.ARPA with TCP; Fri, 14 Dec 84 17:21:34 pst
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id ao18042; 14 Dec 84 20:11 EST
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 84 16:15:12 PST
From: Joe Halpern <halpern%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA>
To: KNOWLEDGE@su-aimvax.ARPA
Subject: Course on reasoning about knowledge
I'll be teaching a course on reasoning about knowledge at Stanford
in the winter quarter, along much the same lines as the seminar.
He are the details:
Reasoning About Knowledge (CS400B)
Knowledge seems to play a crucial role in such diverse areas as
distributed systems, cryptography, and artificial intelligence.
We will examine various attempts at formalizing reasoning about
knowledge, and see to what extent they are applicable to the areas
mentioned above. In particular we will consider such problems as
resource-bounded reasoning, inconsistency of beliefs, belief revision,
and knowledge representation. There is no text from the course; we
will be concentrating on current research.
Officially the course meets on Tuesdays in the winter quarter,
from 2:45-5:00. I would be willing to consider moving that time
to another afternoon (although I suspect it might be hard to
reach agreement). It might be nice to push the meeting time forward
to 1:30-3:45, so those interested can attend the CS Colloquium.
I've enclosed a brief (tentative!) outline for the course. As of now,
the emphasis is on material I'm most familiar with (i.e., papers
I've written), but I would be interested in hearing suggestions
from participants in the course on other material to cover.
Auditors are welcome.
Week 1 and 2: Philosophical background and thorough introduction to
possible-worlds semantics for knowledge.
References: W. Lenzen, Recent work in epistemic logic, Acta
Philosophica Fennica, 1978.
J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, A guide to the modal logics
of knowledge and belief, to appear as an IBM RJ, 1985.
Week 3: The "knowledge structures" approach
References: R. Fagin, J.Y. Halpern, and M.Y. Vardi, A
model-theoretic analysis of knowledge, in "Proceedings
of the 25th Annual Conference of Foundations of
Computer Science", 1984, pp. 268-278
Week 4: Knowledge in distibuted systems
References: J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, Knowledge and common
knowledge in a distributed environment, in "Proceedings
of the 3rd ACM Conference on Principles of Distributed
Computing", 1984; IBM RJ 4421, 1984.
R. Strong and D. Dolev, Byzantine agreement, IBM RJ 3714,
1982.
Weeks 5 and 6: Resource-bounded and incomplete knowledge, relevance
logic, the "syntactic approach"
References: H.J. Levesque, A logic of implicit and explicit belief,
Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, 1984, pp. 198-202.
K. Konolige, A deduction model of belief, Ph.D. Thesis,
Stanford University, 1984.
R. Fagin and J.Y. Halpern, Knowledge and awareness,
unpublished manuscript, 1985.
S. Shapiro and M. Wand, The relevance of relevance,
Indiana University Technical Report No. 46, 1976.
Weeks 7 and 8: Belief revision and non-monotonic reasoning
References: D. McDermott and J. Doyle, Non-monotonic logic I,
Artificial Intelligence 13, Vol. 1,2, 1980, pp. 41-72.
R. Reiter, A logic for default reasoning,
Artificial Intelligence 13, Vol. 1,2, 1980, pp. 81-132.
J. McCarthy, Circumscription - a form of non-monotonic
reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13, Vol. 1,2, 1980,
pp. 27-39.
W.R. Stark, A logic of knowledge, Zeitschrift fur
Mathematische Logik und Grundalagen der Mathematik 27,
pp. 371-374, 1981.
D. McDermott, Non-monotonic logic II: non-monotonic modal
theories, Journal of the ACM, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1982,
pp. 35-57
R.C. Moore, Semantical considerations on non-monotonic
logic, SRI Technical Note 284, 1983.
H.J. Levesque, A formal treatment of incomplete knowledge
bases, Fairchild Technical Report No. 614, FLAIR Technical
Report No. 3, 1982.
K. Konolige, Circumscriptive ignorance, Proceedings of
the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1982,
pp. 202-204.
J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, Towards a theory of knowledge
and ignorance, Proceedings of Workshop on Non-monotonic
Reasoning, 1984; IBM RJ 4448, 1984.
R. Parikh, Monotonic and non-monotonic logics of
knowledge, unpublished manuscript, 1984.
Week 9: Knowledge bases
References: H.J. Levesque, A formal treatment of incomplete knowledge
bases, Fairchild Technical Report No. 614, FLAIR Technical
Report No. 3, 1982.
K. Konolige, A deduction model of belief, Ph.D. Thesis,
Stanford University, 1984.
Week 10: Knowledge and cryptography; puzzles
References: M.J. Merritt, Cryptographic protocols, Ph.D. Thesis,
Georgia Institute of Technology, 1983.
S. Goldwasser, S. Micali and C. Rackoff, Knowledge
complexity, unpublished manuscript, 1984.
X. Ma and W. Guo, W-JS: a modal logic about knowing,
Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference
on Artificial Intelligence, 1983.
D. Dolev, J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, Cheating spice
and other stories, unpublished manuscript, 1984.
∂17-Dec-84 0238 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA ROLOG Digest V2 #40
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Dec 84 02:38:46 PST
Date: Sunday, December 16, 1984 12:22PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584 Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V2 #40
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Monday, 17 Dec 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 40
Today's Topics:
Programming - Infinite Terms,
Puzzles - Integers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Dec 84 17:28:13 PST (Sat)
From: Sanjai Narain <Narain@Rand-Unix>
Subject: Infinite terms
I think Michel Boyer's definition of 'infinite(A)', for
detecting whether the term A is infinite, is quite sound.
So, in Prologs in which A=B always terminates with success
or failure, we should be able to use the following definition
of full unification:
unify(A,B):-A=B,not(infinite(A)).
However, in Prologs which do not unify infinite terms, A=B
can indeed be non-terminating, as Richard points out, even
when A and B are finite, E.g:
f(X,X,X)=f(Y,[1,1|Y],[1,1,1|Y]).
-- Sanjai Narain
------------------------------
Date: Fri 14 Dec 84 17:34:38-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-Reddy@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Narrowing
Thanks to Joe Goguen for mentioning Eqlog. Even though
Eqlog is an application of narrowing, the reason I did
not mention it originally was that it uses narrowing in
a slightly different way from what I suggested. Strictly
speaking, it uses not narrowing but universal unification
as the operational semantics, though narrowing is an
integral part of universal unification.
The technical difference between the two approaches is that
if narrowing is used as the operational semantics in its own
right, Eqlog's restriction that "rewrite rules should be
terminating" is not necessary. This is a significant
restriction, particularly when nonterminating rewrite rules
are considered "useful" under lazy evaluation. Secondly,
this also eliminates the need to have a separate logic part
and an equational part in a language, because general narrowing
subsumes both resolution and rewriting.
-- Uday Reddy
------------------------------
Date: Fri 14 Dec 84 12:27:59-PST
From: Allen Van Gelder <VanGelder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Enumerating a Range of Integers
In the recent discussion of the puzzle concerning integers
in the range 3..98, at least one solution involved axioms
pos(3) ... pos(98). This allows pos(X) to succeed 96 times
with bindings 3, 4, ... , 98. A more flexible and elegant
way to do this is given below. For this program,
?- btwn(3, 98, X).
succeeds 96 times with X bound successively to 3, 4, ... , 98
thus simulating the 96 axioms. A little study shows that besides
integers, you can enumerate any subrange of a set that has an order
relation and a successor function. (However, if this set is finite,
make sure the successor returns some dummy element outside the set
when applied to the max element IN the set.)
:- mode btwn(+, +, -).
:- mode enumlist(+, +, -).
:- mode getelt(+, -).
btwn(M, N, I) :-
enumlist(M, N, L),
getelt(L, I).
enumlist(M, N, []) :- M is N+1.
enumlist(M, N, [M | L]) :-
N >= M,
M1 is M+1,
!,
enumlist(M1, N, L).
getelt([I | ←], I).
getelt([← | L], I) :- getelt(L, I).
------------------------------
Date: 14 Dec 1984 0627-CST
From: Bruce Anderson <Anderson%TI-CSL.CSNet@CSNet-Relay>
Subject: Integers Problem
I have attached my solution to a variant of the Integers Problem
posed by Tim Finin in Vol. 2, Issue 38 of the Digest (November
29,1984). The variant appeared in "W-JS: A Modal Logic of
Knowledge" by Ma Xiwen and Guo Weide, Computer Science Institute,
Peking University, Beijing.
/*
A Prolog Solution to the S and P Puzzle
by Bruce M. Anderson (Anderson@TI-CSL)
November 8, 1984
The S and P puzzle is an example of a problem whose solution is
gradually constrained by dialog between individuals, interpreted
within the context of the individuals' point of view. Following this
brief introduction is a statement of the puzzle, a description of the
reasoning steps that lead to a solution, and the Prolog statements
for generating a solution.
To generate a solution to the S and P puzzle on the DEC-2060,
perform the following steps:
o Execute PROLOG.
o Consult this file.
o Enter "the←solution." when prompted.
For a look at the progression of solution sets as the problem
becomes increasingly constrained, enter: "the←set←F(X).",
"the←set←G(X).","the←set←H(X).", "the←set←I(X).". These responses
may be entered in any order.
The S and P puzzle was solved previously by Jeff Eisen in
Zetalisp on the Lisp Machine. The author is grateful to Jeff
for insightful discussions of the reasoning process needed to
solve this problem.
Mr. S and Mr. P Puzzle
Two numbers m and n are chosen such that 1 < m =< n < 100.
Mr. S is told their sum, and Mr. P is told their product.
The following dialog between Mr. S and Mr. P ensues:
Mr. S: I know you don't know the numbers. I don't know them
either.
Mr. P: Now I know the numbers.
Mr. S: Now I know them too.
In view of the above dialogue, what are the numbers?
The Reasoning Steps
Mr. S:
S11: I know the sum S.
S12: I know you don't know the numbers.
S13: I don't know them either.
Statement S12 implies that the product P = i * j, for all i
and j, constrained by 1 < i =< S/2 and j = S - i, cannot
be uniquely factored. P is uniquely factorable if there is
only one way that P can be written as the product of
two integers i and j, where 1 < i =< j < 100. Statement
S13 implies 6 =< S =< 196.
Define the set F to be those numbers between 6 and 196 that
as sums have constituents that in every case form products
that cannot be uniquely factored. That is,
F = { x | 6 =< x =< 196 AND x = i + j, 1 < i =< x/2, j = x - i
AND y = i * j AND y cannot be uniquely factored }
The sum S must be an element of the set F.
Mr. P:
P11: I know the product P.
P12: Now I know the numbers.
Statement S12 implies that P cannot be uniquely factored.
Mr. P can verify this by inspecting P as Statement P11
indicates. Moreover, at least one pair of factors of P
must form a sum that belongs to the set F. Define the
set G to be those products having factors that sum to
elements in the set F.
G = { z | z = i * j AND i + j belongs to F }
The product P must be an element of the set G.
Statement P12 implies that only one of the factorings of P
can be written as a sum belonging to the set F. A subset
of G consists of those elements for which there exists a
unique factoring that can be written as a sum belonging to F;
let the set H consist of those unique factor pairs.
H = { [i,j] | w = i * j AND i + j belongs to F AND
there exists no p not equal to i,
q not equal to j such that
w = p * q AND p + q belongs to F }
P is the product formed from one of the factor pairs in H;
that pair is the sought-after [m,n].
Mr. S:
S21: Now I know them too.
Statement S21 implies the existence of a unique factor pair in
H that forms the sum S. Let the set I be those pairs in H that
uniquely sum to an element of F; that is,
I = { [i,j] | [i,j] belongs to H AND
there exists no [p,q] in H, p not equal to i,
q not equal to j for which i + j = p + q }
The pair [m,n] must be the single element in I.
*/
/* Upper limit on values of the integers forming the sum and
product */
constant(number←limit,100).
/* Return a list of elements in the set F -- if the set doesn't
exist, create it and return it. */
the←set←F(List) :- the←set(f,List), !.
the←set←F(List) :- define←F, the←set(f,List).
/* Define the set F by establishing the upper limit on the sum,
creating the set, and asserting it into the global database. */
define←F :- constant(number←limit,U), N is 2 * U - 4,
build←sums(6,N,F), assertz(the←set(f,F)).
/* Create a list of sums that qualify for inclusion in the set F
by having no constituents that form a uniquely factorable
product.
For each candidate sum, the constituents are generated, then
tested to see that none can be uniquely factored. */
build←sums(I,N,[]) :- I > N, !.
build←sums(I,N,[I|T]) :-
candidate←sums(I,X), no←unique←factorization(X), !,
J is I + 1, build←sums(J,N,T).
build←sums(I,N,T) :- J is I + 1, build←sums(J,N,T).
/* Generate a list of the unique pairs of numbers, greater
than one, that sum to a given positive integer N. */
candidate←sums(N,List) :- sum←generator(2,N,List).
sum←generator(I,N,[]) :- M is 2 * I, M > N, !.
sum←generator(I,N,[[I,J]|T]) :-
J is N - I, K is I + 1, sum←generator(K,N,T).
/* A predicate that succeeds if none of the products formed from
the pairs of integers in the given list can be factored into
only one pair of integers, each with magnitude less than the
number limit (100). */
no←unique←factorization([]) :- !.
no←unique←factorization([[I,J]|T]) :-
K is I * J, factorizations(K,F), range←limits(F,G),
length(G,L), ((L =< 1, !, fail); no←unique←factorization(T)).
/* Generate a list of the distinct pairs of factors of a given
integer N, where each factor is greater than one. */
factorizations(N,FactorList) :- factorization←loop(2,N,FactorList).
factorization←loop(I,N,[]) :- M is I * I, M > N, !.
factorization←loop(I,N,[[I,Q]|F]) :-
divide(N,I,Q,R), R = 0, !, J is I + 1, factorization←loop(J,N,F).
factorization←loop(I,N,F) :- J is I + 1, factorization←loop(J,N,F).
/* Select from a list of integer pairs those pairs with components
less than the number limit (100). */
range←limits([],[]) :- !.
range←limits([[I,J]|T],[[I,J]|R]) :-
constant(number←limit,U), I < U, J < U, !, range←limits(T,R).
range←limits([←|T],R) :- range←limits(T,R).
/* Return a list of elements in the set G -- if the set doesn't
exist, create it and return it. */
the←set←G(List) :- the←set(g,List), !.
the←set←G(List) :- define←G, the←set(g,List).
/* Define the set G by using the set F to form all admissible
products and asserting the set into the global database. */
define←G :- the←set←F(F), build←products(F,G), assertz(the←set(g,G)).
/* Create the set of all products formed from pairs of integers
that sum to one of the elements in the set F. */
build←products([],[]) :- !.
build←products([N|T],R) :-
candidate←sums(N,X), form←products(X,P), build←products(T,U), !,
merge←sets(P,U,R).
/* Convert a list of integer pairs into a list of products of those
pairs. */
form←products([],[]) :- !.
form←products([[F1,F2]|T],[P|Q]) :- P is F1 * F2, form←products(T,Q).
/* Merge two lists of integers to form a third list containing no
duplicated elements. The integers in all three lists are in
ascending order. */
merge←sets(A,[],A).
merge←sets([],B,B).
merge←sets([H|T],B,C) :- add←set←element(H,B,D), !, merge←sets(T,D,C).
/* Merge a single integer into its proper place in a list of integers
arranged in ascending order. */
add←set←element(E,[],[E]) :- !.
add←set←element(E,[H|T],[H|T]) :- E = H, !. /* Ignore duplicate. */
add←set←element(E,[H|T],[H|R]) :- E > H, !, add←set←element(E,T,R).
add←set←element(E,L,[E|L]). /* E < H, Insert E. */
/* Return a list of the elements in the set H -- if the set doesn't
exist, create it and return it. */
the←set←H(List) :- the←set(h,List), !.
the←set←H(List) :- define←H, the←set(h,List).
/* Define the set H as factor pairs constructed from those
elements of the set G having only one factorization with
components that sum to elements in the set F. Assert the
set H into the global database. */
define←H :- the←set←G(G), select←singletons(G,H), assertz
(the←set(h,H)).
/* For each product, find its factorizations and return the
single factor pair that sums to an element in the set F
(if and only if such a pair exists). */
select←singletons([],[]) :- !.
select←singletons([P|T],[C|V]) :-
factorizations(P,Q), belongs←to←F(Q,U), length(U,L), L = 1, !,
car(U,C), select←singletons(T,V).
select←singletons([P|T],V) :- select←singletons(T,V).
/* Select only those pairs in a list of integer pairs whose
sum belongs to the set F. */
belongs←to←F([],[]) :- !.
belongs←to←F([[U,V]|T],[[U,V]|R]) :-
A is U + V, the←set←F(F), member(A,F), !, belongs←to←F(T,R).
belongs←to←F([Q|T],R) :- belongs←to←F(T,R).
/* Return a list of the elements in the set I -- if the set doesn't
exist, create it and return it. */
the←set←I(List) :- the←set(i,List), !.
the←set←I(List) :- define←I, the←set(i,List).
/* Define the set I to be those pairs in the set H that sum to a
single element in the set F. Assert the set I into the global
database. */
define←I :- the←set←F(F), the←set←H(H),
associate←pairs(F,H,I), assertz(the←set(i,I)).
/* For each integer in the set F, find those pairs in the set
H whose sum is that integer. Identify the integers in the
set F to which only one pair in the set H corresponds and
retain the pairs corresonding to those integers. */
associate←pairs([],←,[]) :- !.
associate←pairs([N|T],H,[Z|R]) :-
scan←pairs(N,H,Q), length(Q,L), L = 1, !, car(Q,Z),
associate←pairs(T,H,R).
associate←pairs([N|T],H,R) :- associate←pairs(T,H,R).
/* From a list of integer pairs, build a list of those whose
sum is a specified integer. */
scan←pairs(←,[],[]) :- !.
scan←pairs(N,[[U,V]|T], [[U,V]|R]) :-
A is U + V, A = N, !, scan←pairs(N,T,R).
scan←pairs(N,[H|T],R) :- scan←pairs(N,T,R).
/* From the set I, display the solution to the Mr. S and
Mr. P Problem. */
the←solution :-
the←set←I(I), car(I,[M,N]), nl, write('The numbers are: m = '),
write(M), write(' and n = '), write(N), write('.'), nl.
/* A predicate that succeeds if and only if Candidate belongs to
the list. */
member(Candidate,[Candidate|←]).
member(Candidate,[←|Tail]) :- member(Candidate,Tail).
/* Extract the first element of a list. */
car([],[]).
car([First|Rest],First).
/* Compute the quotient Q and the remainder R of X divided by
Y. */
divide(X,Y,Q,R) :-
nonvar(X), nonvar(Y), var(Q), var(R), !,
Q is X / Y, R is X mod Y.
divide(X,Y,Q,R) :-
var(X), nonvar(Y), nonvar(Q), nonvar(R), !,
X is Q * Y + R.
divide(X,Y,Q,R) :-
nonvar(X), var(Y), nonvar(Q), nonvar(R), !,
Y is (X - R) / Q.
divide(←,←,←,←) :- write('Insufficient Information'), fail.
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂17-Dec-84 1306 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Holiday Tea
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Dec 84 13:06:28 PST
Date: Mon 17 Dec 84 13:01:09-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Holiday Tea
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Please come by Thursday afternoon for a special Holiday Tea, mulled
wine and sweets, anytime from 2 to 6.
Jon
-------
∂17-Dec-84 2356 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Annual report
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Dec 84 23:56:29 PST
Date: Mon 17 Dec 84 23:55:08-PST
From: Gene Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Annual report
To: Academic-Council: ;
Your annual report is now due. Please turn it in asap if you haven't done so.
Thanks. GENE
-------
∂18-Dec-84 0857 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH DURING THE HOLIDAYS
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Dec 84 08:57:02 PST
Date: Tue 18 Dec 84 08:54:37-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH DURING THE HOLIDAYS
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
There will be NO Siglunch until January 11, 1985.
Paula
-------
∂19-Dec-84 1838 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA teacher wanted
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Dec 84 18:38:38 PST
Date: Wed 19 Dec 84 18:34:45-PST
From: Gene Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: teacher wanted
To: Academic-Council: ;
The Math dept needs someone local to teach Math 120. The text is
"Modern Algebra with Applications" by W. J. Gilbert. Do you have any
recommendations? It should be someone intersted in undergraduate education.
GENE
-------
∂19-Dec-84 1849 DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Dec. 20, No. 9
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Dec 84 18:48:58 PST
Date: Wed 19 Dec 84 18:32:28-PST
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Dec. 20, No. 9
To: dikRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
December 20, 1984 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 9
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
*****THURSDAY CSLI ACTIVITIES BETWEEN QUARTERS*****
There will be no center-wide activites today, December 27, or
January 3. Regular Thursday activities will resume on January 10.
A New Year's message from Jon Barwise appears on page 2.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 21 AREA C MEETING
Topic: REVE: A system for solving problems in equational theories,
based on term rewriting techniques
Speaker: Jean-Pierre Jouannaud, Professor at University of NANCY, FRANCE,
on leave at SRI-International and CSLI.
Equational Logic has been adopted by mathematicians for a very long
time and by computer scientists recently. Specifications in OBJ2, an
``object-oriented'' language designed and implemented at
SRI-International, uses equations to express relations between
objects. To express computations in this logic, equations are used
one way, e.g. as rules. To make proofs with rules in this logic
requires the so-called ``confluence'' property, which expresses that
the result of a computation is unique, no matter the order the rules
are applied. Proofs and computations are therefore integrated in a
very simple framework. When a set of rules does not have the
confluence property, it is augmented by new rules, using the so-called
Knuth and Bendix completion algorithm, until the property becomes
satisfied. This algorithm requires the set of rules to have the
termination property, i.e., an expression cannot be rewritten forever.
It has been proved that this algorithm allows one to perform as
inductive proof without invoking explicitly an induction principle and
to solve equations (unification) in the corresponding equational
theory as well.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←
LAST '84 NEWSLETTER AND NEW '85 EDITOR
The present issue of the Newsletter is the last of this year's. The next
issue will appear on January 3, 1985. Beginning with that issue, the
Newsletter will be edited by Emma Pease (Emma at SU-CSLI).
Happy Holidays
←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI REPORTS
``Moving the Semantic Fulcrum'' by Terry Winograd (Report No. CSLI--84-17)
has just been published. Report No. CSLI--84-2, ``The Situation in
Logic--I'' by Jon Barwise, which has been out of print, is now available.
To obtain a copy of these reports write to Dikran Karagueuzian, CSLI,
Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305 or send net mail to Dikran at SU-CSLI.
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter December 20, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW YEAR'S MESSAGE FROM JON BARWISE
Dear CSLI Folks,
This is the last Newsletter of 1984, and a time for recalling just how
much has been accomplished this year. Recent conversations I have had
with visitors from around the world make me realize that CSLI is far
different than it was this time last year. It is now a real place,
one with a reputation, a history, a subject matter, a first-rate
computational environment, and, most important, a real sense of
community. Area NL is still going strong, and areas F and C have now
come into their own, making a real impact on the research lives of
those involved. In addition, the new area P is getting organized and
shows real promise of adding to our understanding of language and
information. Only the dedication of many CSLI Folk has made all this
possible, the dedication that shows up in the day-to-day work of the
staff, in preparing talks for seminars, in committee meetings and
report writing, in organizing workshops, and all the other tasks that
go into making a research center work. Thanks to all of you!
However, we have not done this alone. We have had an enormous amount
of support from many others: from Charles Smith, Dr. Carl York and the
Board and staff of SDF, from officials at SRI, Stanford, and Xerox
PARC, Bell Labs, from our Advisory Panel, and from a host of visitors
who have greatly enriched the intellectual life of the Center. Thanks
to all of them, too! This past year has been a good one for me, my
family, and for CSLI. I hope it has been a good one for each of you,
and that next year will be even better.
Happy New Year,
Jon Barwise
←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 28 AREA C
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION OF FUNCTIONAL AND LOGIC PROGRAMMING
Functional and Logic Programming are two of the most exciting and active
developments in contemporary computer science. Functional Programming is
concerned with the elimination, or at least the taming, of so-called
side-effects. Logic Programming is concerned with having languages that
are closer to some form of pure logic (although some people use the phrase
to refer only to Prolog). Below are summaries of some of the participants'
presentations.
Kokichi Futatsugi -- indicated why the Japanese Fifth Generation Project has
chosen logic programming as its basis.
Jose Meseguer -- discussed some of the principles of two logic and functional
programming languages being developed at CSLI, OBJ2 and Eqlog.
Jean-Pierre Jouannaud -- discussed why theorem proving can be expected
to be more effective and useful for functional and logic
programming languages.
Joseph Goguen -- suggested why logic and functional programming
languages may be highly appropriate for research in natural
language syntax and semantics.
Yoni Malachi -- described Tablog and the way it uses nonclausal resolution
equality rewriting to support a more expressive language.
Masahiko Sato -- discussed why unification enables natural
``unification'' of logic and functional programming languages.
Brian Smith -- indicated (at least one person's view of) what would be
required of a functional/logical programming language in order to
make it appropriate for models of human reasoning.
Fernando Pereira -- gave a user's perspective of what is wrong (and
some of what is right!) with Prolog and what he expects from
functional programming models; will also remark on some
non-problems and non-solutions that keep being reinvented.
CORRECTION: In last week's Newsletter the title ``SUMMARY OF LAST
WEEK'S NL1 SEMINAR'' on page 2 should have read ``SUMMARY OF LAST
WEEK'S NL4 SEMINAR.'' Our apologies for the error.
-------
∂20-Dec-84 0957 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Tea
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Dec 84 09:57:47 PST
Date: Thu 20 Dec 84 09:51:58-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Tea
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Don't forget that there will be a special holiday tea today from 2 to
6. Stop by whenever you can.
-------
∂21-Dec-84 1351 G.GAZDAR@SU-CSLI.ARPA password hacker
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Dec 84 13:51:25 PST
Date: Fri 21 Dec 84 13:45:30-PST
From: Gerald Gazdar <G.GAZDAR@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: password hacker
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Somebody unknown broke into my Turing account this morning and
send a large number of people mail about whether they were a
"wheel". If you have found such an item in your mail, please
ignore it -- it did not come from me. --Gerald
-------
∂28-Dec-84 0244 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V2 #40
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Dec 84 02:43:52 PST
Date: Sunday, December 16, 1984 12:22PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584 Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V2 #40
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Monday, 17 Dec 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 40
Today's Topics:
Programming - Infinite Terms,
Puzzles - Integers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Dec 84 17:28:13 PST (Sat)
From: Sanjai Narain <Narain@Rand-Unix>
Subject: Infinite terms
I think Michel Boyer's definition of 'infinite(A)', for
detecting whether the term A is infinite, is quite sound.
So, in Prologs in which A=B always terminates with success
or failure, we should be able to use the following definition
of full unification:
unify(A,B):-A=B,not(infinite(A)).
However, in Prologs which do not unify infinite terms, A=B
can indeed be non-terminating, as Richard points out, even
when A and B are finite, E.g:
f(X,X,X)=f(Y,[1,1|Y],[1,1,1|Y]).
-- Sanjai Narain
------------------------------
Date: Fri 14 Dec 84 17:34:38-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-Reddy@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Narrowing
Thanks to Joe Goguen for mentioning Eqlog. Even though
Eqlog is an application of narrowing, the reason I did
not mention it originally was that it uses narrowing in
a slightly different way from what I suggested. Strictly
speaking, it uses not narrowing but universal unification
as the operational semantics, though narrowing is an
integral part of universal unification.
The technical difference between the two approaches is that
if narrowing is used as the operational semantics in its own
right, Eqlog's restriction that "rewrite rules should be
terminating" is not necessary. This is a significant
restriction, particularly when nonterminating rewrite rules
are considered "useful" under lazy evaluation. Secondly,
this also eliminates the need to have a separate logic part
and an equational part in a language, because general narrowing
subsumes both resolution and rewriting.
-- Uday Reddy
------------------------------
Date: Fri 14 Dec 84 12:27:59-PST
From: Allen Van Gelder <VanGelder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Enumerating a Range of Integers
In the recent discussion of the puzzle concerning integers
in the range 3..98, at least one solution involved axioms
pos(3) ... pos(98). This allows pos(X) to succeed 96 times
with bindings 3, 4, ... , 98. A more flexible and elegant
way to do this is given below. For this program,
?- btwn(3, 98, X).
succeeds 96 times with X bound successively to 3, 4, ... , 98
thus simulating the 96 axioms. A little study shows that besides
integers, you can enumerate any subrange of a set that has an order
relation and a successor function. (However, if this set is finite,
make sure the successor returns some dummy element outside the set
when applied to the max element IN the set.)
:- mode btwn(+, +, -).
:- mode enumlist(+, +, -).
:- mode getelt(+, -).
btwn(M, N, I) :-
enumlist(M, N, L),
getelt(L, I).
enumlist(M, N, []) :- M is N+1.
enumlist(M, N, [M | L]) :-
N >= M,
M1 is M+1,
!,
enumlist(M1, N, L).
getelt([I | ←], I).
getelt([← | L], I) :- getelt(L, I).
------------------------------
Date: 14 Dec 1984 0627-CST
From: Bruce Anderson <Anderson%TI-CSL.CSNet@CSNet-Relay>
Subject: Integers Problem
I have attached my solution to a variant of the Integers Problem
posed by Tim Finin in Vol. 2, Issue 38 of the Digest (November
29,1984). The variant appeared in "W-JS: A Modal Logic of
Knowledge" by Ma Xiwen and Guo Weide, Computer Science Institute,
Peking University, Beijing.
/*
A Prolog Solution to the S and P Puzzle
by Bruce M. Anderson (Anderson@TI-CSL)
November 8, 1984
The S and P puzzle is an example of a problem whose solution is
gradually constrained by dialog between individuals, interpreted
within the context of the individuals' point of view. Following this
brief introduction is a statement of the puzzle, a description of the
reasoning steps that lead to a solution, and the Prolog statements
for generating a solution.
To generate a solution to the S and P puzzle on the DEC-2060,
perform the following steps:
o Execute PROLOG.
o Consult this file.
o Enter "the←solution." when prompted.
For a look at the progression of solution sets as the problem
becomes increasingly constrained, enter: "the←set←F(X).",
"the←set←G(X).","the←set←H(X).", "the←set←I(X).". These responses
may be entered in any order.
The S and P puzzle was solved previously by Jeff Eisen in
Zetalisp on the Lisp Machine. The author is grateful to Jeff
for insightful discussions of the reasoning process needed to
solve this problem.
Mr. S and Mr. P Puzzle
Two numbers m and n are chosen such that 1 < m =< n < 100.
Mr. S is told their sum, and Mr. P is told their product.
The following dialog between Mr. S and Mr. P ensues:
Mr. S: I know you don't know the numbers. I don't know them
either.
Mr. P: Now I know the numbers.
Mr. S: Now I know them too.
In view of the above dialogue, what are the numbers?
The Reasoning Steps
Mr. S:
S11: I know the sum S.
S12: I know you don't know the numbers.
S13: I don't know them either.
Statement S12 implies that the product P = i * j, for all i
and j, constrained by 1 < i =< S/2 and j = S - i, cannot
be uniquely factored. P is uniquely factorable if there is
only one way that P can be written as the product of
two integers i and j, where 1 < i =< j < 100. Statement
S13 implies 6 =< S =< 196.
Define the set F to be those numbers between 6 and 196 that
as sums have constituents that in every case form products
that cannot be uniquely factored. That is,
F = { x | 6 =< x =< 196 AND x = i + j, 1 < i =< x/2, j = x - i
AND y = i * j AND y cannot be uniquely factored }
The sum S must be an element of the set F.
Mr. P:
P11: I know the product P.
P12: Now I know the numbers.
Statement S12 implies that P cannot be uniquely factored.
Mr. P can verify this by inspecting P as Statement P11
indicates. Moreover, at least one pair of factors of P
must form a sum that belongs to the set F. Define the
set G to be those products having factors that sum to
elements in the set F.
G = { z | z = i * j AND i + j belongs to F }
The product P must be an element of the set G.
Statement P12 implies that only one of the factorings of P
can be written as a sum belonging to the set F. A subset
of G consists of those elements for which there exists a
unique factoring that can be written as a sum belonging to F;
let the set H consist of those unique factor pairs.
H = { [i,j] | w = i * j AND i + j belongs to F AND
there exists no p not equal to i,
q not equal to j such that
w = p * q AND p + q belongs to F }
P is the product formed from one of the factor pairs in H;
that pair is the sought-after [m,n].
Mr. S:
S21: Now I know them too.
Statement S21 implies the existence of a unique factor pair in
H that forms the sum S. Let the set I be those pairs in H that
uniquely sum to an element of F; that is,
I = { [i,j] | [i,j] belongs to H AND
there exists no [p,q] in H, p not equal to i,
q not equal to j for which i + j = p + q }
The pair [m,n] must be the single element in I.
*/
/* Upper limit on values of the integers forming the sum and
product */
constant(number←limit,100).
/* Return a list of elements in the set F -- if the set doesn't
exist, create it and return it. */
the←set←F(List) :- the←set(f,List), !.
the←set←F(List) :- define←F, the←set(f,List).
/* Define the set F by establishing the upper limit on the sum,
creating the set, and asserting it into the global database. */
define←F :- constant(number←limit,U), N is 2 * U - 4,
build←sums(6,N,F), assertz(the←set(f,F)).
/* Create a list of sums that qualify for inclusion in the set F
by having no constituents that form a uniquely factorable
product.
For each candidate sum, the constituents are generated, then
tested to see that none can be uniquely factored. */
build←sums(I,N,[]) :- I > N, !.
build←sums(I,N,[I|T]) :-
candidate←sums(I,X), no←unique←factorization(X), !,
J is I + 1, build←sums(J,N,T).
build←sums(I,N,T) :- J is I + 1, build←sums(J,N,T).
/* Generate a list of the unique pairs of numbers, greater
than one, that sum to a given positive integer N. */
candidate←sums(N,List) :- sum←generator(2,N,List).
sum←generator(I,N,[]) :- M is 2 * I, M > N, !.
sum←generator(I,N,[[I,J]|T]) :-
J is N - I, K is I + 1, sum←generator(K,N,T).
/* A predicate that succeeds if none of the products formed from
the pairs of integers in the given list can be factored into
only one pair of integers, each with magnitude less than the
number limit (100). */
no←unique←factorization([]) :- !.
no←unique←factorization([[I,J]|T]) :-
K is I * J, factorizations(K,F), range←limits(F,G),
length(G,L), ((L =< 1, !, fail); no←unique←factorization(T)).
/* Generate a list of the distinct pairs of factors of a given
integer N, where each factor is greater than one. */
factorizations(N,FactorList) :- factorization←loop(2,N,FactorList).
factorization←loop(I,N,[]) :- M is I * I, M > N, !.
factorization←loop(I,N,[[I,Q]|F]) :-
divide(N,I,Q,R), R = 0, !, J is I + 1, factorization←loop(J,N,F).
factorization←loop(I,N,F) :- J is I + 1, factorization←loop(J,N,F).
/* Select from a list of integer pairs those pairs with components
less than the number limit (100). */
range←limits([],[]) :- !.
range←limits([[I,J]|T],[[I,J]|R]) :-
constant(number←limit,U), I < U, J < U, !, range←limits(T,R).
range←limits([←|T],R) :- range←limits(T,R).
/* Return a list of elements in the set G -- if the set doesn't
exist, create it and return it. */
the←set←G(List) :- the←set(g,List), !.
the←set←G(List) :- define←G, the←set(g,List).
/* Define the set G by using the set F to form all admissible
products and asserting the set into the global database. */
define←G :- the←set←F(F), build←products(F,G), assertz(the←set(g,G)).
/* Create the set of all products formed from pairs of integers
that sum to one of the elements in the set F. */
build←products([],[]) :- !.
build←products([N|T],R) :-
candidate←sums(N,X), form←products(X,P), build←products(T,U), !,
merge←sets(P,U,R).
/* Convert a list of integer pairs into a list of products of those
pairs. */
form←products([],[]) :- !.
form←products([[F1,F2]|T],[P|Q]) :- P is F1 * F2, form←products(T,Q).
/* Merge two lists of integers to form a third list containing no
duplicated elements. The integers in all three lists are in
ascending order. */
merge←sets(A,[],A).
merge←sets([],B,B).
merge←sets([H|T],B,C) :- add←set←element(H,B,D), !, merge←sets(T,D,C).
/* Merge a single integer into its proper place in a list of integers
arranged in ascending order. */
add←set←element(E,[],[E]) :- !.
add←set←element(E,[H|T],[H|T]) :- E = H, !. /* Ignore duplicate. */
add←set←element(E,[H|T],[H|R]) :- E > H, !, add←set←element(E,T,R).
add←set←element(E,L,[E|L]). /* E < H, Insert E. */
/* Return a list of the elements in the set H -- if the set doesn't
exist, create it and return it. */
the←set←H(List) :- the←set(h,List), !.
the←set←H(List) :- define←H, the←set(h,List).
/* Define the set H as factor pairs constructed from those
elements of the set G having only one factorization with
components that sum to elements in the set F. Assert the
set H into the global database. */
define←H :- the←set←G(G), select←singletons(G,H), assertz
(the←set(h,H)).
/* For each product, find its factorizations and return the
single factor pair that sums to an element in the set F
(if and only if such a pair exists). */
select←singletons([],[]) :- !.
select←singletons([P|T],[C|V]) :-
factorizations(P,Q), belongs←to←F(Q,U), length(U,L), L = 1, !,
car(U,C), select←singletons(T,V).
select←singletons([P|T],V) :- select←singletons(T,V).
/* Select only those pairs in a list of integer pairs whose
sum belongs to the set F. */
belongs←to←F([],[]) :- !.
belongs←to←F([[U,V]|T],[[U,V]|R]) :-
A is U + V, the←set←F(F), member(A,F), !, belongs←to←F(T,R).
belongs←to←F([Q|T],R) :- belongs←to←F(T,R).
/* Return a list of the elements in the set I -- if the set doesn't
exist, create it and return it. */
the←set←I(List) :- the←set(i,List), !.
the←set←I(List) :- define←I, the←set(i,List).
/* Define the set I to be those pairs in the set H that sum to a
single element in the set F. Assert the set I into the global
database. */
define←I :- the←set←F(F), the←set←H(H),
associate←pairs(F,H,I), assertz(the←set(i,I)).
/* For each integer in the set F, find those pairs in the set
H whose sum is that integer. Identify the integers in the
set F to which only one pair in the set H corresponds and
retain the pairs corresonding to those integers. */
associate←pairs([],←,[]) :- !.
associate←pairs([N|T],H,[Z|R]) :-
scan←pairs(N,H,Q), length(Q,L), L = 1, !, car(Q,Z),
associate←pairs(T,H,R).
associate←pairs([N|T],H,R) :- associate←pairs(T,H,R).
/* From a list of integer pairs, build a list of those whose
sum is a specified integer. */
scan←pairs(←,[],[]) :- !.
scan←pairs(N,[[U,V]|T], [[U,V]|R]) :-
A is U + V, A = N, !, scan←pairs(N,T,R).
scan←pairs(N,[H|T],R) :- scan←pairs(N,T,R).
/* From the set I, display the solution to the Mr. S and
Mr. P Problem. */
the←solution :-
the←set←I(I), car(I,[M,N]), nl, write('The numbers are: m = '),
write(M), write(' and n = '), write(N), write('.'), nl.
/* A predicate that succeeds if and only if Candidate belongs to
the list. */
member(Candidate,[Candidate|←]).
member(Candidate,[←|Tail]) :- member(Candidate,Tail).
/* Extract the first element of a list. */
car([],[]).
car([First|Rest],First).
/* Compute the quotient Q and the remainder R of X divided by
Y. */
divide(X,Y,Q,R) :-
nonvar(X), nonvar(Y), var(Q), var(R), !,
Q is X / Y, R is X mod Y.
divide(X,Y,Q,R) :-
var(X), nonvar(Y), nonvar(Q), nonvar(R), !,
X is Q * Y + R.
divide(X,Y,Q,R) :-
nonvar(X), var(Y), nonvar(Q), nonvar(R), !,
Y is (X - R) / Q.
divide(←,←,←,←) :- write('Insufficient Information'), fail.
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂29-Dec-84 1257 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Workshop in Combinatorics
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Dec 84 12:57:37 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sat 29 Dec 84 12:55:47-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Sat, 29 Dec 84 14:53:24 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Fri, 28 Dec 84 18:04:46 cst
Received: from csnet-relay.arpa by wisc-crys.arpa; Fri, 28 Dec 84 18:04:39 cst
Received: from lbl-csam.arpa by csnet-relay.arpa id a006251; 28 Dec 84 19:04 EST
Received: by lbl-csam.ARPA ; Fri, 28 Dec 84 16:03:42 pst
Received: by oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (4.12/4.7)
id AA18852; Fri, 28 Dec 84 14:25:55 cst
Received: by gargoyle.UChicago (4.12/4.7)
id AA26439; Fri, 28 Dec 84 14:16:31 cst
Message-Id: <8412282016.AA26439@gargoyle.UChicago>
Date: 28 Dec 1984 14:14-CST
From: Stuart Kurtz <oddjob!gargoyle!stuart@lbl-csam.ARPA>
Subject: Workshop in Combinatorics
To: theory%UWISC@csnet-relay.arpa
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
The text below is meant to be an announcement for csnet, especially the
theory group.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT
Chicago Workshop on Computational Complexity
University of Chicago, May 2 - 4, 1985
The Department of Computer Science of the University of Chicago
announces that there will be a moderate size workshop on Computational
Complexity taking place on the University campus.
Participants will be active researchers in Computational Complexity
Theory.
The core of the meeting will be a series of four instructional
lectures by Richard M. Karp on parallel computation. In
addition, four one-hour lectures will be given by
R. L. Graham, F. T. Leighton, L. Lova'sz and E. Szemere'di.
There will be ample time left for individual discussions.
Tentative schedule
Wednesday, May 1
8:30 P.M. Reception
Thursday, May 2
9:30 A.M. F. T. Leighton
10:30 coffee
11:00 E. Szemere'di
12:30 lunch
2:30 R. M. Karp I
3:30 coffee
4:30 Problem Session
Friday, May 3
9:30 R. M. Karp II
10:30 coffee
11:00 R. M. Karp III
12:30 lunch
informal discussions
4:00 tea
4:30 R. L. Graham
Saturday, May 4
9:30 L. Lova'sz
10:30 coffee
11:00 R. M. Karp IV
12:30 lunch
3:00 sightseeing in downtown Chicago
The timing of the Workshop has been chosen so that participants
of the STOC meeting (May 6-9) can stop in Chicago on their way to
Rhode Island.
The organizers of the workshop are L. Babai (UC), co-chairman; W. Maass
(Uinversity of Illinois at Chicago); J. Plumstead (UC); J. Shallit (UC); M.
Sipser (M.I.T.), R. I. Soare (UC), co-chairman.
For more information write to:
Prof.Robert I. Soare
or Prof. Laszlo Babai
Department of Computer Science
University of Chicago
1100 E 58th St
Chicago, IL 60637
∂02-Jan-85 0957 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa FOCS Call for Papers
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Jan 85 09:57:08 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 2 Jan 85 09:54:33-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Wed, 2 Jan 85 11:48:25 cst
Message-Id: <8501020023.AA29423@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: from csnet-relay.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 1 Jan 85 18:23:44 cst
Received: from uoregon by csnet-relay.csnet id a010785; 1 Jan 85 19:22 EST
Date: 31 Dec 1984 13:07:32-PST
From: luks%uoregon.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
To: theory@wisc-rsch.ARPA
Subject: FOCS Call for Papers
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
26th Annual Symposium
FOUNDATIONS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
Portland, Oregon
October 21-23, 1985
Technical Committee on Mathematical Foundations of Computing
IEEE Computer Society
CALL FOR PAPERS
1985 IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
The 26th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer
Science, sponsored by the Computer Society's Technical Com-
mittee on Mathematical Foundations of Computing, will be
held in Portland, Oregon, on October 21-23, 1985. Papers
presenting original research on theoretical aspects of com-
puter science are being sought.
Suggested Topics: Typical, but not exclusive, include
+ Algorithms and Data Structures
+ Computability and Complexity Theory
+ Cryptography
+ Theory of Data Bases
+ Logic of Programs
+ Theory of Formal Languages and Automata
+ Theory of Logical Design, Layout and VLSI
+ Theory of Robotics
+ Semantics of Programming Languages
+ Parallel and Distributed Computation
Submission of papers: Authors should send ten copies of a
detailed abstract (NOT a full paper) by April 29, 1985, to
the Program Committee Chairman:
Robert E. Tarjan
PO Box 347
Oldwick, NJ 08858
Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by June
17, 1985. A copy of each accepted paper, typed on special
forms for inclusion in the symposium proceedings, will be
due by August 5, 1985.
IMPORTANT. Because a large number of submissions is antici-
pated, authors are advised to prepare their detailed
abstracts carefully. It is recommended that each submission
begin with a succinct statement of the problem, a statement
of the main results and an explanation of the significance
that is suitable for a general research audience. Technical
development of the work, directed to the specialist, should
follow as appropriate. In any case, the entire extended
abstract, with comparison to extant work, should not exceed
2500 words (ten typed double-spaced pages). Submissions
departing from these guidelines risk rejection without con-
sideration of their merits.
Meeting Format: The format of the meeting, including time
allocations for presentations, will be determined by the
Program Committee. Authors having a preference for a short
(10-15 minute) or long (20-30 minute) presentation should
express it at the time of submission. Such a preference
will not influence acceptance, and time allocation will not
be noted in the proceedings or affect the speac allocation
for the paper. If submissions warrant the committee will
compose a program of parallel sessions.
Machtey Award for Best Student Paper: This award, of up to
$400 to help defray expenses for attending the Symposium,
will be given for that paper which the Program Committee ad-
judges the most outstanding paper written solely by a stu-
dent or students. To be considered for the award, an
abstract must be accompanied by a letter identifying all au-
thors as full-time students at the time of submission. (At
its discretion, the Committee may decline to make the award
or may split the award among two or more papers.)
Symposium Committees
Program Committee
Manuel Blum Charles Rackoff
John Hopcroft Larry Ruzzo
Tom Leighton Larry Stockmeyer
Jeffrey Lagarius Bob Tarjan
Michael O'Donnell Frances Yao
Local Arrangements
Eugene M. Luks
Computer & Information Science
University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon 97403
∂02-Jan-85 1730 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Dec. 20, No. 10
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Jan 85 17:30:37 PST
Date: Wed 2 Jan 85 17:16:47-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Dec. 20, No. 10
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
TEL: 497-3479
LOC: The Garret
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
January 3, 1984 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 10
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
*****THURSDAY CSLI ACTIVITIES BETWEEN QUARTERS*****
There will be no center-wide activities today. Regular Thursday
activities will resume on January 10.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, January 10, 1984
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Godehard Link
Conference Room ``Prespie in Pragmatic Wonderland or:
The Projection Problem for Presuppositions
Revisited''
Discussion led by Dietmar Zaefferer
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall David Israel
Room G-19 ``A Not-So-Olympian Overview of Area F (from
the heights(?) of the Area Coordinator)''
Discussant will be John Perry
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Comparatives and Superlatives''
Room G-19 Irene Heim
University of Texas
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
"Prespie in Pragmatic Wonderland or:
The Projection Problem for Presuppositions Revisited"
The projection problem is the question of how to predict the presuppositions
of a compound sentence from those of its parts. Two strategies have emerged
from the discussion so far: (a) cumulation and pragmatic cancellation, and
(b) compositional generation. Since neither approach explains all the data,
a combination of (a) and (b) has been proposed by S. Soames. But, according
to Link, this approach is still unsatisfactory, since it neglects the
logical part of the problem. He argues that a better view of the modularity
can be obtained with the assumption of a plausibility ranking on the
set of formulas that are possible candidates, on purely semantic grounds,
for the logical form of an utterance. Under such a view, some allegedly
unsurmountable difficulties for the semantic approach (e.g. partial negation,
disjunctions with conflicting presuppositions, and sentences like "Possibly,
John lost his new camera") can be overcome with a more flexible logic. Using
a three-valued logic, Link shows that the classical semantic notion of
presupposition is compatible with the Karttunen-Heim admittance relation.
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter January 3, 1984
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``A Not-So-Olympian Overview of Area F
(from the heights(?) of the Area Coordinator)''
There are 4 projects in the Foundations Area: F1 on Theories of
Information; F2 on Inference, Information, and Logic; F3 on Philosophy
of Computation; and F4 on Thought, Action, and The CommonSense World.
There are a number of ways of relating these projects; I shall attempt
to outline one of them.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT
Computational Models for the Semantics of Natural Language
(C.S. 276, Ling. 276)
Winter Quarter, MWF 10--11, Terman 156 (Televised)
In this course we will develop the theoretical basis for the
implementation of computer systems dealing with the meaning of natural
language. We will cover a variety of semantic and pragmatic areas,
developing three aspects of each: 1) The formal theories relevant to
the area, drawn from work in linguistics and the philosophy of
language, 2) Computational issues that arise, and the computational
mechanisms that have been developed to augment or supplant the
standard formal framework, and 3) Limitations of the formalization and
problems in extending it to cover the full range of related phenomena.
Areas covered will include lexical meaning, compositionality,
quantification and reference, temporality, speech acts, and schematic
structures. ---Terry Winograd
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI SEMINAR
``Representation and Presentation''
Benny Shanon, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Wednesday, January 9 at 4:00 pm in the Ventura conference room
A series of arguments, drawn on the basis of various aspects of
psychological phenomenology are marshalled against the representational-
computational view of mind. The argument from context marks the
unconstrained variation of meaning with context, hence the impossibility
of a full, comprehensive semantic representation; the argument from
medium points out that medium is an ineliminable contributor to meaning
and that a variety of psychological patterns do not allow for a
distinction between medium and message, hence they cannot be accounted
for by means of abstract, symbolic representations; the argument from
development notes that the representational view not only cannot
account for the problem of the origin in cognition, but that it leads
to unnatural and even paradoxical patterns whereby what is theoretically
simple is phenomenologically complex and/or developmentally late and
what is theoretically complex is phenomenologically simple and/or
developmentally early. On the basis of these arguments it is
suggested that cognition be viewed as a dialectic process between two
types of patterns: representational and presentational.
-------
∂02-Jan-85 2347 YM Talk on Rewrite rules at IBM San Jose.
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA, "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
2:00pm Monday, Jan. 7
Room 1C-012 (in Building 28 at IBM)
Ed Wimmers
IBM Research San Jose
What does it mean for rewrite rules to be "correct"?
We consider an operational definition for FP via rewrite rules. What would it
mean for such a definition to be correct? We certainly want the rewrite rules
to capture correctly our intuitions regarding the meaning of the primitive
functions. We also want there to be enough rewrite rules to compute the correct
meaning of all expressions, but not too many, thus making equivalent two
expressions that should be different. And what does it mean for there to be
"enough" rules? We develop a new formal criterion for deciding whether there
are enough rewrite rules and show that our rewrite rules meet that criterion.
Our proof technique is novel in the way we use the semantic domain to guide an
assignment of types to the untyped language FP; this allows us to adopt powerful
techniques from the typed lambda-calculus theory.
Host: John Backus
----
If interested, come to IBM few minutes before the talk and ask for Joe Halpern
Instructions on how ot get there can be found in the IBM Calendar of events
message on this bboard.
∂03-Jan-85 1239 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa bibliography announcement
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Jan 85 12:39:08 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 3 Jan 85 12:37:01-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 3 Jan 85 14:30:36 cst
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 85 13:59:21 cst
From: alice!dsj%allegra.UUCP@wisc-rsch.arpa
Message-Id: <8501031959.AA19064@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 3 Jan 85 13:59:21 cst
To: research!theory@uwisc.ARPA
Subject: bibliography announcement
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
COMING SOON: A STOC/FOCS INDEX
(reprinted from SIGACT News)
The SIGACT Executive Committee is initiating a
project to produce a cumulative index of all papers
that have appeared in the proceedings of the 16
SIGACT-sponsored STOC conferences and the series of 25
similar IEEE-sponsored symposia, the last 10 of which
have been called FOCS conferences (after ten or so
SWAT's and an initial run of something totally unpro-
nounceable). We plan to build on the work of the
former Executive Committee chaired by Dick Lipton,
which produced an index of the first 12 STOC's. Beyond
extending this to the FOCS's and the more recent
STOC's, we hope to include additional bibliographic
material so as to make the Index a more valuable
research tool.
In particular, we wish, where possible, to provide
pointers to the journal articles that superceded the
conference papers, when such journal articles exist.
All the proceedings carry a disclaimer of the form
``The papers generally represent preliminary reports of
continuing research. It is expected that most will
appear in more polished and complete form in scientific
journals.'' Unfortunately, when such ``polished'' ver-
sions are published, it is often after a considerable
delay, and researchers familiar with the conference
version may never discover its new incarnation, and
hence continue to cite the old one. By collecting and
publishing this information, we hope to reduce such
mis-citations, and also to encourage more researchers
to produce final versions of their conference papers
for journal publication.
As a further aid toward insuring accurate cita-
tions, we also hope to gather information on erroneous
conference papers (these are, after all, unrefereed,
and occasionally a major error slips through) and
pointers to papers that anticipated conference results,
but were not discovered until after the proceedings had
appeared. More positively, we would also like to
include pointers to subsequent papers that resolved
open problems left in the conference paper.
If all goes well, the Index will appear as a spe-
cial issue of SIGACT News sometime in 1986, although
tidbits for trivia buffs may well leak out earlier (who
HAS had the most STOC/FOCS papers?). The tables of
contents of the various proceedings are currently being
entered into the computer. The task of obtaining the
bibliographic pointers will take considerably more
time. We will need your help, both to provide
information about your own papers and to help us dig
out the rest. Volunteers for the latter task are wel-
come, as are any comments or suggestions you might have
about the project. In the meantime, authors are
encouraged to fill out a copy of the questionnaire be-
low (also in the next issue of SIGACT News) for each of
their conference papers (you need only enter your name,
address, etc. once if multiple papers are covered), and
send them to your faithful collator, David S. Johnson,
Room 2C-355, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
07974.
CONFERENCE PAPER QUESTIONNAIRE
STOC or FOCS ←←←←←←← Number ←←←←←←← Year ←←←←←←← Pages ←←←←←←
Title:
Check the applicable statements:
←←←←← Journal version(s) have appeared.
←←←←← Journal version(s) WILL appear.
←←←←← No journal version published or planned.
←←←←← Only part of this paper is/will be covered by journal articles.
Journal Version(s) [Author(s), Title, Journal, Volume, Date, Pages]
Other Information [Erroneous results, Earlier papers with same results,
Subsequent papers that solved open problems]:
Name ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Address ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Phone ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← Computer Mail ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
∂03-Jan-85 1707 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:YM@SU-AI.ARPA TALK BY NARENDRA KARMARKAR
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Jan 85 17:07:44 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 3 Jan 85 17:01:59-PST
Date: 03 Jan 85 1601 PST
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: TALK BY NARENDRA KARMARKAR
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
∂03-Jan-85 1100 COTTLE@SU-SIERRA.ARPA TALK BY NARENDRA KARMARKAR
Received: from SU-SIERRA.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Jan 85 11:00:30 PST
Date: Thu 3 Jan 85 11:02:49-PST
From: Richard Cottle <COTTLE@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
Subject: TALK BY NARENDRA KARMARKAR
To: SU-BBOARDS@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
SPECIAL COLLOQUIUM
DEPARTMENT OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
A NEW POLYNOMIAL-TIME ALGORITHM
FOR LINEAR PROGRAMMING
N. Karmarkar
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Murray Hill, New Jersey
ABSTRACT
We present a new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming.
The running time of the algorithm is O(n↑3.5L↑2), as compared with
O(n↑6L↑2) for the ellipsoid algorithm. We prove that given a polytope
P and a strictly interior point a in P, there is a projective
transformation of the space that maps P,a to P',a' having the
following property. The ratio of the radius of the smallest sphere
with center a' contained in P' to the radius of the largest sphere
with center a' contained in P' is O(n). The algorithm consists of
repeated application of such projective transformations followed by
optimization of an inscribed sphere to create a sequence of points
which converge to the optimal solution in polynomial time.
TIME: FRIDAY - JANUARY 11, 1985 - 3:15 P.M.
PLACE: TERMAN AUDITORIUM (TERMAN ENGINEERING CENTER 153)
-------
∂03-Jan-85 2322 CLT Special meeting of the Seminar in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics
To: "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Speaker: Professor Charles Steinhorn, Vassar College
Title: Dedekind complete o-minimal structures
Place: Room 383-N, 3d Floor Lounge, Math. Dept., Stanford
Time: Monday, January 7, 4:15-5:30 P.M.
S. Feferman
∂04-Jan-85 1444 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Jan 85 14:44:19 PST
Date: Fri 4 Jan 85 14:33:58-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk(s)
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: hanrahan@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Happy new year and welcome back to AFLB!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1/10/85 - Prof. Christos Papadimitriou (Stanford):
"Some Algorithmic Problems in Vision and Motion"
This talk will be a shallow overview of some recent results concerning
the complexity of algorithmic problems of interest in robotics. Two
sample problems: Given a planar graph with straight lines, is it the
projection of the visible part of a set of three-dimensional opaque
polyhedra? Given a set of polyhedral obstacles in three dimensions,
and two points, what is the shortest path between the two points that
avoids all obstacles? We present a variety of results (unfortunately
for different problems): Polynomial algorithms, NP-completeness,
approximation algorithms, and wide-open questions.
***** Time and place: January 10, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂04-Jan-85 1636 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WELCH@Ames-VMSB SIGBIG
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Jan 85 16:36:42 PST
Received: from Ames-VMSB.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 4 Jan 85 16:30:56-PST
Date: 4 Jan 1985 1618-PST
From: WELCH at Ames-VMSB
Subject: SIGBIG
To: SUPER at SU-SCORE.ARPA.ARPA
Reply-To: WELCH@Ames-VMSB
"SIGBIG" Special Interest Committee
For Large High Speed Computers
Meetings on the first Wednesday of each month at 7:30 PM. Speakers
who can give insights to various aspects of SUPERCOMPUTING are
featured each month.
For information contact Mary Fowler, Chairperson (415) 694-6515
or Mike Austin, Publ. Chair (415) 423-8446
Next meeting:
Wednesday, January 9,1985, 7:30 PM
Speaker: Ken Stevens/NASA-Ames Research Center
Subject: The ILLIAC IV
Location: Informatics
1121 San Antonio Rd., Palo Alto
Directions: Located right at the NorthEast corner of the
intersection of San Antonio and Highway 101.
Previous Meetings:
1-4-84 George Michael/LLNL Survey of Supercomputing
2-1-84 Peter Denning/NASA Supercomputing circa 1995
3-7-84 Kent Koeninger/TDC Cray X-MP Performance studies
4-4-84 Cathy Schulbach/NASA Data Flow Machines
5-2-84 Leonard Shar/ELXSI Description of the ELXSI
6-6-84 Raul Mendez/Naval PGS Japanese Supercomputers
7-11-84 John Killeen/NMFE Supercomputers in Fusion Research
8-1-84 Eugene Miya/NASA-Ames Using Multiple Processors
11-7-84 John Roberts/Amdahl Description of the Fujitsu VP-200
12-5-84 Norm Hardy/TYMSHARE Early Timesharing on Supercomputers
Tape-recordings of most of these meetings may be
obtained in exchange for a tape cassette or $5.00 by contacting:
Mary Fowler (415) 694-6515
------
∂04-Jan-85 1657 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics class
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Jan 85 16:57:09 PST
Date: Fri 4 Jan 85 16:33:23-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Linguistics class
To: bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA
TEL: 497-3479
LOC: The Garret
ReSent-Date: Fri 4 Jan 85 16:46:09-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Linguistics 233
Topic: Unification and Contemporary Syntactic Theory
Instructors:
Martin Kay (494-4343)
Ivan Sag (497-3875)
Carl Pollard (497-3327)
Winter, 1984
Meetings: Wed: 3:15-5:30 in 200-107
Section: place and time to be arranged
Abstract:
In this course we attempt to reveal the NOTIONAL communality
among various contemporary syntactic theories that is largely hidden
by their NOTATIONAL disparity. We start from the hypothesis
that Functional Unification Grammar constitutes a metalanguage
to which much recent work in syntactic theory can be reduced. Analyses
of a number of linguistic phenomena (and the theoretical conclusions
drawn therefrom) will be examined and compared with an eye toward
revealing common theoretical notions. Some knowledge of syntactic
theory and relevant mathematical formalisms will be presupposed.
Students will have an opportunity to develop research ideas in the
computational environment of CSLI.
FOR MORE INFORMATION SEE THE CSLI BBOARD OR CONTACT SAG@SU-PSYCH
-------
∂07-Jan-85 0817 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Course on reasoning about knowledge
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Jan 85 08:17:26 PST
Return-Path: <halpern.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Received: from csnet-relay by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Fri 4 Jan 85 19:08:55-PST
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id ab26964; 4 Jan 85 22:08 EST
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 85 18:37:23 PST
From: Joe Halpern <halpern%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: FRIENDS@su-csli.ARPA
Subject: Course on reasoning about knowledge
CC: bboard@su-csli.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Mon 7 Jan 85 08:15:24-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Course announcement:
Reasoning About Knowledge (CS400B)
Knowledge seems to play a crucial role in such diverse areas as
distributed systems, cryptography, and artificial intelligence.
We will examine various attempts at formalizing reasoning about
knowledge, and see to what extent they are applicable to the areas
mentioned above. In particular we will consider such problems as
resource-bounded reasoning, inconsistency of beliefs, belief revision,
and knowledge representation. There is no text from the course; we
will be concentrating on current research.
Officially the course meets on Tuesdays in the winter quarter,
from 2:45-5:00, in Bldg. 200, Rm. 305.
I would be willing to consider moving that time
to another afternoon (although I suspect it might be hard to
reach agreement). It might be nice to push the meeting time forward
to 1:30-3:45, so those interested can attend the CS Colloquium.
I've enclosed a brief (tentative!) outline for the course. As of now,
the emphasis is on material I'm most familiar with (i.e., papers
I've written), but I would be interested in hearing suggestions
from participants in the course on other material to cover.
Auditors are welcome.
Week 1 and 2: Philosophical background and thorough introduction to
possible-worlds semantics for knowledge.
References: W. Lenzen, Recent work in epistemic logic, Acta
Philosophica Fennica, 1978.
J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, A guide to the modal logics
of knowledge and belief, to appear as an IBM RJ, 1985.
Week 3: The "knowledge structures" approach
References: R. Fagin, J.Y. Halpern, and M.Y. Vardi, A
model-theoretic analysis of knowledge, in "Proceedings
of the 25th Annual Conference of Foundations of
Computer Science", 1984, pp. 268-278
Week 4: Knowledge in distibuted systems
References: J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, Knowledge and common
knowledge in a distributed environment, in "Proceedings
of the 3rd ACM Conference on Principles of Distributed
Computing", 1984; IBM RJ 4421, 1984.
R. Strong and D. Dolev, Byzantine agreement, IBM RJ 3714,
1982.
Weeks 5 and 6: Resource-bounded and incomplete knowledge, relevance
logic, the "syntactic approach"
References: H.J. Levesque, A logic of implicit and explicit belief,
Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, 1984, pp. 198-202.
K. Konolige, A deduction model of belief, Ph.D. Thesis,
Stanford University, 1984.
R. Fagin and J.Y. Halpern, Belief, awareness, and limited
reasoning, unpublished manuscript, 1985.
S. Shapiro and M. Wand, The relevance of relevance,
Indiana University Technical Report No. 46, 1976.
Weeks 7 and 8: Belief revision and non-monotonic reasoning
References: D. McDermott and J. Doyle, Non-monotonic logic I,
Artificial Intelligence 13, Vol. 1,2, 1980, pp. 41-72.
R. Reiter, A logic for default reasoning,
Artificial Intelligence 13, Vol. 1,2, 1980, pp. 81-132.
J. McCarthy, Circumscription - a form of non-monotonic
reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13, Vol. 1,2, 1980,
pp. 27-39.
W.R. Stark, A logic of knowledge, Zeitschrift fur
Mathematische Logik und Grundalagen der Mathematik 27,
pp. 371-374, 1981.
D. McDermott, Non-monotonic logic II: non-monotonic modal
theories, Journal of the ACM, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1982,
pp. 35-57
R.C. Moore, Semantical considerations on non-monotonic
logic, SRI Technical Note 284, 1983.
H.J. Levesque, A formal treatment of incomplete knowledge
bases, Fairchild Technical Report No. 614, FLAIR Technical
Report No. 3, 1982.
K. Konolige, Circumscriptive ignorance, Proceedings of
the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1982,
pp. 202-204.
J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, Towards a theory of knowledge
and ignorance, Proceedings of Workshop on Non-monotonic
Reasoning, 1984; IBM RJ 4448, 1984.
R. Parikh, Monotonic and non-monotonic logics of
knowledge, unpublished manuscript, 1984.
Week 9: Knowledge bases
References: H.J. Levesque, A formal treatment of incomplete knowledge
bases, Fairchild Technical Report No. 614, FLAIR Technical
Report No. 3, 1982.
K. Konolige, A deduction model of belief, Ph.D. Thesis,
Stanford University, 1984.
Week 10: Knowledge and cryptography; puzzles
References: M.J. Merritt, Cryptographic protocols, Ph.D. Thesis,
Georgia Institute of Technology, 1983.
S. Goldwasser, S. Micali and C. Rackoff, Knowledge
complexity, unpublished manuscript, 1984.
X. Ma and W. Guo, W-JS: a modal logic about knowing,
Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference
on Artificial Intelligence, 1983.
D. Dolev, J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, Cheating spice
and other stories, unpublished manuscript, 1984.
∂07-Jan-85 1252 CLT Course announcement update
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA, "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
This is an update about the course to be taught by P. Aczel
(visiting CSLI from U. of Manchester.) The course is scheduled to
meet Fridays 1:15-3:00 in 381-T (math corner).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SETS AND PROCESSES
------------------
MATH 294 (PHIL 394) WINTER QUARTER.
COURSE ANOUNCEMENT
provisional time: Fridays, 1.15---3.15.
The standard universe of well-founded sets can be completed in a
natural way so as to incorporate every possible non-well-founded set.
The new completed universe will still model all the axioms of set
theory except that the foundation axiom must be replaced by an
anti-foundation axiom. The first part of the course will be concerned
with this new axiom, its model and its consequences. Several
interesting variants of the axiom will also be examined.
The second part of the course will be concerned with an axiomatic
approach to a general notion of abstract sequential process. These
processes are capable of interacting with each other so that a variety
of operations for their parallel composition will be available. The
notion is intended to form the foundation for an approach to the
semantics of programming languages involving concurrency. A model for
the axiom system can be extracted from recent work of Robin Milner.
But by using the anti- foundation axiom a simple purely set theoretic
model will be given.
Some familiarity with the axiomatic theory of sets and classes will be
presupposed. An understanding of the notion of a class model of ZFC
will be needed. Definition by recursion on a well-founded relation
and Mostowski's collapsing lemma will be relevent. But topics such as
the constructible universe, forcing or large cardinals will NOT be
needed. Some familiarity with computation theory would be useful.
Underlying the model constructions in both parts of the course is a
general result whose apreciation will require some familiarity with
the elements of universal algebra and category theory.
Background references will be available at the start of the course.
Auditors are very welcome. The course may be of interest to both
mathematicians and computer scientists.
PETER ACZEL
∂07-Jan-85 1927 halpern.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA Course on reasoning about knowledge
Received: from SU-AIMVAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Jan 85 19:27:46 PST
Received: from csnet-relay by diablo.ARPA with TCP; Mon, 7 Jan 85 19:28:25 pst
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id a001917; 7 Jan 85 22:16 EST
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 85 18:25:52 PST
From: Joe Halpern <halpern%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA>
To: KNOWLEDGE@su-aimvax.ARPA
Subject: Course on reasoning about knowledge
Cc: su-bboards@SU-Score
The first meeting of CS400B, "Reasoning about Knowledge", will
be tomorrow (Tues, 8 Jan.) at 2:45 in Building 200, Room 305.
∂09-Jan-85 0922 OLENDER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Senior Faculty Meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jan 85 09:22:29 PST
Date: Wed 9 Jan 85 08:55:11-PST
From: Margeret Olender <OLENDER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Senior Faculty Meeting
To: Senior-Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: Olender@SU-SCORE.ARPA
There will be a Senior Faculty Meeting
Thursday (January 10)
2:30pm
Conference Room 252
margaret
-------
∂09-Jan-85 1059 ACZEL@SU-CSLI.ARPA sets and processes course.
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jan 85 10:59:43 PST
Date: Wed 9 Jan 85 10:56:20-PST
From: Peter Aczel <ACZEL@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: sets and processes course.
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
My course (MATH 294,PHIL394) will meet as planned, starting this Friday
at 1.15--3.15 in room 381-T of the maths dept. Would any potential auditor
who cannot make this first meeting please let me know as future meetings may
be at a different time and place.
PETER ACZEL
-------
∂09-Jan-85 1733 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Jan. 10, No. 11
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jan 85 17:31:43 PST
Date: Wed 9 Jan 85 17:21:34-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Jan. 10, No. 11
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
January 10, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 11
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, January 10, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Godehard Link's
Conference Room ``Prespie in Pragmatic Wonderland or:
The Projection Problem for Presuppositions Revisited''
Discussion led by Dietmar Zaefferer
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall David Israel
Room G-19 ``A Not-So-Olympian Overview of Area F (from
the heights(?) of the Area Coordinator)''
Discussant will be John Perry
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``On Comparatives and Superlatives''
Room G-19 Irene Heim, University of Texas
(Abstract on Page 2)
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, January 17, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Nils Nilsson's ``AI, Employment, and Income''
Conference Room Discussion led by Hans Uszkoreit
Nils Nilsson will be present
(Abstract on Page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall No seminar this week
Room G-19
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium this week
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI REPORT
A new CSLI Report by C. Raymond Perrault, ``On the Mathematical
Properties of Linguistic Theories'' (Report No. CSLI--84-18), To
obtain a copy of this report write to Dikran Karagueuzian, CSLI,
Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305 or send net mail to Dikran at SU-CSLI.
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter January 10, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF THIS WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``On Comparatives and Superlatives''
Consider a phrasal comparative like (1).
(1) Little died earlier than Dolphy.
(`Phrasal' comparatives, as opposed to `clausal' ones, are those which
instead of a clause have a single phrase after ``than.'') There are
(at least) two ways of approaching the semantic analysis of (1). One
is to view ``than Dolphy'' as essentially an elliptical description
for a certain degree, viz. the degree x such that Dolphy died x-early,
and to construe the whole sentence as basically a comparison between
that degree and another one, namely the degree y such that Little died
y-early. The other approach is to read (1) as primarily a comparison
between two people, Little and Dolphy, who are being compared with
respect to a certain `dimension'. The dimension is earliness-of-death
and may be formally represented as a function from people to degrees
which maps every person x onto the degree y such that x died y-early.
This talk adopts the second approach and explores its empirical and
theoretical implications. While the scopes of the comparison
operators themselves seem to obey constraints that have emerged from
studies of quantifier scope, this is not the case for the putative
scopes of certain other phrases. To accommodate this finding, I will
draw on recent work by Rooth and suggest a refinement of the analysis
which recognizes a distinction between scope-assignment proper and
something like association-to-focus. ---Irene Heim
←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
AI, Employment and Income
In a recent article in the AI Magazine, Nils Nilsson explores the
profound effects Artificial Intelligence is likely to have on
employment and the distribution of income. He presents an economic
and a psychological reason for his opinion that we should greet the
work-eliminating consequences of AI with enthusiasm, since they will
liberate people from unfulfilling work without necessarily harming
them economically. The article has drawn a number of interesting
responses, some of which have been published in a later issue of the
AI Magazine. This issue also contains a reply by Nils Nilsson to the
readers' letters. The variety of arguments, in the article and the
letters, both for and against an optimistic view of the social impact
of AI will serve as the basis for our TINLUNCH discussion. Nils
Nilsson will be present.
-------
∂10-Jan-85 0232 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jan 85 02:32:20 PST
Date: Wednesday, January 9, 1985 7:48AM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Thursday, 10 Jan 1985 Volume 3: Issue 1
Today's Topics:
Administration
Puzzles - Query & Mr. S+P Problem,
Implementation - Caching,
LP Library - Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 9 Jan 85 06:40:11-PST
From: Chuck Restivo <Restivo@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Archive
Volume Two of the Digest has been archived on-line in {SU-SCORE}'s
<Prolog> directory. It is available as
Archive←Volume2←I1-40.Txt
The current volume will be available as Archive.Txt in <Prolog>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 7 Jan 85 00:58:51-PST
From: Martin Huber <Huber@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Information needed
Can any one out there give me pointers to literature on Prolog
usage for reasoning in the chemical - biochemical world ?
With best regards
-- Martin
------------------------------
Date: Fri 28 Dec 84 09:49:08-PST
From: Pereira@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: S-P Problem
Didn't some other solutions of the S-P problem appear in an early
Digest? The one in the latest one is ather ``Lispish'' and misses
the crucial point that one wants some explicit representation
of the beliefs involved.
-- Fernando
------------------------------
Date: Mon 31 Dec 84 09:28:51-PST
From: Pereria@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: David Warren's S and P solution
The program below is David Warren's solution of the S and P problem,
which I found archived. The interesting feature of this solution is
that, apart from the auxiliary definitions, it follows very closely
the natural language statement of the problem, in contrast with other
proposed solutions.
-- Fernando Pereira
% Mr S and Mr P Problem, by David Warren
%
% There are two numbers M and N such that 1 < M & N < 100. Mr S is
% told their sum S and Mr P is told their product P. The following
% dialogue takes place:
% Statement-1:
% Mr P: I don't know the numbers.
% (There are several sum values S that are compatible with
% the product value P).
statement1(P) :- several(S, compatible(S,P)).
% Statement-2:
% Mr S: I knew you didn't know them;
% I don't know them either.
% (For every product value P that is compatible with the
% sum value S, statement-1 is true of P; and there are
% several product values P that are compatible with the
% sum value S).
statement2(S) :- every(P, compatible(S,P), statement1(P)),several
(P, compatible(S,P)).
% Statement-3:
% Mr P: Now I know the numbers!
% (There is just one sum value S compatible with the
% product value P for which statement-2 is true of S, and
% that value is S1).
statement3(P,S1) :- one(S, (sumvalue(S), statement2(S), compatible(S,P)), S1).
% Statement-4:
% Mr S: Now I know them too!
% (There is just one product value P compatible with the
% sum value S for which statement-3 is true of P and S,
% and that value is P1).
statement4(S,P1) :- one(P, (statement3(P,S), compatible(S,P)), P1).
% Question: What are the numbers?
% (For which sum value S and product value P is
% statement-4 true?)
answer(S,P) :- statement4(S,P).
% [The single solution S = 17, P = 52 is produced in about 9 seconds].
% Definitions of the quantifiers "one", "several" and "every".
one(X,P,X1) :- setof(X,P,[X1]).
several(X,P) :- setof(X,P,Xs), length(Xs,N), N > 1.
every(X,P,Q) :- \+ (P, \+Q).
% Supporting definitions for the Mr S and Mr P Problem -- should
% be compiled.
:-public compatible/2, sumvalue/1.
% Sum values range from 4 to 198.
sumvalue(S) :- range(S,4,198).
% The next two clauses are logically equivalent to the third clause,
% but are more efficient in the cases that S or P are already known.
compatible(S,P) :- nonvar(S), !,
Mmax is S/2, S99 is S-99, max(2,S99,Mmin),
range(M,Mmin,Mmax),
P is M*(S-M).
compatible(S,P) :- nonvar(P), !,
sqroot(P,Mmax), P99 is P/99, max(2,P99,Mmin),
range(M,Mmin,Mmax),
N is P/M, P is M*N,
S is M+N.
% Sum value S is compatible with product value P if there are
% numbers M and N in the range 2 to 99 such that S is the sum
% of M and N, and P is the product of M and N. (See above).
compatible(S,P) :-
range(M,2,99),
range(N,2,99),
S is M+N,
P is M*N.
% Finally, definitions of the predicates 'range', 'max' and
% 'sqroot'.
range(I,L,M) :- nonvar(I), !, L =< I, I =< M.
range(I,I,←).
range(I,L,M) :- L < M, L1 is L+1, range(I,L1,M).
max(X,Y,X) :- X >= Y, !.
max(X,Y,Y) :- X < Y, !.
sqroot(N,RN):- N < 181, !, N1 is N*4, N2 is N*2,
sqroot(N1,RN1,0,N2), RN is RN1/2.
sqroot(N,RN):- N < 32768, !, N1 is N*4,
sqroot(N1,RN1,0,363), RN is RN1/2.
sqroot(N,RN):- sqroot(N,RN,0,363).
% 'sqroot' expanded to include upper and lower limits
sqroot(N,RN,RN,←):- N =:= RN*RN, !.
sqroot(N,RN,RN,RN1):- RN1-RN < 2, !.
sqroot(N,RN,LL,UL):- ML is (LL+UL+1)/2, M is ML*ML,
sqrootn(N,RN,LL,UL,ML,M).
% 'sqrootn' sets up for next invocation of sqroot
sqrootn(N,RN,LL,UL,ML,M):- M > N, !, sqroot(N,RN,LL,ML).
sqrootn(N,RN,LL,UL,ML,M):- M =< N, sqroot(N,RN,ML,UL).
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 7-Jan-85 2:57:17-GMT
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
Subject: Caching results
A recent Digest entry computed a number of results "on
demand", caching them for future use. It did this "by
hand" for each relation involved. This little predicate,
employing two auxiliary tables 'Cached'/1-2 provides a
tidy way of doing it. Not, however, a particularly efficient
one, but a more efficient one would be restricted to those
Prologs with the "recorded" data base.
cached(Pred, Arg) :- % applies to unary predicates only
( 'Cached'(Pred)
; Pred(X), assert('Cached'(Pred,X)), fail
; assert('Cached'(Pred))
), !,
'Cached'(Pred, Arg).
This requires no modification to the original predicate. We
can purge the cache using
purge(Pred) :-
'Cached'(Pred),
retractall('Cached'(Pred,←)).
NB: Pred(X) means apply(Pred,[X]). In most Prologs it will be
advisable to expand this by hand to compute the full term just
once, see APPLY.PL for details.
For this to work, Pred mustn't call cached(Pred,←).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 85 12:42:12 -0200
From: Udi%Wisdom.BITNET@Berkeley (Ehud Shapiro)
Subject: Concurrent Prolog to Prolog compiler
I enclose a Concurrent Prolog to Prolog compiler,
developed at ICOT by Takashi Chikayama, and improved
by Kazunori Ueda and Akikazu Takeuchi.
It runs on a DEC-2060 at about 2K-4K LIPS. An optimzed
version by Ueda achieves 10K LIPS, but is not fully
debugged, and do not have such a nice programming
environment as this one.
-- Udi
[ This file is available as
{SCORE:}<Prolog>Concurrent←Compiler.Pl ]
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂10-Jan-85 1047 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jan 85 10:47:33 PST
Date: Thu 10 Jan 85 10:42:55-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk(s)
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA
1/10/85 - Prof. Christos Papadimitriou (Stanford):
"Some Algorithmic Problems in Vision and Motion"
This talk will be a shallow overview of some recent results concerning
the complexity of algorithmic problems of interest in robotics. Two
sample problems: Given a planar graph with straight lines, is it the
projection of the visible part of a set of three-dimensional opaque
polyhedra? Given a set of polyhedral obstacles in three dimensions,
and two points, what is the shortest path between the two points that
avoids all obstacles? We present a variety of results (unfortunately
for different problems): Polynomial algorithms, NP-completeness,
approximation algorithms, and wide-open questions.
***** Time and place: January 10, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
1/17/85 - Dr. David Shmoys (Harvard):
"Efficient Parallel Algorithms for Edge-Coloring Graphs"
Classical graph theory results, due to Vizing and Shannon,
respectively, state that simple graphs can be edge-colored with D+1
colors, and multigraphs can be edge-colored with 3D/2 colors.
Furthermore, these results are tight, and there exist polynomial-time
algorithms that find colorings using the prescribed number of colors.
However, these algorithms rely on sequential recolorings and thus the
design of efficient parallel algorithms must employ different
techniques. We give NC algorithms for coloring multigraphs with 3
ceil(D/3) and simple graphs with D=O(log↑O(1) n) using D+1 colors. In
addition, we will present a randomized NC algorithm that colors
arbitrary simple graphs with D + O(D↑(1/2 + epsilon)) for any positive
epsilon.
This is joint work with Howard Karloff and Eli Upfal.
***** Time and place: January 17, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂10-Jan-85 1055 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Trailers
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jan 85 10:48:25 PST
Date: Thu 10 Jan 85 10:43:14-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Trailers
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: consultants@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
The power will be off in the trailers from 7 to 8 am this Friday.
Emma
-------
∂10-Jan-85 1055 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Parking at Ventura
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jan 85 10:50:02 PST
Date: Thu 10 Jan 85 10:44:39-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Parking at Ventura
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
Please remember that you can buy temporary parking stickers from
Suzie for Thursday.
Emma
-------
∂10-Jan-85 1500 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA No SIGLUNCH
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jan 85 14:59:59 PST
Date: Thu 10 Jan 85 14:54:59-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: No SIGLUNCH
To: Siglunch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
There will be no SIGLUNCH this Friday, January 11.
-------
∂10-Jan-85 1614 HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jan 85 16:14:16 PST
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1985 16:10 PST
Message-ID: <HALVORSEN.12078548943.BABYL@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
From: HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA
To: nl1@SU-CSLI.ARPA, nlinterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
NL1 will meet Friday 11th, at 2pm in the Ventura conference room
for a discussion with Irene Heim.
∂10-Jan-85 1735 YAO@SU-SCORE.ARPA Adleman's talk
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Jan 85 17:34:49 PST
Date: Thu 10 Jan 85 17:28:17-PST
From: Andrew Yao <YAO@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Adleman's talk
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: yao@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Professor Len Adleman will give a talk next week in the Math. Department
, which may be of interest to some of us. The talk will be on Jan. 17th,
Thursday, at 4:15 pm; the place is Room 380-C, Math. Building. There
will be a tea at 3:30 pm, on the 3rd floor of Math. Building. Title and
abstract follow.
Title:Fermat's Last Theorem-The First Case for Infinitely Many Primes
Speaker: Professor Leonard Adleman, University of Southern California
Abstract:
Fermat asserted that x↑n+y↑n=z↑n has no solution in positive integers
when n>2. It is clear that the assertion is true for all n>2 if and only
if it is true for all odd primes. Since the early 1800's, mathematicians
have considered for each prime n a so-called "first-case"
(n does not divide xyz) and a "second-case"
(n divides xyz). It was known that the second case was true for all primes
less than 125000, and a first case
was true for all primes less than 59 times 10↑9. The following result
will be proved:
Theorem. (Adleman, Fouvry, Heath Brown). There exist infinitely many primes
for which the first case of Fermat's Last Theorem is true.
-------
∂11-Jan-85 1159 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa PODC 85 CALL FOR PAPERS
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Jan 85 11:58:53 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 11 Jan 85 11:47:58-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Fri, 11 Jan 85 13:40:31 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Fri, 11 Jan 85 13:13:27 cst
Message-Id: <8501111913.AA00482@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from csnet-relay.arpa by wisc-crys.arpa; Fri, 11 Jan 85 13:13:17 cst
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id ai18261; 11 Jan 85 14:09 EST
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 85 10:25:50 PST
From: Ray Strong <strong%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: theory@WISC-CRYS.ARPA
Subject: PODC 85 CALL FOR PAPERS
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
CALL FOR PAPERS
4th ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symposium on
Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC)
Minacki, Ontario, Canada
August 5-7, 1985
This Conference will address fundamental issues in the theory and practice
of concurrent and distributed systems. Original research papers describing
theoretical aspects or important development in the design, specification,
or implementation of distributed systems are sought. Topics of interest
include, but are not limited to the following aspects of concurrent and
distributed systems.
* Algorithms
* Formal models of computation
* Methodologies for program development
* Issues in specification, semantics and verification
* Complexity results
* Languages
* Fundamental results in application areas, such as,
distributed data bases, communication protocols, distributed
operating systems, distributed transaction processing systems,
and real time systems.
Please send eleven copies of a
detailed abstract
(not a complete paper) not exceeding
10 double spaced typewritten pages,
by February 1, 1985
to the program chair:
Dr. H. R. Strong
IBM Research K55/281
5600 Cottle Road
San Jose, CA 95193
USA
The abstract must include a clear description of the problem being addressed,
comparisons with extant work, and a section on major original contributions
of this work. The abstract must provide sufficient detail for the program
committee to make a decision. Papers will be chosen on the basis of scientific
merit, originality, clarity, and appropriateness for this conference.
Authors will be notified of acceptance by April 15, 1985. Accepted papers
typed on special forms are due at the above address by May 10, 1985. Authors
of accepted papers will be asked to sign ACM Copyright forms.
The Conference Chair is Professor Michael Malcolm (University of Waterloo).
The Publicity Chair is Professor Tiko Kameda (Simon Fraser University).
The Program Committee consists of
Mani Chandy (U Texas, Austin),
Cynthia Dwork (MIT),
Allen Emerson (U Texas, Austin),
Bob Gallager (MIT),
Jim Gray (Tandem),
Joe Halpern (IBM Research, San Jose),
Paul Leach (Apollo Computers),
Amir Pnueli (Weizmann Institute),
Nicolo Santoro (Carleton),
Ray Strong (IBM Research, San Jose),
and Jeff Ullman (Stanford).
∂12-Jan-85 2328 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:avi.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa BATS
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Jan 85 23:28:05 PST
Received: from csnet-relay by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sat 12 Jan 85 23:26:38-PST
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id a024943; 13 Jan 85 2:18 EST
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 85 22:48:28 PST
From: Avi Wigderson <avi%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: theory-b@berkely.arpa, aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Subject: BATS
Hi
This is a preliminary announcement regarding the next BATS.
Please reserve Friday, Feb. 1, 10-3 for it. It will take
place at IBM-SJ. Three speakers are already guaranteed:
Andy Yao - Stanford, Howard Karloff - Berkeley, Nimrod Megiddo - IBM.
More details to come. Please spread the word.
Avi
∂14-Jan-85 1350 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Natural Language Colloquium
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Jan 85 13:50:41 PST
Date: Mon 14 Jan 85 13:43:35-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Natural Language Colloquium
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
NATURAL LANGUAGE COLLOQUIUM
``Interclausal Relations in Yimas''
Bill Foley, Australian National University
Time: 4:15, Thursday, January 17
Place: Redwood Hall, rm. G-19
Yimas is a language of the lower Sepik River, Papua New Guinea. It is a
polysynthetic language in which Subject, Object, and Indirect Object are
cross-referenced on the verb; it belongs to the typologically heterogeneous
class of languages often characterised as `non-configurational'. Foley intends
to discuss complementation, and to propose a hierarchy of verb types which
interact with various constraints on processes of complementation. During the
discussion he intends to raise various isues of theoretical interest, such as
the relationship between morphology and syntax, and the extent to which various
theories of grammar are capable of accounting for syntactic processes in
languages such as this in an insightful way.
This colloquium is in place of the usual, Thursday, CSLI colloquium.
-------
∂15-Jan-85 1033 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA message
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 85 10:33:28 PST
Mail-From: CHRIS created at 15-Jan-85 10:22:04
Date: Tue 15 Jan 85 10:22:04-PST
From: Chris Menzel <CHRIS@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: message
To: emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Tue 15 Jan 85 10:24:17-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Emma, Could this message be sent around to FOLKS? Thanks --Chris
************************************************************************
SEMINAR ON LOGICAL THEORY
Tuesday (that's today!), Jan. 15, 4:15, Bldg. 110, room 111A
"EXPLAINING THE PARADOXES: THE CANTORIAN WAY OUT"
Chris Menzel, Postdoc, CSLI
************************************************************************
-------
∂15-Jan-85 1125 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 85 11:25:28 PST
Date: Tue 15 Jan 85 11:09:13-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk(s)
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA
1/17/85 - Dr. David Shmoys (Harvard):
"Efficient Parallel Algorithms for Edge-Coloring Graphs"
Classical graph theory results, due to Vizing and Shannon,
respectively, state that simple graphs can be edge-colored with D+1
colors, and multigraphs can be edge-colored with 3D/2 colors.
Furthermore, these results are tight, and there exist polynomial-time
algorithms that find colorings using the prescribed number of colors.
However, these algorithms rely on sequential recolorings and thus the
design of efficient parallel algorithms must employ different
techniques. We give NC algorithms for coloring multigraphs with 3
ceil(D/3) and simple graphs with D=O(log↑O(1) n) using D+1 colors. In
addition, we will present a randomized NC algorithm that colors
arbitrary simple graphs with D + O(D↑(1/2 + epsilon)) for any positive
epsilon.
This is joint work with Howard Karloff and Eli Upfal.
***** Time and place: January 17, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
1/24/85 - Benny Chor (MIT):
"Provably secure coin flip in a Byzantine environment"
We present a protocol for flipping a fair coin in an unreliable
distributed environment under the simple assumption that a trapdoor
function exists. Our solution captures all natural properties of a
"real life" coin flip and is the first explicit solution which
exhibits a rigorous proof of correctness.
Randomization is both a powerful tool for efficient computation and
the best weapon against adversaries. Thus coin flipping is a
fundamental primitive for designing protocols in unreliable networks.
Our solution has been used to achieve Byzantine agreement in a
syncronous network of size `n' in expected `log sup 2 n' time and in
asynchronous networks in `poly' `log n' time.
This is joint work with Baruch Awerbuch, Shafi Goldwasser and Silvio
Micali.
***** Time and place: January 24, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂15-Jan-85 2139 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Wednesday's Tea
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 85 21:39:06 PST
Date: Tue 15 Jan 85 21:32:46-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Wednesday's Tea
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Several CSLI Folk have been to Japan and have ideas about the relation
between the Fifth Generation Project there and work going on at CSLI.
Brian Smith and Geoff Pullum will lead a discussion on this.
CSLI and the 5th Generation
Wednesday, Jan 16, 3:30
-------
∂16-Jan-85 0829 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: January 18, 1985
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Jan 85 08:29:31 PST
Date: Wed 16 Jan 85 08:23:46-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: January 18, 1985
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Folks,
NO Siglunch this week, but there will be one next week on 1/25/85.
Thanx,
Paula
-------
∂16-Jan-85 0922 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Seminar on Logical Theory
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Jan 85 09:21:40 PST
Date: Wed 16 Jan 85 09:13:24-PST
From: Menzel@csli
Subject: Seminar on Logical Theory
Sender: EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Reply-To: menzel@csli
Tel: 497-3479
CHRIS MENZEL WILL COMPLETE HIS DISCUSSION OF "EXPLAINING THE
PARADOXES: THE CANTORIAN WAY OUT" AT THE NEXT MEETING OF PHIL. 386 -
ISSUES IN LOGICAL THEORY, NEXT TUESDAY, JANUARY 22ND, AT 5:00 (NOTE
THE CHANGE IN TIME), IN BLDG. 110, RM. 111A.
-------
∂16-Jan-85 1746 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Jan. 17, No. 12
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Jan 85 17:46:08 PST
Date: Wed 16 Jan 85 17:31:31-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Jan. 17, No. 12
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
January 17, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 12
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, January 17, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Nils Nilsson's ``AI, Employment, and Income''
Conference Room Discussion led by Hans Uszkoreit
Nils Nilsson will be present
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall No seminar this week
Room G-19
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. Natural Language Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Interclausal Relations in Yimas''
Bill Foley, Australian National University
(Abstract on page 2)
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, January 24, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Kendall Walton, University of Michigan
Conference Room ``Representation and Make-Believe''
Discussion led by Helen Nissenbaum
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``An Internal Semantics for Modal Logic''
Room G-19 Moshe Vardi
(Abstract on page 3)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Discourse Representation Theory and Common Noun
Room G-19 Antecedents''
Wynn Chao, Pennsylvania State University
(Abstract on page 2)
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI REPORT
A new CSLI Report by Michael P. Georgeff and Stephen F. Bodnar, ``A Simple
and Efficient Implementation of Higher-order Functions in LISP'' (Report
No. CSLI--85--19), has just been published. To obtain a copy of this
report write to Dikran Karagueuzian, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305 or
send net mail to Dikran at SU-CSLI.
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter January 17, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF THE NATURAL LANGUAGE SEMINAR
``Interclausal Relations in Yimas''
Bill Foley, Australian National University
Yimas is a language of the lower Sepik River, Papua New Guinea. It is a
polysynthetic language in which Subject, Object, and Indirect Object are
cross-referenced on the verb; it belongs to the typologically heterogeneous
class of languages often characterized as `non-configurational'. Foley
intends to discuss complementation, and to propose a hierarchy of verb
types which interact with various constraints on processes of complementation.
During the discussion, he intends to raise various issues of theoretical
interest, such as the relationship between morphology and syntax, and the
extent to which various theories of grammar are capable of accounting for
syntactic processes in languages such as this in an insightful way. This
seminar replaces the usual Thursday colloquium which does not occur this
week.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT FOR NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Representation and Make-Believe''
In the selected section, Walton discusses imagining, and offers an account
of fictionality, or fictional ``truth'', in terms of it. Briefly, a
fictional proposition is one that is prescribed, according to a principle
of imagination agreed on in a given context. Fiction, Walton claims has
much in common with dreams, fantasies (solitary or social), and games of
make-believe. In the parts of the chapter next given, Walton discusses the
notions of prompts, props, and objects of imagination, and develops his
ideas on fiction and representation in art with reference to specific works
of art. The readings are excerpts from chapter 2, ``Representation and
Make-Believe'', of a book in progress.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``Discourse Representation Theory and Common Noun Antecedents''
Among recent developments in research in natural language semantics are
proposals which offer a unified account of anaphoric relations at both
sentence and discourse levels (Kamp (1981), Heim (1982)). Central to both
these accounts is the postulation of an intermediate level of representation,
where antecedent-anaphor relations are expressed. The research to be
presented investigates the properties of anaphoric relations which can hold
between common noun (CN) antecedents and pronouns in discourse. A simple
example is ``Johan just bought a Macintosh. They are really cheap just
now'', and a more complex example involving multiple anaphoric possibilities
is ``Johan just bought a new gas-efficient Japanese car. They are quite
hard to find at the moment''. I will argue that Kamp's notion of
``accessibility'' correctly characterizes coreference possibilities for CN
antecedents, and that several properties of CN antecedents are defined
syntactically, not semantically. Defining these relations in structures
such as those proposed by Kamp results in a straightforward account of the
phenomena.
!Page 3 CSLI Newsletter January 17, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``An Internal Semantics for Modal Logic''
In Kripke semantics for modal logic both notions of possible worlds and the
possibility relation are primitive notions. This has both technical and
conceptual shortcomings. From a technical point of view, the mathematics
associated with Kripke semantics is often quite complicated. From a
conceptual point of view, it is not clear how to model propositional
attitudes by Kripke structures. We introduce modal structures as models
for modal logic. We use the idea of possible worlds, but in Leibniz's
style rather than Kripke's style. It turns out that modal structures model
individual nodes in Kripke structures, while Kripke structures model
collections of modal structures. Nevertheless, it is much easier to study
the standard logical questions using modal structures. Furthermore, modal
structure offer a much more intuitive approach to modelling propositional
attitudes.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA C MEETING
``Theories of Variable Types for Mathematical Practice,
with Computational Interpretations''
Speaker: Solomon Feferman, Depts. of Mathematics and Philosophy
Time: 1:30-3:30
Date: Wednesday, January 23
Place: Ventura Seminar room
A new class of formal systems is set up with the following characteristics:
1) Significant portions of current mathematical practice (such as in
algebra and analysis) can be formalized naturally within them.
2) The systems have standard set-theoretical interpretations.
3) They also have direct computational interpretations, in which all
functions are partial recursive.
4) The proof-theoretical strengths of these systems are surprisingly
weak (e.g. one is of strength Peano arithmetic).
Roughly speaking, these are axiomatic theories of partial functions and
classes. The latter serve as types for elements and functions, but they
may be variable (or ``abstract'') as well as constant. In addition, an
element may fall under many types (``polymorphism''). Nevertheless, a form
of typed lambda calculus can be set up to define functions. The result 3)
gets around some of the problems that have been met with the interpretation
of the polymorphic lambda calculus in recent literature on abstract data
types. Its proof requires a new generalization of the First Recursion
Theorem, which may have independent interest. The result 4) is of
philosophical interest, since it undermines arguments for impredicative
principles on the grounds of necessity for mathematics (and, in turn, for
physics). There are simple extensions of these theories, not meeting
condition 2), in which there is a type of all types, so that operations on
types appear simply as special kinds of functions.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF LAST WEEK'S NL4 MEETING
Definiteness in dialogue games. Report on unfinished research on identity
criteria associated with search (wh-) questions in discourse. It was
suggested that search questions can have variable context-dependent
criteria of individuation and cross-identification associated with them
which determine their acceptable instantiations (answers) in a given
context of inquiry. It was further suggested that the variety of
definiteness associated with certain ``bare'' noun phrases in discourse can
be explicated by reference to identity criteria. Finally, certain
observations linking reference to point of view were discussed in the light
of the new developments. --Lauri Carlson
!Page 4 CSLI Newsletter January 17, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
VISITORS AT CSLI
The term ``visitors'' is used in a general sense in reference to Visiting
Scholars, Visiting Professors, Visiting Fellows and Colloquium Speakers who
visit CSLI on a long term or not-so-long term basis. Below is a small
description of the visitors who will be arriving in January and will be
staying for more than one week:
Wynn Chao - from Pennsylvania State University. She will be here from
January 19 to January 28. She is a Colloquium Speaker and is studying
anaphoric processes in syntax and semantics of natural languages.
Brad Dowden - from Bellarmine College in Louisville, Kentucky. He received
his Doctorate in Philosophy from Stanford. He plans to visit CSLI until
the middle of August.
Susan Fischer - from MIT. She is a Visiting Scholar and will be working on
a book which will hopefully demonstrate how sign language can be used to
shed some light on linguistic and psycholinguistic theory. She will be
here through June.
Janet Fodor - from the University of Connecticut. She will be a consultant
to CSLI from January 28 to June 30. She will be associated primarily with
projects NL-2 and P-3.
Pat Hayes - from the University of Rochester. He will be here until the end
of the month. The research Pat is conducting involves Naive Physics and
Commonsense Reasoning.
Richard Jeffrey - from Princeton University. In addition to doing research
at CSLI, he is a Visiting Professor at the Philosophy Department. He will
be working on a manuscript entitled ``Probability and the Act of
Judgement,'' and will be here through June.
Gordon Plotkin - from the University of Edinburgh. He is a Visiting Scholar
who is involved with Denotational Semantics. He will be here from January
20 to January 30 and will be coming back for the Logic, Language and
Computational Meetings set for July.
Andrzej Tarlecki - currently at the University of Edinburgh. He will be
here from January 17 to February 13. He will be working with abstract
model theory and program specification during his visit.
For more information regarding all of the visitors at CSLI look in the
<visitors> directory or contact David Brown in Trailer E4.
-------
∂17-Jan-85 1005 HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Papers on plurals (for Dowty's presentation Jan. 25, 2pm)
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Jan 85 10:05:33 PST
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 1985 09:58 PST
Message-ID: <HALVORSEN.12080316165.BABYL@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
From: HALVORSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA
To: NL1@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: NLInterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Subject: Papers on plurals (for Dowty's presentation Jan. 25, 2pm)
In preparation for David Dowty's discussion of plurals next
Friday (i.e. the 25th) we are distributing copies of two relevant
papers:
Hoeksema: "Plurality and Conjunction"
Dowty and Brodie: "The Semantics of "Floated" Quantifiers
in a Transformational Grammar"
Look for a copy in your Ventura mailbox (if you have one and
if you are on the NL1 mailing list), or ask Susi Parker in
the Ventura reception.
Per-Kristian
∂18-Jan-85 1010 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA Next Tues.
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Jan 85 10:10:43 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Fri 18 Jan 85 10:04:12-PST
Date: Fri 18 Jan 85 10:08:10-PST
From: Phil Cohen <PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Next Tues.
To: NL4: ;
I'm on tap for giving a "working", technical talk about the
speech acts formalism Hector and I are working on.
The topic will be how to ground speech act theory in rationality,
but we'll probably spend most of our time on rationality.
12:45 - 2:30, Ventura conf. room.
Phil
-------
∂18-Jan-85 1555 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Monday, January 21
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Jan 85 15:55:18 PST
Date: Fri 18 Jan 85 15:46:02-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Monday, January 21
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
Monday, January 21 is an official, Stanford holiday, and, no
Stanford CSLI staff or consultants will be in.
Enjoy the Super Bowl.
******** Go Forty-Niners ********
-------
∂19-Jan-85 2239 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #2
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Jan 85 22:39:10 PST
Date: Saturday, January 19, 1985 8:24PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #2
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Sunday, 20 Jan 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 1
Today's Topics:
Puzzles - Alpine Club & Integers,
Report - Australian 5th Generation,
Implementations - Programming
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Dec 84 0:32:17-EST (Fri)
From: "Zerksis D. Umrigar"
Subject: Alpine Club Problem.
The following problem is taken from Manna's "Mathematical
Theory of Computation", pg. 160.
Tony, Mike and John belong to the Alpine Club. Every
member of the Alpine Club is either a skier or a mountain
climber or both. No mountain climber likes rain, and all
skiers like snow. Mike dislikes whatever Tony likes and
likes whatever Tony dislikes. Tony likes rain and snow.
Is there a member of the Alpine Club who is a mountain
climber but not a skier?
Is it possible to solve this problem in a "reasonably natural"
manner using Prolog? The Horn-clause limitation of Prolog, along
with the absence of true negation seem to cause difficulties. This
problem appears to have some similarities to the Lamps Problem
posed by Marcel in Vol. 2 Number 1 of the digest.
-- Zerksis.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Dec 84 1223 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>
I haven't followed the details of the discussions of the
Mr. S and Mr. P problem in the Prolog Digest, but a cursory
look suggests that they miss the original point of the problem.
I found the problem on a bulletin board and haven't been
able to trace its origin, but there it was posed as an
ordinary puzzle, and it wasn't suggested that it had anything
to do with computing or AI or programming languages. I posed
it as a problem in the formalization of knowledge, i.e. making
a language and a set of axioms that include the following.
1. It can express that a person knows the value of a number or
other quantity.
2. It can express that a person knows that another person knows
or doesn't know a fact.
3. It can express the effects of a person learning something, i.e.
in a later situation he knows something he didn't know before.
4. The language should be sufficient to express the facts of
Mr. S and Mr. P and the earlier problem of the three wise men
with spots on their foreheads.
5. In the case of Mr. S and Mr. P, the transformation of the
problem into purely arithmetic terms should be a consequence
of the general axioms of knowledge and the axioms of the
particular problem. For example, it should follow from the
statement that Mr. P doesn't know the numbers that the product
is not the product of two primes. It is not permissible to
take this fact about the product as the original expression
of Mr. P's statement that he doesn't know the numbers.
I wrote some axioms for knowledge and the problems
after having solved the problem by a combination of hand
calculation and a small Lisp program. Ma Xiwen of Peking
University, who was visiting Stanford for a year, revised
my axioms and used Richard Weyhrauch's FOL proof checker
to transform the problem into an arithmetic problem, i.e.
get rid of the knowledge operators. I discovered later that
there was a bug in his axioms. Ma and Guo Weide (Victor Kuo)
wrote a subsequent paper about the problem using a modal
logical formalization that was presented in IJCAI-83 and was
referred to in the Prolog Digest.
If anyone is interested I have some files with
formalizations of knowledge and also files with Ma's FOL
axiomatization. Also KUO@SU-AI.ARPA is the Guo Weide of the
cited paper.
Perhaps I am missing some important point, but I don't
see that the Prolog formulations in the Digest solve the problem
I posed. They seem to be mere programming exercises in which
the human transforms the statements about knowledge to computational
statements. It would be more interesting if there were a way to
express statements about knowledge in Prolog and if the solution of
Mr. S and Mr. P was obtainable by giving these statements about
knowledge a computational interpretation. I am skeptical that this
can be done in any honest way, i.e. that isn't ad hoc to the
particular problem.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 85 10:27:59 est
From: John McLean <McLean@NRL-CSS>
Subject: Integer puzzle again
Fernando Pereira chided me and others for producing a solution
to the S-P puzzle that did not represent S and P's knowledge.
He then presents a solution by David Warren that supposedly does.
I have two comments:
(1) I believe that my solution does represent the knowledge in
question as evidenced by the first-order formalization of S
and P's claims on which the solution is based.
(2) David Warren's solution fails. (17,52) cannot be a solution
pair since their sum, 69, is also the sum of (2,67). Yet,
67*2 has no alternative factorization since both numbers are
prime. Hence, S's first statement, that he knew that P did
not know what the numbers are, is false. Given the sum 69,
as far as S knew, the numbers could have been 67 and 2 in
which case, P would have known the solution.
Warren's mistake stems from his formalization of P's first claim.
The claim is that P doesn't know the numbers (given the product).
Warren's formalization is that the product has alternative sums.
The correct formalization is that the product has alternative
factorizations. This confusion of S with P occurs throughout the
formalization.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 85 15:53:54 EST
Subject: Fifth Generation project
THE AUSTRALIAN FIFTH DEGENERATION PROJECT
News of the Japanese Fifth Generation A.I. project has
finally reached the Australian Government and they have given
approval for the spending of an eight figure sum on a similar
project in Australia. In fact, the government itself is
providing a eight figure sum (this includes the cents).
A major part of the project is the designing and building
of the MU parallel machine. It has a very twisted Klein bottle
topology and will be made using Very Large Scale
Disintegration technology, fabricated on Uranium chips. Selling
points include
Feature number 1: No proof trees.
Feature number 2: No UNIX.
Feature number 3: Multiprocessor Oriented Timesharing
Operating System (MOTOS).
Feature number 4: No eight Queens.
Feature number 5: Automatic debugger.
Feature number 6: There is no feature 6.
Feature number 7: Bruce declarations [1].
Feature number 8: Dijkstra's On the Garbage Fly
Collection Algorithm.
The first major application of the system is an
attempt to alieviate the so called software crisis
the trend of decreasing productivity in the Australian wool
industry. The main thrust will be to use A.I. and
robotics to automate shearing. Robot shearing has been
unsuccessful in the past but using artificial insemination
techniques, it is hoped the sheep will become more uniform
in size and smart enough not to be cut.
[1] Cleese et al., The Philosophers Sketch, Monty Pythons
Flying Circus.
P.S. The "Machine Intelligence Project" actually
exists. We are told the cheque is in the post.
-- Lee Naish
------------------------------
Date: Sat 19 Jan 85 16:33:39-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-REDDY@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Functional and Logic Programming
I would like to suggest a classification of the various
approaches used for combining functional (or equational) and
logic languages. It is perhaps not yet a comprehensive
classification and the other people familiar with the various
approaches can refine/correct/add to the classification.
1. Putting together a conventional functional language and a
logic language examples: LOGLISP, Pisa's FPL, FUNLOG, POPLOG,
PARLOG(?).
2. Embedding a functional language in a logic language
examples: Haridi's natural deduction language, Pisa's LEAF
3. Embedding a logic language in a functional language
examples: Sato's Qute, Lindstrom, Dershowitz
4. Logic with equality
examples: Kornfeld, Eqlog, Fribourg's superposition language,
TABLOG
I am blurring the distinctions among an entire spectrum of
functional languages which differ in their ability to handle higher
order functions, nontermination, lazy evaluation, multiple equations
for a single function etc. By a "conventional" functional language,
I mean one which uses reduction or rewriting as its operational
semantics and therefore cannot "solve" for free variables (which are
called "logical" variables in the context of logic programming).
Such a language has less expressive power as compared to a logic
language.
The languages in class 1 put together two separate languages with
different expressiveness without really "unifying" them.
The languages in class 2 treat functional programs as a special
case of logic programs. Expressions which may have nested function
applications are "flattened out" into goal statements of equality
-atoms. These goals can then be resolved just as any other logic
goal. This gives the functional sublanguage more expressiveness
than a functional language with reduction semantics, because it can
solve for free variables in expressions.
The languages in class 3 treat logic programs as a special case of
functional programs. For this, they should of course use a more
general operational mechanism than rewriting (since rewriting
functional languages have less expressive power than logic languages).
It appears that their operational semantics is "narrowing" in some
form or another. [Narrowing is an extension of rewriting with
unification in place of pattern matching]. Lindstrom's language
uses a deterministic version of narrowing. Knuth-Bendix completion
procedure appears to be a particular (and significant) bottom-up
strategy in the application of narrowing. In the languages of
this class, a predicate is (or can be) treated as a boolean-valued
function (which is what it is semantically, anyway). A Horn clause
then becomes an equation. I have shown this mapping in an earlier
message.
The languages of class 4 add equality to a logic language.
They are similar to those in class 2, in that they permit
equality-atoms in goals. But, they are also similar to
those in class 3, in that they allow expressions with
nested function applications and use some version of
narrowing in their operational semantics to solve equality
-atoms.
A question that may be raised at this point is how the four
classes differ in their expressive power. The answer has to
do with the distinctions among functional languages which I
have chosen to ignore. Each class appears to place a limitation
on the kind of functional languages that can be handled using
the approach. More work is required to characterize these
limitations. There are also various other questions such as
the potential for parallelism, whether the internal logic is
three-valued (as opposed to "failure as false") etc on which
the four classes seem to differ.
-- Uday Reddy
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂21-Jan-85 2138 PETERS@SU-CSLI.ARPA Birth Announcement
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Jan 85 21:38:37 PST
Date: Mon 21 Jan 85 21:36:56-PST
From: Stanley Peters <PETERS@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Birth Announcement
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Edit Doron and Stanley Peters
are happy to announce the birth of
Jonathan Doron-Peters
who weighed in at 8 pounds even
on Sunday, January 20th.
Parents and son are doing fine.
-------
∂22-Jan-85 1043 BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics Tutorial Lectures
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jan 85 10:43:41 PST
Date: Tue 22 Jan 85 10:41:04-PST
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Linguistics Tutorial Lectures
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
TUTORIAL LECTURES ON LINGUISTICS FOR NON-LINGUISTS
CSLI will host 3 sessions intended for non-linguists on Government and
Binding (Chomsky), Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar
(Gazdar/Klein/Pullum/Sag), and Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan/Kaplan).
The sessions will be in the trailer seminar room on Tuesdays from 1:00
to 3:00 PM. Each lecturer will sketch the leading ideas of one
theory, and (perhaps) contrast it with the other theories.
Jan. 29 GB Lecture by Peter Sells
Feb.5 GPSG Lecture by Geoff Pullum
Feb. 12 LFG Lecture by Joan Bresnan
Linguists are asked not to attend
-------
∂22-Jan-85 1129 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: JANUARY 25, 1985
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jan 85 11:29:18 PST
Date: Tue 22 Jan 85 11:00:01-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: JANUARY 25, 1985
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Folks,
Here is the abstract for this Friday.
SIGLUNCH
DATE: Friday, January 25, 1985
LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Ted Shortliffe
Medical Computer Science Group, Stanford Knowledge
Systems Laboratory
ABSTRACT: A Method for Managing Evidential Reasoning in a
Hierarchical Hypothesis Space
Many of the underlying reasoning models used in expert systems have
assumed that purely categorical inference is adequate for the domain.
However, there are many settings in which the inferential rules are
inexact and the evidence for a given conclusion is suggestive at best.
Expert systems researchers have wrestled with this problem for the
last ten years, turning both to normative decision models and to
psychological experiments for ideas on how best to handle inexact
inference in advice systems. Many ad hoc approaches have been devised
and have demonstrated good performance in limited domains. However,
it is generally difficult to define the range of their applicability.
In addition, they have not provided a basis for coherent management of
evidence bearing on hypotheses that are related hierarchically, a
phenomenon that is recognized in several common problem solving
domains.
In this presentation, I will briefly describe the motivation for
dealing with hierarchical relationships among hypotheses in expert
systems and review the related limitations of the certainty factor
model developed for MYCIN. I will then focus on the Dempster-Shafer
(D-S) theory of evidence, an approach to evidential reasoning that is
appealing in part because it suggests a coherent approach for dealing
with such hierarchical relationships. However, the theory's
complexity and potential for computational inefficiency have tended to
discourage its use in reasoning systems. I will describe the central
elements of the D-S theory, basing the exposition on simple examples
drawn from the field of medicine. Finally, I will present an
adaptation of the D-S approach that achieves improved computational
efficiency while permitting the management of evidential reasoning
within an abstraction hierarchy. The analysis in the talk, plus the
new approach to applying the D-S theory, are largely the work of Jean
Gordon, a medical student and mathematician who has been working with
me on the problem for approximately the last two years.
Thank you,
Paula
-------
∂22-Jan-85 1142 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jan 85 11:42:46 PST
Date: Tue 22 Jan 85 11:34:15-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk(s)
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA
1/24/85 - Benny Chor (MIT):
"Provably secure coin flip in a Byzantine environment"
We present a protocol for flipping a fair coin in an unreliable
distributed environment under the simple assumption that a trapdoor
function exists. Our solution captures all natural properties of a
"real life" coin flip and is the first explicit solution which
exhibits a rigorous proof of correctness.
Randomization is both a powerful tool for efficient computation and
the best weapon against adversaries. Thus coin flipping is a
fundamental primitive for designing protocols in unreliable networks.
Our solution has been used to achieve Byzantine agreement in a
syncronous network of size `n' in expected `log sup 2 n' time and in
asynchronous networks in `poly' `log n' time.
This is joint work with Baruch Awerbuch, Shafi Goldwasser and Silvio
Micali.
***** Time and place: January 24, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
1/31/85 - Richard Anderson (Stanford):
"A parallel algorithm for the Maximal Path Problem"
The Maximal Path Problem is: Given a graph G=(V,E) and a vertex r,
find a simple path P starting at r such that P cannot be extended
without encountering a node that is already on the path. A ``fast''
probablistic parallel algorithm will given for the problem, showing
that it is in RNC. The techniques used for the Maximal Path Problem
also apply to Depth First Search. An O(n↑{1/2+e}) parallel algorithm
will be given for constructing a Depth First Search tree in a graph.
***** Time and place: January 31, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂23-Jan-85 1222 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:Halvorsen.pa@Xerox.ARPA David Dowty: On the semantics (and/or syntax) of plurals
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Jan 85 12:22:40 PST
Received: from Xerox.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Wed 23 Jan 85 12:19:40-PST
Received: from Tokay.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 23 JAN 85 12:19:10 PST
Date: 23 Jan 85 12:13 PST
From: Halvorsen.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: David Dowty: On the semantics (and/or syntax) of plurals
To: NL1@SU-CSLI.ARPA,NLInterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA,Dikran@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Time: Friday, Jan. 25, 2pm
Place: Ventura Hall Conference Room
Title: On the semantics (and/or syntax) of plurals
Copies are available in the Ventura reception of two relevant papers:
Dowty and Brodie, "The semantics of "Floated" Quantifiers
in a TransformationLESS Grammar,"
and Hoeksema, "Plurality and Conjunction".
Here is David's summary:
I will first explain the theory of the singular/plural and
individual/collective distinctions developed by Jack Hoeksema, and then
show how a range of data, considered "counterexamples" to a semantic
theory of plurality by linguists such as Jerry Morgan, can all be
adequately described in Hoeksema's approach. Although it still seems to
be the case that neither a syntactic nor a semantic characterization of
plurality suffices for English by itself, the number of cases where the two can be
made to coincide is surprisingly large. Assuming such overlapping
descriptions are correct, I will conclude with some speculations as to
why this overlap might exist.
David
-------
∂23-Jan-85 1532 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Jan. 29
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Jan 85 15:31:24 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA17456; Wed, 23 Jan 85 15:31:57 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA10408; Wed, 23 Jan 85 15:32:55 pst
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 85 15:32:55 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8501232332.AA10408@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Jan. 29
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
SPRING 1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
TIME: Tuesday, January 29, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Paul Ekman, University of California, San
Francisco; Computer Scientist, SRI Interna-
tional
TITLE: ``Telling Lies''
The question I will address is why liars sometimes betray
themselves despite their intention to mislead. Why can't
liars prevent a slip of the tongue, or what I term leakage
in expression, voice or gesture? Why can't liars prevent
these behavioral betrayals? Sometimes they do. Some lies
are performed perfectly; nothing in what the liar says or
does betrays the lie. Why not always? There are two rea-
sons, I will suggest, one that involves cognition and the
other emotions. Understanding them requires an analysis of
lies, liars, and lie catchers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
Februrary 5: Jim Greeno, Department of Education, UC
Berkeley
February 12: Frank Keil, Center for Advanced Study in
the Behavioral Sciences
Feburary 19: Philip Johnson-Laird, Psychology Depart-
ment, Stanford University (NOTE: Johnson-
Laird's talk will start at 11:30!)
March 12: Ned Block, CSLI, Stanford
∂23-Jan-85 1630 CLT SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA, "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Speaker: Prof. Gordon Plotkin,
Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University
Title: Types and Partial Functions
Place: Room 381-T, Math Corner, Stanford
Time: Monday, January 28, 4:15-5:30 P.M.
∂23-Jan-85 1716 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Computer Music Colloquium
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Jan 85 17:16:09 PST
Date: Wed 23 Jan 85 17:11:53-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Computer Music Colloquium
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
The computer music people have agreed to give a CSLI colloquium, but
it will have to be out at their lab, and they can only accommodate 25
people. Please let ingrid@turing know if you would like to go. It
should be interesting.
"From Sound to Score: Computerized Transcription of Music"
Bernard Mont-Renard
February 7, 1985
4:15
It is at the old AI lab on Arastradero Road, which is 10 or 15 minutes
away. Directions will follow.
-------
∂23-Jan-85 1735 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Jan. 24, No. 13
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Jan 85 17:35:03 PST
Date: Wed 23 Jan 85 17:22:05-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Jan. 24, No. 13
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
January 24, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 13
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, January 24, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Kendall Walton, University of Michigan
Conference Room ``Representation and Make-Believe''
Discussion led by Helen Nissenbaum
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar (see below)
Redwood Hall ``Negative Anaphora''
Room G-19 Larry Moss, CSLI
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Discourse Representation Theory and Common Noun
Room G-19 Antecedents''
Wynn Chao, Pennsylvania State University
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, January 31, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Psycholinguistic Correlates of Defense and Coping''
Conference Room Hans Steiner, M.D.
Dept. of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
(Abstract on Page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``An Internal Semantics for Modal Logic''
Room G-19 Moshe Vardi, CSLI
Discussion led by John Etchemendy
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium scheduled for this week
Room G-19
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
**CHANGE**
The CSLI Seminar by Moshe Vardi originally scheduled for this week has been
postponed until next week.
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter January 24, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF THIS WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Negative Anaphora''
I will discuss anaphoric phenomena involving the word ``other''. Consider,
for example, sentences like ``Every other child envied Sonia'' or ``No
other student annoys a student from Louisiana''. I will present an
analysis of this phenomenon which explains the acceptability of some
sentences of this type, the unacceptability of others (e.g. ``Every other
carpenter knows every carpenter''), and the range of possible
anti-anaphors. For example, the second sentence above has three differing
interpretations, (not counting discourse anaphora) and these correspond to
three analysis trees of this sentence. I will also prove a theorem which
relates to the questions of expressive power in the theory of generalized
quantifiers. If we consider determiners like ``every other'', then in a
sense to be made precise, all possible determiner interpretations are
boolean combinations of interpretations of determiners of the form
``every'' and ``every other''. --Larry Moss
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``Psycholinguistic Correlates of Defense and Coping''
Hans Steiner, M.D.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Stanford University, School of Medicine
Psychiatry has a great interest in studying defense and coping mechanisms.
They have been shown prospectively to contribute to adaptation (Veillant,
1977) in both psychological health and disease. Self report measures,
observer ratings, and projective psychological testing have been the
predominant instruments for defense assessment. However, the three
methodological approaches do not exhibit a sufficient degree of validity
and reliability. In contrast, analysis of spontaneously produced speech
seems more appropriate to the task. Three types of speech analysis are
commonly used: paralinguistic analysis, content analysis, and syntactical
analysis. Emotional arousal can be measured in a variety of ways. For
our defense and coping assesment, we selected the syntactical approach of
Weintraub (1981). Syntax lends itself to easy recognition and largely
operates outside of an individual's awareness. We have used the method in
several recent studies. One of them investigated the relationship of acute
stress response to course and outcome of anorexia nervosa, another one used
defensive style during a stressful task to predict recognition of bronchial
asthma changes.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``An Internal Semantics for Modal Logic''
In Kripke semantics for modal logic, both notions of possible worlds and the
possibility relation are primitive notions. This has both technical and
conceptual shortcomings. From a technical point of view, the mathematics
associated with Kripke semantics is often quite complicated. From a
conceptual point of view, it is not clear how to model propositional
attitudes by Kripke structures. We introduce modal structures as models
for modal logic. We use the idea of possible worlds, but in Leibniz's
style rather than Kripke's style. It turns out that modal structures model
individual nodes in Kripke structures, while Kripke structures model
collections of modal structures. Nevertheless, it is much easier to study
the standard logical questions using modal structures. Furthermore, modal
structure offer a much more intuitive approach to modelling propositional
attitudes. --Moshe Vardi
!Page 3 CSLI Newsletter January 24, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF LAST WEEK'S F1 MEETING
In the course of two meetings last week, we examined several of the
applications of a theory of abstract objects which encode properties.
Situations, worlds, complete individual concepts (monads), fictional
characters, stories, and mathematical objects were identified as species of
the objects generated by the theory. Also, by supposing these abstract
objects to be files of information to which our minds have access, we
investigated ways these objects could serve as the intermediate, repre-
sentational objects (or contents) of the propositional attitudes.
--Ed Zalta
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NL1 MEETING
``On the Semantics (and/or Syntax) of Plurals''
Friday, Jan. 25, 2 pm, Ventura Hall Conference Room
Copies are available in the Ventura reception of two relevant papers: Dowty
and Brodie, ``The semantics of ``Floated'' Quantifiers in a TransformationLESS
Grammar,'' and Hoeksema, ``Plurality and Conjunction''. I will first
explain the theory of the singular/plural and individual/collective
distinctions developed by Jack Hoeksema, and then show how a range of data,
considered ``counterexamples'' to a semantic theory of plurality by linguists
such as Jerry Morgan, can all be adequately described in Hoeksema's
approach. Although it still seems to be the case that neither a syntactic
nor a semantic characterization of plurality suffices for English by
itself, the number of cases where the two can be made to coincide is
surprisingly large. Assuming such overlapping descriptions are correct, I
will conclude with some speculations as to why this overlap might exist.
--David Dowty
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
P1 MEETING
``Representing and Recognizing Natural Forms''
Alex Pentland, CSLI
Where: SRI's AI Lab Conference Room (EK242),
333 Ravenswood, Menlo Park
When: Tuesday, January 29, 2:30pm
I will argue that the world can be modeled as a small set of generic
processes that recur in relatively simple combinations. A simple model of
a tree, for instance, is the composition of a branching process with
three-dimensional texture processes, to generate bark and leaves. On this
view, the central problems for perception are to find a set of generic
models that accurately capture uniformities in the physical structure of
the world, to understand how they combine to generate regularities in
images, and to understand how one perceives the content of an image by
recognizing it as a combination of these generic primitives. Previous
attempts at finding such primitives are Pentland's fractal model and Witkin
and Kass's flow pattern model. In this talk, I will propose a small set of
modeling primitives (e.g., a representation) that allow surprisingly simple
and natural description of such diverse diverse forms as the human body,
mountainous terrain, furniture, and trees. I will then present new results
showing that many of these primitives are directly recognizable from their
associated image regularities. For directions call 859-6154, or mail to
Pentland@sri-ai.
!Page 4 CSLI Newsletter January 24, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA C MEETING
``From Function Level Semantics to Program Transformation and Optimization''
John Backus, IBM Research Lab, San Jose CA 95193
Wednesday, January 30, 1:30-2:30, Ventura Seminar Room
The software crisis results from our disorderly concepts of ``program''.
These make programming an art, rather than an engineering discipline. Such
a discipline would at least require that we have stocks both of useful
off-the-shelf programs and of standard theorems that can be applies
repeatedly. We have neither. Mathematical systems are often distinguished
by a set of operations that (a) map a set S into itself, S↑n -> S, (b) have
simply understood results, and (c) obey a set of strong algebraic laws.
Neither conventional programs nor ``object level'' functional [e.g., LISP]
programs form a mathematical system of this kind. Neither kind of program
has program-forming operations that build new programs from existing ones
and satisfy (a) (b) and (c). Other problems of these program concepts are
reviewed. Function level programs do form such a mathematical system:
programs are build by program-forming operations that have good algebraic
properties. Hence they are the subject of a large number of general
theorems, theorems that are applicable in practice. We give examples.
Function level programs also provide solutions to the other problems
reviewed. This talk reviews the function level FP system of programs,
gives some of its semantic equations, and exhibits some moderately general
results derived from those equations. Some results from the literature
about program schemas are reviewed and shown to be essentially function
level results that are most conveniently stated and recognized in that
form. The last part of the talk is about optimization; it shows how some
FP programs can be transformed into others that run as fast as Fortran
programs. It introduces ``Fortran constructs'' into FP, pure functions that
have an obvious corresponding Fortran-like program. It exhibits a number
of function level equations governing these constructs and shows how these
can be used to convert inefficient FP programs into efficient Fortran-like
ones.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
TUTORIAL LECTURES ON LINGUISTICS FOR NON-LINGUISTS
CSLI will host 3 sessions intended for non-linguists on Government and
Binding (Chomsky), Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (Gazdar/Klein/
Pullum/Sag), and Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan/Kaplan). The sessions
will be in the trailer seminar room on Tuesdays from 1:00 to 3:00 PM. Each
lecturer will sketch the leading ideas of one theory, and (perhaps)
contrast it with the other theories.
Jan. 29 GB Lecture by Peter Sells
Feb.5 GPSG Lecture by Geoff Pullum
Feb. 12 LFG Lecture by Joan Bresnan
Linguists are asked not to attend
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
**CORRECTION**
In last week's list of visitors, it was incorrectly stated that Susan
Fischer is from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; she is actually
from the Rochester Institute of Technology.
-------
∂24-Jan-85 1659 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:Kay.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Computer Music Colloquium
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Jan 85 16:58:52 PST
Received: from Xerox.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Thu 24 Jan 85 16:55:34-PST
Received: from Chardonnay.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 24 JAN 85 16:52:02 PST
Date: 24 Jan 85 16:51 PST
From: Kay.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: Computer Music Colloquium
In-reply-to: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>'s message of Wed, 23 Jan
85 17:11:53 PST
To: BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
I should very much like to go if there is still room.
--Martin
∂25-Jan-85 1046 NEALE@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Jan 85 10:45:55 PST
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 1985 10:41 PST
Message-ID: <NEALE.12082421120.BABYL@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
From: NEALE@SU-CSLI.ARPA
To: folks@CSLI
PHILOSOPHY DEPT. GRADUATE STUDENTS COLLOQUIUM
Today 3:15 in the seminar room in the philosophy dept:
David Magnus
"Sam"
or
"The complexity of an expression and its information content"
(All welcome to attend)
∂25-Jan-85 1501 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:avi.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa BATS
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Jan 85 15:01:02 PST
Received: from csnet-relay by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 25 Jan 85 14:43:40-PST
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id ad16141; 25 Jan 85 17:18 EST
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 85 13:42:30 PST
From: Avi Wigderson <avi%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA, theory-b@UCBERNIE.ARPA
Subject: BATS
Hi
Here is the schedule for the coming BATS, which will
be held at IBM (Research Building, as usual) on Friday
Feb 1, 1985.
10:00 Dorit Hochbaum (U C Berkeley)
11:00 Andy Yao (Stanford)
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Howard Karloff (U C Berkeley)
2:00 Nimrod Megiddo (IBM)
Titles and abstracts follow.
Using Dual Approximation Algorithms for Scheduling Problems:
Practical and Theoretical Results
Dorit Hochbaum
U C Berkeley
Abstract
In this talk we will present a polynomial approximation scheme
for the problem of scheduling a set of $n$ jobs on $m$
machines so as to minimize the makespan time..
For each $epsilon$, we give an algorithm that runs in time
$O(( n / epsilon ) sup {1/ epsilon sup 2})$ and has relative
error at most $epsilon$.
In particular, we present a practical algorithm for $epsilon =1/5$
that has running time $O(n log n)$. This performance bound
is equal to the best previously known algorithm.
The scheme is based on a new approach to constructing
approximation algorithms, which we call dual approximation
algorthms, where the aim is find superoptimal, but
infeasible solutions, where the performance is measured by the
degree of infeasibility allowed.
(This is joint work with David Shmoys, Harvard)
Title: Probabilistic Lower Bounds for Byzantine Agreement and Clock
Synchronization
Speaker: Andy Yao, Stanford.
Abstract: In a fault-tolerant distributed system, the generic problem of
reaching certain kinds of agreement for independent processors is of
central importance.
Prominent among such problems are various versions of
the Byzantine agreement problem and the clock synchronization problem.
Several elegant impossibility results are known for these problems, which
sharply characterize how much faultiness can be overcome.
As these results
apply only to the worst case scenario for deterministic algorithms,
questions have been raised as to whether they remain true
when probabilistic
algorithms with small error probabilities are allowed.
So far, no nontrivial
bounds have been established on the
limits of capability for the probabilistic
case.
In this talk, we will present extensions of a number of the classical
impossibility results to the probabilistic case. For example, we will
show that any probabilistic algorithm for reaching Byzantine agreement
will fail with probabilty at least 1/3, if the number of faulty processors
may exceed one-third of the total number
of processors. We will also prove
that, for the clock synchronization problem, the asymptotic proportion
of synchronized time duration (over a long period of time) achievable by
any probabilistic algorithm cannot exceed 2/3, when more than 1/3 of the
processors may be faulty.
(This is joint work with Anna Karlin at Stanford.)
-------
Applications of the Parallel Maximal Independent Set Algorithm
to Solving Graph Problems
Howard Karloff
The first NC algorithm for finding a
maximal independent set (MIS) in
a graph was exhibited by Karp and Wigderson,
and a simpler, faster algorithm
was discovered by Mike Luby last year. In this talk we present a few
fast parallel algorithms that depend heavily on the MIS algorithm.
First to be presented is a Monte Carlo
RNC algorithm for finding an odd
set cover in an arbitrary graph. An "odd set cover" is a structure
"dual" to a matching; the minimum "capacity"
of an odd set cover is the maximum
size of a matching. Using this odd set
cover algorithm, one can convert any
Monte Carlo RNC algorithm for maximum
matching, such as the Karp, Upfal, and
Wigderson algorithm, into the more desirable Las Vegas RNC type;
the difference is that a Las Vegas algorithm guarantees that the answer
is correct, and the running time is a random variable, whereas
a Monte Carlo algorithm provides a guarantee of running time, but
only a statement that the answer is correct with high probability.
Brooks' Theorem states that any connected graph of maximum degree
DELTA can be vertex colored with no more
than DELTA colors, unless the graph
is a clique or an odd cycle. Luby provided
a reduction to MIS that colors any
graph with DELTA+1 colors. We provide an algorithm, running in time
O(DELTA*((log n)**c)), that implements Brooks'
Theorem, and therefore runs
in polylog time for low degree graphs.
The vertex partition problem is as follows:
Given a graph G, partition
the nodes into blocks V1, V2 such that for every node x, at least half
of x's neighbors are in the opposite block.
If time permits, we'll exhibit
a polylog algorithm for the vertex partition problem for cubic graphs,
also a reduction to MIS.
(Joint work with Danny Soroker)
OPTIMAL PRECISION IN THE PRESENCE OF UNCERTAINTY
Nimrod Megiddo
Suppose the processors in a system want to perform a particular
action (such as flipping a bit) simultaneously. How tightly
can they be guaranteed to perform this action? Here we assume that
processors communicate by sending messages over links in a network.
All they know are
lower and upper bounds on these message delivery times.
There is no universal clock available to the processors.
We present an algorithm to achieve optimal synchronization
in arbitrary networks with no clock drift.
We give a technique that
guarantees that the worst-case difference between when the first and
last processors perform the action is optimal given the choices made by
an adversary.
The technique involves the solution of shortest path and related network
optimization problems, and is easily
implementable in polynomial time.
Joint work with Joseph Y. Halpern and Ashfaq A. Munshi
∂25-Jan-85 1630 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA bats 2/1/85
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Jan 85 16:30:30 PST
Date: Fri 25 Jan 85 16:28:43-PST
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: bats 2/1/85
To: aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
next friday, bats will be held at ibm. please let me know if you want
to go and whether you can drive.
joan
-------
∂25-Jan-85 2132 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA The changing of the guard
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Jan 85 21:32:07 PST
Date: Fri 25 Jan 85 21:28:45-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: The changing of the guard
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Dear all,
This week, Gerry Lieberman, the Vice Provost for Research,
acted on the Executive Committee's recommendation, and asked John
Perry to be the next director of CSLI, starting April 1. John agreed,
thank heavens. I think we are very lucky to have someone of John's
stature and ability take on the job.
John will be sending out a message soon about his plans for
next year.
--Jon
-------
∂28-Jan-85 0241 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #3
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Jan 85 02:40:58 PST
Date: Sunday, January 27, 1985 1:03PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #3
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Monday, 28 Jan 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 3
Today's Topics:
Implementations - ,Tablog
Puzzles - Integers & Alpine Club Solutions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Jan 85 1635 PST
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Tablog
Tablog (Tableau Logic Programming Language) is a language
based on first-order predicate logic with equality that
combines functional and logic programming.
A program in Tablog is a list of formulas in a first-order
logic (including equality, negation, and equivalence). Tablog
programs may define either relations or functions.
Tablog employs the Manna-Waldinger deductive-tableau proof
system as an interpreter in the same way that Prolog uses a
resolution-based proof system. Unification is used by Tablog
to match a call with a line in the program and to bind
arguments. The basic rules of deduction used for computing are
nonclausal resolution and rewriting by means of equality and
equivalence.
A previous message by Uday Reddy (U-REDDY@UTAH-20) classified
Tablog together with Eqlog and Kornfeld's work. There are
however important differences between the three languages:
Kornfeld extends unification to unify expressions declared to
be equal but his system will not reduce a term into other term
defined to be equal to it. Eqlog is an extension of OBJ1 to
use narrowing rather than simple pattern matching when trying
to reduce functional terms.
Tablog, on the other hand, uses standard unification. It
operates on both formulas and terms and uses different inference
rules to reduce them. An atomic formula is reduced using
nonclausal resolution or is rewritten if it is asserted to be
equivalent to another formula. A term gets rewritten using an
equality rule that is applied to the goal to be reduced and
an assertion in the program. This rule is a generalization of
paramodulation.
Tablog distinguishes between negation and failure, so in a
sense it has 3-value logic. Tablog is strictly first-order so
it does not allow higher order functions.
References:
Y. Malachi, Z. Manna, and R. Waldinger,
``TABLOG -- The Deductive Tableau Programming Language,''
Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional
Programming, Austin, Texas, August 1984.
Also available as:
Stanford Computer Science Technical Report No. STAN-CS-1012.
(Contact Berg@SCORE for ordering information)
-- Yoni Malachi
------------------------------
Date: Tue 22 Jan 85 13:33:57-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-Reddy@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Integers puzzle
I recall that the Mr. S. and Mr. P. problem once appeared
in Martin Gardner's column in Scientific American (probably
sometime around 1979). I think he called it "The Impossible
Problem" since the statement of the problem is apparently
impossible to be true.
John McCarthy's challenge of solving it in a logic dealing
with knowledge is interesting and may lead to significant
advances. However, just a few pages before the cited paper
of Xiwen and Weide in IJCAI-83, there is another paper by
Martin Nilsson of Uppsala dealing with the same problem.
Nilsson also gives a Prolog program that models his solution.
I am refraining from reproducing it here, because a study of
the paper is essential for an appreciation of the approach.
-- Uday Reddy
------------------------------
Date: 21 Jan 85 13:28:00 PST (Mon)
From: "Tim Shimeall" <Tim@UCI-ICSD>
Subject: Solution to Alpine Club puzzle
The problem as presented is easily formulated for solution by
Prolog. The only point of contention in the following solution
might be that my definitions of "like" and "dislike" are
incomplete or improper. I won't argue this, but merely state
that they are sufficient for this case. This solution was
tested using "CProlog" under UNIX 4.2BSD.
-- Tim
/* We have three people we know about: Tony, Mike and John. */
/* Since our universe of people is restricted to members, we can */
/* simply present the definition of membership and not worry about */
/* expressing the fact that all of our people ARE members. */
person(tony).
person(mike).
person(john).
/* Every [person who is a] member of the alpine club is
either a skier or a mountain climber or both. */
member(X):-person(X),(skier(X),climber(X); skier(X); climber(X)).
/* No mountain climber likes rain */
climber(X):-likes(X,not(rain)).
/* all skiers like snow */
skier(X):-likes(X,snow).
/* Mike dislikes whatever Tony likes */
likes(mike,not(X)):-likes(tony,X).
/* Mike likes whatever Tony dislikes */
likes(mike,X):-likes(tony,not(X)).
/* Tony likes rain */
likes(tony,rain).
/* Tony likes snow */
likes(tony,snow).
/* to not like the negation of something is assumed to be
equivalent to liking that something. This clause is
probably unneeded. */
likes(Y,not(not(Z))):-likes(Y,Z).
/* Is there a member who is a climber and not a skier? */
query(X):- member(X), climber(X), \+skier(X).
/* answer: Yes - Mike */
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 85 12:53:31 PST
From: <Didier%SLACCB.BITNET@Lindy>
Subject: Solution to Alpine Club Problem
Here a stable solution to the "Alpine club" problem. To
me the only difficulty was to prevent the program to enter
an endless loop in case no information is provided. I guess
this is what people mean when they claim that Prolog does
not provides a true negation operator. However, I think
this can be solved by introducing both facts, here "like"
and "dislike" as being contrary of each other (in addition
to the facts) and by preventing the endless loop by flaging
one of the entry. Since I am not a CS, AI or even mathematician,
I may be missing a point but I would like to know about it!
Try the program and see if it does behave as a true AI/CS
person like it.
-- Didier
/* The following problem is taken from Manna's "Mathematical
Theory of Computation", pg. 160.
Tony, Mike and John belong to the Alpine Club. Every
member of the Alpine Club is either a skier or a mountain
climber or both. No mountain climber likes rain, and all
skiers like snow. Mike dislikes whatever Tony likes and
likes whatever Tony dislikes. Tony likes rain and snow.
Is there a member of the Alpine Club who is a mountain
climber but not a skier?
*/
/* "Tony, Mike and John belong to the Alpine Club." */
club←member(tony).
club←member(mike).
club←member(john).
/* "Every member of the Alpine Club is either a skier or a
mountain climber or both." */
skier(X) :- club←member(X), non←climber(X), !.
climber(X) :- club←member(X), non←skier(X), !.
skier(X) :- club←member(X).
climber(X) :- club←member(X).
/* "No mountain climber likes rain," */
non←climber(X) :- like(X,rain), !.
/* Anyone disliking snow is not a skier! */
/* "all skiers like snow." */
non←skier(X) :- dislike(X,snow), !.
/* "Mike dislikes whatever Tony likes ..." */
dislike(mike,X) :- like(tony,X).
/* "... and likes whatever Tony dislikes."*/
like(mike,X) :- dislike(tony,X).
/* "Tony likes rain and snow." */
like(tony,rain).
like(tony,snow).
/* Define "dislike" and "like"
Possible endless loop situation are avoided by forbiding
two calls to "like" If this happens, the solution is
flagged as undefined */
dislike(X,Y) :- like(X,Y), !, fail.
like(X,Y) :- possible←loop(X,Y), asserta(undefined(X)), !.
like(X,Y) :- asserta(possible←loop(X,Y)), dislike(X,Y), !, fail.
/* Define "non←climber" and "non←skier" */
non←climber(X) :- climber(X), !, fail.
non←climber(X).
non←skier(X) :- skier(X), !, fail.
non←skier(X).
/* "Is there a member of the Alpine Club who is a mountain climber
but not a skier? A decision must be possible for the solution*/
solution(X) :- club←member(X), climber(X), check(X), non←skier(X), check(X).
check(X) :- undefined(X),
write('Cannot make a decision about '),write(X),nl,
!, fail.
check(X).
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂28-Jan-85 0956 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Call for papers
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Jan 85 09:56:05 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 28 Jan 85 09:53:06-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 28 Jan 85 11:45:24 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 28 Jan 85 11:34:03 cst
Message-Id: <8501281733.AA13976@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from COLUMBIA-20.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Mon, 28 Jan 85 11:33:35 cst
Date: Mon 28 Jan 85 12:33:46-EST
From: Zvi Galil <GALIL@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
Subject: Call for papers
To: theory@WISC-CRYS.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
This announcement is made for S.N. Maheshwari of the IIT Delhi.
|********************|
* *
* CALL FOR PAPERS *
* *
|********************|
Fifth Conference on
FOUNDATIONS OF SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY & THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
New Delhi, INDIA
December 16-18, 1985
Sponsored by
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
This is the fifth in a series of annual computer science conferences
organized to provide a forum for presenting research results, from
India and abroad. Papers are invited in the following and related
areas:
Programming and proof methodologies
Functional and logic programming
Formal semantics and specifications
Theory of computation
Formal languages and automata
VLSI, algorithms and complexity
Data bases
Distributed computing
Computing practice
Papers will be refereed and the final selection will be made by the
Programme Committee*. Authors should send FOUR copies of each full
paper to
S.N. Maheshwari
Dept. of Computer Science and Engg.
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
New Delhi 110016, India
to reach by May 31, 1985. Authors will be informed of acceptance by
July 31, 1985 and final manuscripts of papers must be received by
September 6, 1985 to be included in the Proceedings.
*Programme Committee
M. Joseph (TIFR, Bombay)
K.B. Lakshmanan (IIT Madras)
S.N. Maheshwari (IIT Delhi)
S.L. Mehndiratta (IIT Delhi)
K.V. Nori (Tata RDDC, Pune)
S.V. Rangaswamy (IISc, Bangalore)
R.K. Shyamasundar (TIFR, Bombay)
R. Siromoney (Madras Christian College)
C.E. Veni Madhavan (IISc, Bangalore)
-------
-------
-------
∂28-Jan-85 1655 BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Jan 85 16:55:06 PST
Date: Mon 28 Jan 85 16:46:48-PST
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: su-bboards@SU-CSLI.ARPA
TUTORIAL LECTURES IN LINGUISTICS
FIRST OF THREE TODAY (IF TODAY IS TUESDAY)
Peter Sells on GB in the CSLI trailer seminar room (trailer C-D) from
1-3PM. Reminder: this is for non-linguists only.
-------
∂29-Jan-85 0848 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Jan 85 08:47:51 PST
Mail-From: BLOCK created at 28-Jan-85 16:46:48
Date: Mon 28 Jan 85 16:46:48-PST
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: su-bboards@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Tue 29 Jan 85 08:43:46-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
TUTORIAL LECTURES IN LINGUISTICS
FIRST OF THREE TODAY (IF TODAY IS TUESDAY)
Peter Sells on GB in the CSLI trailer seminar room (trailer C-D) from
1-3PM. Reminder: this is for non-linguists only.
-------
∂29-Jan-85 0906 CLT Seminar in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics
To: "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Speaker: Dr. Ed Wimmers, IBM, San Jose
Title: What does it mean for rewrite rules to be "correct"?
Place: Room 381-T, Math Corner, Stanford
Time: Monday, February 4, 4:15-5:30 P.M.
Abstract:
We consider an operational definition for FP via rewrite
rules. What would it mean for such a definition to be correct? We
develop a new formal criterion for deciding whether there are enough
rewrite rules and show that our rewrite rules meet that criterion.
Our proof technique is novel in the way we use the semantic domain to
guide an assignment of types to the untyped language FP; this allows
us to adopt powerful techniques from the typed lambda-calculus theory.
S. Feferman
∂29-Jan-85 1145 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Jan 85 11:45:24 PST
Date: Tue 29 Jan 85 11:41:59-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk(s)
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA
1/31/85 - Richard Anderson (Stanford):
"A parallel algorithm for the Maximal Path Problem"
The Maximal Path Problem is: Given a graph G=(V,E) and a vertex r,
find a simple path P starting at r such that P cannot be extended
without encountering a node that is already on the path. A ``fast''
probablistic parallel algorithm will given for the problem, showing
that it is in RNC. The techniques used for the Maximal Path Problem
also apply to Depth First Search. An O(n↑{1/2+e}) parallel algorithm
will be given for constructing a Depth First Search tree in a graph.
***** Time and place: January 31, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
2/7/85 - Prof. Faith E. Fich (U. Washington)
"The parallel complexity of exponentiating polynomials over finite
fields"
Modular integer exponentiation (given a, e, and m, compute a↑e mod m)
is a fundamental problem in algebraic complexity for which no
efficient parallel algorithm is known. Two closely related problems
are modular polynomial exponentiation (given a(x), e, and m(x),
compute [a(x)]↑e mod m(x)) and polynomial exponentiation (given
a(x), e, and t, compute the coefficient of x↑t in [a(x)]↑e). This
talk presents efficient parallel algorithms for the latter two
problems when a(x) and m(x) are polynomials over a finite field.
***** Time and place: February 7, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂29-Jan-85 1153 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Jan 85 11:53:26 PST
Date: Tue 29 Jan 85 11:49:10-PST
From: Eckart Forster <FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Phil. Dept. Colloquium
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: forster@SU-CSLI.ARPA
PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT COLLOQUIUM
Speaker: Onora O'Neill (Visitor, Santa Clara)
Title: "Rights, Obligations, and World Hunger"
Time: Friday, February 1, 3:15
Place: Philosophy Seminar Room 90-92Q
-------
∂29-Jan-85 1328 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA bats this friday
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Jan 85 13:28:12 PST
Date: Tue 29 Jan 85 13:20:56-PST
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: bats this friday
To: aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
i've received few responses about this friday's bats at ibm.
are you guys going or what?
-------
∂30-Jan-85 0226 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:avi.sjrlvm1%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Directions for BATS
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Jan 85 02:26:21 PST
Received: from csnet-relay by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 30 Jan 85 02:24:59-PST
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id cp08026; 29 Jan 85 17:44 EST
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 85 11:19:52 PST
From: Avi Wigderson <avi%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: theory-b@UCBERNIE.ARPA, aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Subject: Directions for BATS
Hi
For the benefit of people that have not been in the IBM
area recently, here are the main things to look for.
Driving south on the 101, take the Blossom Hill Rd. Exit
which is about 10 miles after the 101 meets 17. (Note that
Ford/Cottle Rd. exit does not exist any more).
After about 5 right turns (follow IBM signs) you are on
Cottle Rd. The second light is IBM's main gate which you
enter by a left turn. (Don't continue to the research gate -
it is closed!) Tell the guards you are here for the BATS
and they ask you mention my name or Maria's. Find the research
building and park in front (visitor parking) if you can
or behind it.
Avi
∂30-Jan-85 0954 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: FEBRUARY 1, 1985
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Jan 85 09:54:01 PST
Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 09:50:15-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: FEBRUARY 1, 1985
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Folks,
Here is the abstract for this weeks talk.
SIGLUNCH
DATE: Friday, February 1, 1985
LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Michael Georgeff
A.I. Center, SRI International and,
Center for the Study of Language and Information,
Stanford University
ABSTRACT: Procedural Knowledge
Active intelligent systems need to be able to represent and reason
about actions and how those actions can be combined to achieve given
goals. This knowledge is often in the form of SEQUENCES of actions or
PROCEDURES for achieving given goals or reacting to certain
situations. For example, knowledge about kicking a football,
performing a certain dance movement, cooking a roast dinner, solving
Rubik's cube, or diagnosing an engine malfunction, is primarily
knowledge about procedures for accomplishing these tasks.
In this talk we describe a scheme for explicitly representing and
reasoning about procedural knowledge based on the notion of PROCESS.
The knowledge representation is sufficiently rich to describe the
effects of arbitrary sequences of tests and actions, and the inference
mechanism provides a means for directly using this knowledge to reach
desired operational goals. Furthermore, the knowledge representation
has a declarative semantics that provides for incremental changes to
the system, rich explanatory capabilities, and verifiability. The
scheme also provides a mechanism for reasoning about the use of this
knowledge, thus enabling the system to choose effectively between
alternative courses of action.
Thanx,
Paula
-------
∂30-Jan-85 1040 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa change of address
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Jan 85 10:40:26 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 30 Jan 85 10:19:06-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Wed, 30 Jan 85 12:08:48 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 29 Jan 85 18:08:40 cst
Message-Id: <8501292351.AA14507@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from csnet-relay.arpa by wisc-crys.arpa; Tue, 29 Jan 85 17:51:01 cst
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id ao08219; 29 Jan 85 18:03 EST
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 85 11:20:14 PST
From: Peter van Emde Boas <pveb%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: theory@wisc-crys.ARPA
Subject: change of address
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
.fo off
198501241243 UPDATE
Dear colleagues etc..At least it seems that we are having our address
information about complete. So let us try for a more complete change
of address note.
Peter, Ghica, Donald, Caspar & Evert van Emde Boas.
home address: 19405 Greenwood drive #1, Cupertino, CA 95014
home phone: (408) 255 2254
office: IBM Research Laboratory, 5600 Cottle Road, San Jose, CA 95193
internal zip codes: Peter : K52/281, room 1bn-243, phone (408) 256 3927
Ghica : K54/281, room 1bn-123, phone (408) 284-1887
machine addresses: Peter : PVEB at SJRLVM1
Ghica : GHICA at SJRLVM1
cs-net address : PVEB @ ibm-sj.csnet
(ARPA address: pveb%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa )
Preferably don't use the home address for anything that is either
bulky or risky to loose. The mailbox is on the street and not
locked.
These addresses should be valid till Aug 31 1985 (and probably even
slightly beyond that point).
Greetings Peter, Ghica, Donald, Caspar & Evert.
∂30-Jan-85 1701 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Jan 85 17:00:59 PST
Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 16:57:12-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New Books in the Math/CS Library
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Application and Theory of Petri Nets. Selected papers from the 1st and the 2nd
European Workshop. QA267.E97 1980
Applications and Theory of Petri Nets. Selected papers from the 3rd Workshop.
QA267.E97 1982
Logic Minimization Algorithms for VLSI Synthesis. TK7868.L6L626 1984
The Laboratory Microcomputer. by Cooper. QA76.8.I25918C66 1984
The Mind and the Machine; philosophical aspects of artificial intelligence.
by Torrance Q360.M56 1984
Introduction to Numerical Methods for Parallel Computers by Schendel
QA297.S3813 1984
Alan Turing: the Enigma by Hodges QA29.T8H63 1983 c.2
Chess Skill in Man and Machine. 2nd edition ed. by Frey GV1318.C45 1983
The Commericial Application of Expert Systems Technology by Johnson
8506421
Data Analysis for Data Base Design by Howe QA76.9.D3H68 1983
Pascal; a problem solving approach by Koffman QA76.73.P2K62
H. Llull
-------
∂31-Jan-85 0025 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Jan. 31, No. 14
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 31 Jan 85 00:25:31 PST
Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 17:26:40-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Jan. 31, No. 14
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
January 31, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 14
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, January 31, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Psycholinguistic Correlates of Defense and Coping''
Conference Room Hans Steiner, M.D.
Dept. of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``An Internal Semantics for Modal Logic''
Room G-19 Moshe Vardi, CSLI
Discussion led by John Etchemendy
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium scheduled for this week
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, February 7, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Excerpts from Charles Bigelow's ``Principles of
Conference Room Structured Font Design for the Personal Workstation''
and Fernand Baudin's
``Typography: Evolution + Revolution''
Discussion led by David Levy
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Reasoning About Actions and Processes''
Room G-19 Michael Georgeff, CSLI
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium (See the notice below)
``From Sound to Score: Computerized
Transcription of Music''
Bernard Mont-Renard,
Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
COLLOQUIUM NOTICE
Since next week's colloquium will not be held at Redwood Hall, it can only
accommodate 25 people and, unfortunately, is already full. If you wish to be
placed on the alternates list, please contact Ingrid Deiwiks (Ingrid@Turing,
497-3084).
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter January 31, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI REPORT
A new CSLI Report by Jon Barwise, ``The Situation in Logic--II:
Conditionals and Conditional Information'' (Report No. CSLI--85--21), has
been published. To obtain a copy of this report write to Dikran
Karagueuzian, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305 or send net mail to Dikran
at SU-CSLI.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
The TINlunch of February 7 will focus on some of the issues surrounding the
new computer technology exemplified by TEDIT, TEX, and EMACS. These ``word
processing'' and ``document preparation'' systems are, of course, nothing
other than ``writing'' tools -- intended for writing with the aid of the
computer. The first reading, an excerpt from an article by Charles
Bigelow, discusses the design of typefaces in the new digital medium as a
problem of balancing conservation and innovation: conserving the legibility
and elegance of our inherited letter forms while meeting the demands of the
new medium. In the second reading, Fernand Baudin suggests that the new
writing technology will require of us a new literacy: not just the ability
to read and write, but the ability to organize our writing visually -- that
is, typographically. He calls for ``the close cooperation of specialists
in many branches: linguist[ic]s, communication, psychology, history,
technology.'' --David Levy
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Reasoning About Actions and Processes''
Active intelligent systems need to be able to represent and reason about
actions and how those actions can be combined to achieve given goals. For
example, knowledge about kicking a football, performing a certain dance
movement, cooking a roast dinner, solving Rubik's cube, or diagnosing an
engine malfunction, is primarily knowledge about sequences of actions or
procedures for achieving these goals. Within AI, there have been two
approaches to this problem, with a somewhat poor connection between the
two. In the first category, there is some work on theories of action, or
what an action is. This research has focused mainly on problems in natural
language understanding concerned with the meaning of action sentences.
Second, there is work on planning, i.e., the problem of constructing a plan
by searching for a sequence of actions that yields a given goal.
Surprisingly, there is almost no work in AI about the execution of
pre-formed plans -- yet this is the almost universal way in which humans go
about their day-to-day tasks, and probably the only way other animals do
so. In this talk we aim to set the foundation for a theory of action that:
(1) provides a suitable semantics for simple action sentences in natural
language, (2) provides a method of practical reasoning about how to achieve
given goals based on procedural knowledge, and (3) serves as a basis for
planning. The first of these aims is met by defining a suitable
declarative semantics for action, and the second by providing a suitable
operational semantics. The third rests on both of these, but in addition
requires that we have a means of searching the space of possible world
histories. --Michael Georgeff
!Page 3 CSLI Newsletter January 31, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF THE F4 MEETING ON JANUARY 7
The topic was an overview belief revision as a research area in AI.
``Belief revision'' is a broad enough term to cover many different types of
inferential activity in AI. We discussed four types: (1) Search theory, in
which assumptions are made and retracted in an effort to find a problem
solution; (2) ``Truth'' maintenance systems a la Doyle. There are
foundational theories of belief in the sense of Harmon, with a set of
unsupported premises underlying all beliefs. The key feature of these
systems is their attempt to keep track of all justifications for belief,
and to revise these justifications in the face of contradictory belief.
(3) Database updates in the presence of integrity constraints or
user-defined views, in which case the update can become ambiguous. The
syntactic approach of Vardi et. al. was reviewed. (4) Ad-hoc approaches
designed for particular domains, for example the simple ``believe what you
see'' principle embedded in Shakey the robot.
Ned Block made the interesting observation that belief revision in the
AI context did not correspond to scientific theory revision as discussed in
the philosophical literature; for example, the principle of simplicity did
not seem to be a criterion for revision. This provoked a large amount of
discussion. --Kurt Konolige
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF THIS WEEK'S LOGIC SEMINAR
``Types and Partial Functions''
Gordon Plotkin
We presented a variant of Scott's semantic theory which makes use of
partial functions, avoiding the use of the bottom element to denote lack of
termination. There is a metalanguage for semantics with a compatible
operational and denotational semantics (at all types) where termination
corresponds to definedness. There is a logic, a variant of LCF, Scott's
Logic of Computable Functions; because of partiality this logic is free.
Claimed advantages of the system include its simplicity and naturality
(avoidance of some coding and correspondence with computational intuition).
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S LOGIC SEMINAR
``What Does it Mean for Rewrite Rules to be ``Correct''?''
Feb. 4, 1985, 4:15, Faculty Lounge, Math Corner
Dr. Ed Wimmers, IBM, San Jose
We consider an operational definition for FP via rewrite rules. What would
it mean for such a definition to be correct? We develop a new formal
criterion for deciding whether there are enough rewrite rules and show that
our rewrite rules meet that criterion. Our proof technique is novel in the
way we use the semantic domain to guide an assignment of types to the
untyped language FP; this allows us to adopt powerful techniques from the
typed lambda-calculus theory.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
NL4 MEETING
Tuesday, February 5, at 3:00 PM, Ventura seminar room
Last week, Phil Cohen presented the beginnings of a formalism for rational
interaction, upon which will be erected (in future meetings) a theory of
illocutionary acts. A simplified theory of rational action was proposed in
which it was deducible that a competent, rational agent, equipped with a
persistent goal and a correct plan (for the initial circumstances) would
either eventually achieve that goal, or would believe there is no longer
anything he could do to achieve it. Next week , definitions of requesting,
informing, and questioning will be derived, merging the above
characterization of action with a Gricean theory of communication.
!Page 4 CSLI Newsletter January 31, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S NL1/NL3 MEETING
``The Definiteness Effect and Superlatives''
Anna Szabolcsi, MIT Center for Cognitive Science
February 6, Noon, Ventura Trailer Classroom
First, it will be argued that the distinction in Hungarian between prefixed
and non-prefixed verbs facilitates the identification of the definiteness
effect in a much wider range of contexts than those of ``there-insertion''.
The fact that all the relevant verbs act as bleached existential predicates
supports the semantic explanations of the definiteness effect. Second, in
the environment of local WH/FOCUS movement superlatives will be shown to
have a ``comparative'' reading on which they act as canonical indefinites.
The syntactic restrictions on the distribution and interpretation of
``comparative superlatives'' will be pointed out.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
LINGUISTICS COLLOQUIUM
``How do Indexicals Fit into Situations? On Deixis in English and Polish''
Barbara Kryk, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
Bldg. 200 (History Corner), Rm. 217
Tuesday, February 6, 3:15 pm
The task of describing deixis is not an easy one, since the notion in
question concerns a domain where language and reality meet. Pointing by
means of indexical expressions is, on the one hand, one of the chief
functions played by language in the communication process. On the other
hand, deixis is a source of such complex linguistic phenomena as reference
and anaphora. Hence, in analyzing deixis, one faces a dilemma: whether to
do it formally, within the framework of a truth-conditional semantics, or,
alternatively, to employ a pragmatic framework. The present study is an
attempt to reconcile the two possible ways of approaching indexicals. The
analysis is limited, for brevity's sake, to the demonstrative pronouns,
contrasting `this' and `that' with their Polish equivalents. The
distribution of proximal/distal demonstrative pronouns in Polish is far
from regular. The opposition often gets neutralized; only one pronominal
form is used to cover all cases (namely, the proximal variant `ten').
Since these facts are difficult to capture by means of pragmatic formulas,
a more formal framework is required, and it is Situation Semantics that
seems to be able to accommodate the adduced data most satisfactorily.
Since demonstrative pronouns have been traditionally considered among the
most basic indexicals, it is suggested that the observations made
concerning them might be of some more universal value, as they could be
extended onto demonstrative adverbs and other deictic expressions as well.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
TUTORIAL LECTURES ON LINGUISTICS FOR NON-LINGUISTS
The second of three sessions intended for non-linguists on Government and
Binding (Chomsky), Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (Gazdar/Klein/
Pullum/Sag), and Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan/Kaplan) takes place on
February 5. The sessions are in the trailer seminar room on Tuesdays from
1:00 to 3:00 PM. Each lecturer sketches the leading ideas of one theory,
and (perhaps) contrast it with the other theories. The complete schedule
is listed below.
January 29 GB Lecture by Peter Sells
February 5 GPSG Lecture by Geoff Pullum
February 12 LFG Lecture by Joan Bresnan
Linguists are asked not to attend.
-------
∂31-Jan-85 1004 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter correction
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 31 Jan 85 10:04:36 PST
Date: Thu 31 Jan 85 09:58:40-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter correction
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
***CORRECTION***
The Linguistics colloquium, ``How do Indexicals Fit into Situations?
On Deixis in English and Polish'', is on Tuesday, February 5 not
February 6 as announced.
-------
∂31-Jan-85 1354 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:scholz@Navajo exciting social event
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 31 Jan 85 13:54:11 PST
Received: from Navajo by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 31 Jan 85 13:35:59-PST
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 85 13:36:28 pst
From: Karen Scholz <scholz@Navajo>
Subject: exciting social event
To: faculty@score
The event of the 80's: CSD Potluck
Day: Friday, Feb 8
Time: 6:30 pm
Place: Nils' House (map to follow)
In order to coordinate contributions, and to insure a nutritionally
sound evening for everyone, we are employing the following classification
system for contributions:
-> Main Dish
-> Salad
-> Dessert
-> Drinks
-> Utensils
RSVPOIBYL: (Repondez s'il vous plait or I'll break your leg) to scholz@navajo
your name
size of your party (if your party is bigger than ours
we can go to your party)
contribution category
And watch out for the man-trap in the guacamole dip.
Be there, Aloha !
∂31-Jan-85 2019 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Feb. 5
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 31 Jan 85 20:19:23 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA04811; Thu, 31 Jan 85 11:54:47 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA09538; Thu, 31 Jan 85 11:56:01 pst
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 85 11:56:01 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8501311956.AA09538@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Feb. 5
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Spring 1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
TIME: Tuesday, February 5, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: James G. Greeno, School of Education, UC Berke-
ley
TITLE: ``Conceptual Competence for Understanding and
Solving Problems''
Behavior of people, including children, can include generative
conformity to principles in a way that supports conclusions
that they understand the principles. This understanding may be
implicit, involving a kind of competence. Examples involving
principles of number, analyzed using planning nets, and princi-
ples of set theory, analyzed using Montague grammar, will be
discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
February 12: Frank Keil, Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences
Feburary 19: Philip Johnson-Laird, Psychology Department,
Stanford University (Note: Johnson-Laird's
talk will start at 11:30!)
March 12: Ned Block, CSLI
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELSEWHERE ON CAMPUS
Linguistics Group Meeting: February 12, 8pm. Tan Oak Room
(4th floor of Student Union Building)
Joseph Greenberg, Professor of Anthropology at Stanford,
will be speaking on ``The Genetic Classification of the
Indigenous Languages of the Americas.''
∂01-Feb-85 1336 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Feb 85 13:36:45 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 1 Feb 85 13:33:09-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Fri, 1 Feb 85 15:22:02 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Fri, 1 Feb 85 12:42:12 cst
Received: from maryland.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Fri, 1 Feb 85 12:41:43 cst
Received: by maryland.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
id AA04070; Fri, 1 Feb 85 13:37:34 est
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 85 13:37:34 est
From: smith@maryland
Message-Id: <8502011837.AA04070@maryland.ARPA>
To: theory@uwisc
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
AUTOMATH AND AUTOMATED REASONING
at
THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
MARCH 4 - MARCH 8, 1985
The Mathematics and Computer Science Departments at the University of Maryland
at College Park and the National Science Foundation are jointly sponsoring a
Special Year in Mathematical Logic and Theoretical Computer Science. The week
of March 4-8, 1985 will be devoted to Automath and Automated Reasoning. There
will be ten distinguished lectures as follows:
Monday, March 4 1100-1230 Nicolas deBruin
"THE AUTOMATH PROJECT"
Monday, March 4 1500-1630 Jeffrey Zucker
"FORMALIZATION OF CLASSICAL MATHEMATICS IN AUTOMATH"
Tuesday, March 5 1000-1130 Woody Bledsoe
"HIGH LEVEL PLANS FOR AN INEQUALITY PROVER"
Tuesday, March 5 1400-1530 Larry Wos
"AUTOMATED REASONING: INTRODUCTION AND APPLICATION"
Wednesday, March 6 1100-1230 Larry Wos
"AUTOMATED REASONING: OPEN QUESTIONS FROM ALGEBRA AND FORMAL LOGIC"
Wednesday, March 6 1430-1600 Woody Bledsoe
"USING ANALOGY IN AUTOMATIC THEOREM PROVING"
Thursday, March 7 1030-1200 Robert Constable
"PROGRAMMING AS FORMAL MATHEMATICS"
Thursday, March 7 1330-1500 Peter Andrews
"TYPED LAMBDA CALCULUS AND AUTOMATIC THEOREM PROVING"
Friday, March 8 1100-1230 Robert Constable
"CONSTRUCTIVE MATHEMATICS AS PROGRAMMING"
Friday, March 8 1330-1500 Peter Andrews
"TOWARDS AUTOMATING HIGHER ORDER LOGIC"
Location of all lectures: Mathematics Building, Room Y3206
The lectures are open to the public. If you plan to attend kindly notify
us so that we can make appropriate plans for space. Limited funds are
available to support junior faculty and graduate students for the entire week
or part of the week. To obtain funds, please submit an application listing
your affiliation and send either a net mes- sage or a letter to:
Jack Minker
Department of Computer Science
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 454-6119
minker@maryland
∂01-Feb-85 1451 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Machine Intelligence An International Bibliography
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Feb 85 14:51:05 PST
Date: Fri 1 Feb 85 14:44:14-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Machine Intelligence An International Bibliography
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Machine Intelligence An International Bibliography with Abstracts on Sensors
in Automated Manufacturing has been received in the Math/CS Library.
Alan Gomersall is the author and the call number is Z7405.A7G65 1984 c.2.
HLlull
-------
∂01-Feb-85 1758 PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Directions for BATS
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Feb 85 17:58:23 PST
Date: Fri 1 Feb 85 17:55:22-PST
From: C. Papadimitriou <PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Directions for BATS
To: avi%ibm-sj.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
cc: theory-b@UCBERNIE.ARPA, aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Avi Wigderson <avi%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>" of Wed 30 Jan 85 02:25:17-PST
Today at BATS Allen Van Gelder posed the following probem:
``We are given a directed graph with n nodes, and weights (positive AND
negative) on the nodes, we wish to find a set of nodes with maximum (total)
weight, such that, if i is in the set and (i,j) is an arc, then j is in the
set.''
Allen observed that we can formulate this problem as a linear program, and all
basic feasible solutions are integer (because the constraint matrix is totally
unimodular). But, Allen asked, is there a more satisfying polynomial agorithm?
Observe that we can assume the following:
1. G is acyclic (otherwise, replace stroingly connected components by nodes,
with weight equal to the sum of the weights).
2. All sinks are negative, and all sources positive (otherwise delete them).
3. G is transitively closed.
Now, create the following network N: We have the nodes of G and two new nodes
s and t (anybody got the hint? s and t?). We have arcs from s to each positive
node with capacity w←i, arcs from each negative node i to t with
capacity -w←i, and the arcs of G, with infinite capacities.
Consider an s-t cut C in N. If it does not contain an arc from s to i
(positive node) [think of this as ``i in the set''] and there is an arc
in G from i to a negative j, then C must contain the arc from j to t [think of
this as ``j in the set'']. Notice that min-cost now corresponds to max-weight.
So, all we have to do is solve a max-flow problem on N.
Or something like that....
Christos.
-------
∂01-Feb-85 2131 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:lawler%ucbernie@Berkeley Re: Directions for BATS
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Feb 85 21:31:50 PST
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 1 Feb 85 21:30:21-PST
Received: from ucbernie.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA17129; Fri, 1 Feb 85 21:30:05 pst
Received: by ucbernie.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA12476; Fri, 1 Feb 85 21:31:03 pst
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 85 21:31:03 pst
From: lawler%ucbernie@Berkeley (Eugene Lawler)
Message-Id: <8502020531.AA12476@ucbernie.ARPA>
To: PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA, avi%ibm-sj.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: Re: Directions for BATS
Cc: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA, theory-b@UCBERNIE.ARPA
The problem you mention has arisen in various contexts, one
being the "open pit mining problem." Picard and Qeyranne
several years ago indicated precisely the solution you gave
and indicated a number of applications. I talked about
this problem and its solution in class last term; either
students from my course weren't at BATS, or forgot they
had seen the solution, or didn't recognize the problem!
--Gene Lawler
∂03-Feb-85 1644 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Feb 85 16:43:59 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sun 3 Feb 85 16:41:05-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Sun, 3 Feb 85 18:33:39 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Sat, 2 Feb 85 23:11:57 cst
Message-Id: <8502030511.AA13275@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from csnet-relay.arpa by wisc-crys.arpa; Sat, 2 Feb 85 23:11:44 cst
Received: from kansas-state by csnet-relay.csnet id aa06850; 3 Feb 85 0:03 EST
Received: by ksuvax1.KSU id AA07501; Sat, 2 Feb 85 16:26:43 cst
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 85 16:26:43 cst
From: Austin Melton <austin%kansas-state.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: theory@wisc-crys.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
CALL FOR PAPERS AND CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT
CONFERENCE ON
THE MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF PROGRAMMING SEMANTICS
DATE AND SITE SPONSORS
Iowa State University
April 11 and 12, 1985 Kansas State University
Kansas State University The University of Kansas
Manhattan, Kansas 66506 The University of Nebraska
Wichita State University
PURPOSE
The conference will be a forum for computer scientists and mathematicians
jointly to discuss current research and possible directions for future research
in both programming language semantics in general and the mathematics used
in programming semantics in particular. From these discussions the computer
scientists will have first-hand exposure to the mathematical ideas which
might prove fruitful for future work, and the mathematicians will gain insight
for future work by seeing how their results can be applied and by seeing what
types of mathematical results are needed for future work in programming
language semantics.
SUGGESTED TOPICS
Suggested topics include, but are not limited to, the following:
theory of complete partial orders and continuous lattices,
topological and categorical approaches to semantics,
formal and descriptive aspects of semantics notations
INVITED SPEAKERS
The following computer scientists and mathematicians will be speaking at the
conference:
Dr. Dana Scott, Carnegie-Mellon University
Dr. Horst Herrlich, University of Bremen, West Germany
Dr. Adrian Tang, The University of Kansas
Dr. George Strecker, Kansas State University
Dr. Stephen Brookes, Carnegie-Mellon University
Dr. Carl Gunter, Carnegie-Mellon University
AUTHORS
Authors are invited to submit five copies of extended abstracts (approximately
two pages double spaced) describing recent advances in programming semantics
or related mathematics. The first page of the abstract should include
all authors' names, mailing addresses, and telephone numbers. Graduate
students are also encouraged to submit abstracts. The submission deadline
is March 11, 1985. Authors will be notified of acceptance by March 22, 1985.
Five copies of the extended abstracts should be submitted to:
Prof. Austin Melton or Prof. Robert Wherritt
Computer Science Department Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Fairchild Hall, 121 Box 33
Kansas State University Wichita State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506 Wichita, Kansas 67208
USA USA
or via CSNET
austin%kansas-state@csnet-relay
CONFERENCE ABSTRACTS
Abstracts of the accepted papers and the invited addresses will be available
to all conference participants at the start of the conference.
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
The conference proceedings will be published after the conference and mailed to
all the participants.
CONFERENCE ACTIVITIES
Presentations by the invited speakers will be approximately 40 minutes each.
Presentations of the accepted papers will be approximately 25 minutes each.
Also each afternoon will end with a research-question and answer session during
which time conference participants are invited to present questions to which the
other attendees may be able to give suggestions for obtaining answers. (A
question presentation should last about five minutes with five more minutes for
answer suggestions.) Also time and a room will be set aside Thursday and Friday
evenings for discussions among the conference participants.
CONFERENCE ENVIRONMENT
The conference will be held at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas
which is approximately 100 miles west of Kansas City and served by two commuter
airlines. Accommodations include a Ramada Inn which is adjacent to the campus
and a converted dormitory on the campus.
RAMADA INN DORMITORY
17th and Anderson Ave. Rates:
Manhattan, Kansas, 66506 Single - $12.00
USA Double - $11.00
913-539-7531 Triple - $10.00
Rates: Quadruple - $9.00
Single - $34.00 + tax
Double - $42.00 + tax
Accommodations in the dormitory may be secured by contacting Ms. Robin Niederee
(see below for address, telephone number, and CSNET address); Ramada Inn may be
contacted directly.
FOR MORE INFORMATION about the conference or accommodations please contact
Professor Austin Melton or Ms. Robin Niederee:
Kansas State University
Computer Science Department
Fairchild Hall, 121
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
913-532-6350
CSNET austin%kansas-state@csnet-relay or robin%kansas-state@csnet-relay
CONFERENCE AND PROGRAM COMMITTEE
Dr. Richard Greechie, Kansas State University
Dr. David Gustafson, Kansas State University
Dr. Tsutomu Kamimura, University of Kansas
Dr. Roy Keller, University of Nebraska
Dr. Austin Melton, Kansas State University
Dr. Robert Neufeld, Wichita State University
Dr. Diana Palenz, Wichita State University
Dr. David Schmidt, Iowa State University
Dr. Elizabeth Unger, Kansas State University
Dr. Robert Wherritt, Wichita State University
REGISTRATION FEE:
The registration fee is $35 (students $5).
MEALS: Meals are included in the $35.00 registration fee. Students may purchase
meals for an additional $20.00.
PLEASE REGISTER AND MAKE MEAL RESERVATIONS BY APRIL 8, 1985. Registration and
meal reservations may be made via CSNET (austin%kansas-state@csnet-relay or
robin%kansas-state@csnet-relay) with payments being made at the conference.
When registering please include the following information:
Name ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
University or Company ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Address ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
City←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← State←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Zip←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Telephone←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
∂04-Feb-85 1348 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Bell Labs Fellowship
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Feb 85 13:48:02 PST
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 4 Feb 85 13:44:46-PST
Date: Mon 4 Feb 85 13:44:07-PST
From: Bruce Buchanan <BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Bell Labs Fellowship
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: waleson@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
I almost dropped the ball on the Bell Fellowship after I received no
nominations when I asked in December. We have until Wednesday to get
a nomination in the mail for Stanford to receive another Bell Fellowship.
First or second-year students are particularly appropriate.
Nils & I will select one name tomorrow, on the assumption that the
faculty sponsor write up the nomination form (which looks easy) by
Wednesday 5:00.
Apologies for the last-minute rush.
bgb
-------
∂04-Feb-85 1354 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Lunch
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Feb 85 13:54:04 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 4 Feb 85 13:45:29-PST
Date: 04 Feb 85 1342 PST
From: Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty Lunch
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, bureaucrats@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FFL@SU-AI.ARPA
This is a reminder of the Faculty Lunch at noon, Tuesday, Feb. 5, Room l46.
Guest will be Mike Roberts, Deputy Director of ITS, to talk about "The
Stanford Telephone System."
∂04-Feb-85 1515 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Feb 85 15:14:55 PST
Date: Mon 4 Feb 85 15:13:05-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk(s)
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA
2/7/85 - Prof. Faith E. Fich (U. Washington)
"The parallel complexity of exponentiating polynomials over finite
fields"
Modular integer exponentiation (given a, e, and m, compute a↑e mod m)
is a fundamental problem in algebraic complexity for which no
efficient parallel algorithm is known. Two closely related problems
are modular polynomial exponentiation (given a(x), e, and m(x),
compute [a(x)]↑e mod m(x)) and polynomial exponentiation (given
a(x), e, and t, compute the coefficient of x↑t in [a(x)]↑e). This
talk presents efficient parallel algorithms for the latter two
problems when a(x) and m(x) are polynomials over a finite field.
***** Time and place: February 7, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
2/14/85 - Prof. Micha Sharir (Tel Aviv)
"Motion planning algorithms - a survey"
We discuss the problem of planning automatically a continuous motion
of a given robot system B having k degrees of freedom, from an initial
position to a final desired position. During the required motion B has
to avoid certain obstacles whose geometry is known. In abstract
terms, the problem is reduced to that of calculating the connected
components of the (k-dimensional) manifold FP of all free positions of
B, and is thus a problem in "computational topology". In the talk we
will survey the main results in this area as developed during the last
four years. Some of the topics of the talk (as time will permit) will
be:
(1) We show that the problem is solvable in time polynomial in the
geometric complexity n of the obstacles, provided that k is fixed.
(2) The problem is PSPACE-hard if k is arbitrary, even for very simple
systems.
(3) Efficient solutions exist for several simple systems. We will
describe some of them.
(4) Review of the main solution techniques.
(5) Spin-off problems in computational geometry.
(6) Variants of the problem: motion planning with a gripped object,
motion planning in the presence of moving obstacles, optimal motion
planning, etc.
***** Time and place: February 14, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂04-Feb-85 1531 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA Forum Buffet Supper
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Feb 85 15:31:33 PST
Date: Mon 4 Feb 85 15:21:23-PST
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Forum Buffet Supper
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
The Buffet supper is a good time to get acquainted with the industrial
visitors in an informal setting.
THE FOLLOWING VISITORS WILL BE ATTENDING THE BUFFET SUPPER
Faculty club, 12 FEb. 1985; 6 - 8 p.m.
LIAISON COMPANY VISITORS
.....................................................................
ULLMAN AT&T BELL LABS AL AHO
ELLIOT PINSON
PIERRE WOLPER
CHERITON AT&T INF. SYS. DAVE RUSSELL
K. T. FONG
NOT DETERMINED BANK OF AMERICA SANDY DRESKIN
GEORGE MILLER
JAMES RYAN
REID BELCORE JONATHAN RYDER
M. ORDUN
HPP BOEING BENDA
LUNDSTROM BURROUGHS REIGEL
MCCLUSKEY DATA GENERAL SALZMANN
REID DEC RICHARD FLOWER
GREG WALLACE
ALLISON EPSON NAKAMURA
INUKAI
LUCKHAM ERICSSON AHLBERG
BUCHANAN GEC MR. EVANS
BINFORD GENERAL MOTORS STEVE HOLLAND
MARY PICKETT
ROBERT TILOVE
LUNDSTROM GTE TOM PETERSON
HENNESSY H-P JIM BELL
IRA GOLDSTEIN
LUCKHAM HUGHES DR. ROSENBLOOM
LANTZ IBM-SJ SHEL FINKELSTEIN
JEAN PAUL JACOB
ULLMAN IBM-YH BRENT HAILPERN
HPP JAPAN SCIENCE INST. YOSHIO TOZAWA
MR. TETSUNOSUKE FUJISAKI
SAZUTOSHI SUGIMOTO
LANTZ KODAK PETER CASTRO
VISHWAS ABHWANKAR
GENESERETH MARTIN MARIETTA AMY GEOFFROY
HPP OLIVETTI PIERO SCARUFFI
HPP RCA DR. BALTZER
BRAUDE
PHILIPS BV GIO MR. EGGENHUISEN
HPP ROCKWELL DR. VITOLS
HPP SCHLUMBERGER REID SMITH
HPP SIGNAAL MAARTEN BOASSON
GENDEREN
HPP SOHIO R&D DR. THADANI
FLYNN SPERRY KIM RAWLINSON
DON BENNETT
LARRY ANDERSON
NOT ASSIGNED TANDEM MCJONES
HPP TEXACO RAMSEY
THOMPSON
NOT ASSIGNED TOTAL MR. GIANINAZZI
REID TRW HURVITZ
RICHARD
YANNEY
-------
∂04-Feb-85 1635 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA meeting tomorrow, the 5th, 3pm, trailers
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Feb 85 16:35:12 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Mon 4 Feb 85 16:34:20-PST
Date: Mon 4 Feb 85 16:32:10-PST
From: Phil Cohen <PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: meeting tomorrow, the 5th, 3pm, trailers
To: NL4: ;
At our last meeting, we decided to meet this week the 5th, at 3pm
in order to allow some of us to go to the GPSG for non-linguists talk.
But, we'll have to meet in the trailers conf. room.
I'll be speaking. Will be deriving some illocutionary acts.
Phil
-------
∂05-Feb-85 0848 SELLS@SU-CSLI.ARPA Chomsky book
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 08:48:25 PST
Date: Tue 5 Feb 85 08:46:49-PST
From: Peter Sells <Sells@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Chomsky book
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
All,
I have a copy of a draft of a book by Chomsky "Knowledge of
Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use" (Oct. 1984). I would be happy to
arrange to get copies for anyone interested. The draft is 400pp long and
is a "Reflections on Language" kind of book, some philosophy and some
linguistics. The Chapters are:
1. Knowledge of language as a focus of inquiry
2. Concepts of language
3. Facing Plato's problem (the linguistics!)
4. Questions about rules
Appendix: Orwell's 1984 and ours
Peter
-------
∂05-Feb-85 0901 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Shonhage-Strassen fast multiplication
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 09:01:36 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 5 Feb 85 08:59:20-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 5 Feb 85 10:51:34 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 5 Feb 85 04:33:42 cst
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Tue, 5 Feb 85 04:33:33 cst
Received: from ucbernie.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA09632; Tue, 5 Feb 85 02:32:37 pst
Received: by ucbernie.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA15113; Tue, 5 Feb 85 02:34:01 pst
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 85 02:34:01 pst
From: brassard%ucbernie@Berkeley
Message-Id: <8502051034.AA15113@ucbernie.ARPA>
To: theory@uwisc
Subject: Shonhage-Strassen fast multiplication
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
Hello there!
I would appreciate any pointer you might have on the Shonhage-Strassen
fast multiplication algorithm. I am particularly interested in any real
life application and implementation it has had (I heard something about
computing a large number of decimals of pi, but I have no pointer about it).
Do you have any timing data for these implementations? Theory is also welcome.
Thank you for your help.
Gilles Brassard
Computer Science Division
573 Evans Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
brassard@ucbernie |
or brassard@ucbernie.BERKELEY | (on ARPAnet)
or brassard%ucbernie@Berkeley |
(please do not use mail "R" command as this was broadcasted for me)
(ADDED BY THE "BROADCASTER": In most systems "R" (reply) should work.)
P.S. I am already aware of the theoretical treatments found
in the books by Aho, Hopcroft and Ullman, Knuth, Kronsjo,
and H.W. Lenstra and Tijdeman (eds), as well of course as
of the original paper.
∂05-Feb-85 0929 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Math/CS Library: Procedure for clearing up recalled and overdue material
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 09:29:06 PST
Date: Tue 5 Feb 85 09:03:20-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Math/CS Library: Procedure for clearing up recalled and overdue material
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
When you receive a message from the Math/CS Library concerning material that
is being recalled for another reader, please forward the complete message
back to us if you have any questions. For example, if you want to let us
know that you are in the process of returning the material or believe you
have already return the material, attach this information to our original
message and forward on to us at Library@SCORE. Our circulation files are
not arranged by patrons name or either by author or title of material
checked out. Our files are arranged by call numbers and technical report
numbers. Therefore when responding to a message from us about material
you have checked out we have to have call numbers and technical report
numbers. Since all of this information should be in the message we send
to you, forwarding the message back to us with your question attached
would be the most efficient way for us and should be convenient for you.
Harry Llull
-------
∂05-Feb-85 0944 BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics for Non-linguists
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 09:44:11 PST
Date: Tue 5 Feb 85 09:41:19-PST
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Linguistics for Non-linguists
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-CSLI.ARPA
REMINDER
SECOND OF THREE TUTORIAL LECTURES ON LINGUISTICS
FOR NON-LINGUISTS
TODAY, Tuesday, Feb. 5, 1-3PM in the Trailer Seminar Room (C-D)
GEOFF PULLUM on Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar
Linguists are asked not to attend
-------
∂05-Feb-85 1015 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics for Non-linguists
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 10:15:33 PST
Mail-From: BLOCK created at 5-Feb-85 09:41:19
Date: Tue 5 Feb 85 09:41:19-PST
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Linguistics for Non-linguists
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Tue 5 Feb 85 10:12:20-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
REMINDER
SECOND OF THREE TUTORIAL LECTURES ON LINGUISTICS
FOR NON-LINGUISTS
TODAY, Tuesday, Feb. 5, 1-3PM in the Trailer Seminar Room (C-D)
GEOFF PULLUM on Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar
Linguists are asked not to attend
-------
∂05-Feb-85 1112 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 11:11:48 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 5 Feb 85 11:11:20-PST
Date: 05 Feb 85 1110 PST
From: Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty Meeting
To: senior-faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FFL@SU-AI.ARPA
This is a reminder of the Senior Faculty meeting at 2:30 p.m., Thursday,
February 7, MJH, Room 252. If you have agenda items you have not yet
mentioned to me, please let me know.
Nils
∂05-Feb-85 1150 TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA class lists
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 11:46:10 PST
Date: Tue 5 Feb 85 11:43:53-PST
From: Kimberly Tuley <TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: class lists
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, instructors@SU-SCORE.ARPA
The Preliminary Class Lists are now available at the reception desk -
CSD MJH.
-------
∂05-Feb-85 1332 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:broder@decwrl.ARPA FOCS Follies
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 13:32:38 PST
Received: from decwrl.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 5 Feb 85 13:30:17-PST
Received: from magic.ARPA by decwrl.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34)
id AA17179; Tue, 5 Feb 85 13:31:17 pst
Received: by magic.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34)
id AA04141; Tue, 5 Feb 85 13:30:25 pst
From: broder@decwrl.ARPA (Andrei Broder)
Message-Id: <8502052130.AA04141@magic.ARPA>
Date: 5 Feb 1985 1330-PST (Tuesday)
To: aflb.all@score
Cc:
Subject: FOCS Follies
I am trying to write a review of the FOCS follies last year and I want
to run a survey of what people thought were the funniest lines in the
show. Any help will be appreciated.
- Andrei
∂05-Feb-85 1407 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:scholz@Navajo -- PotLuck UpDate --
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 14:07:34 PST
Received: from Navajo by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 5 Feb 85 13:53:34-PST
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 85 13:53:02 pst
From: Karen Scholz <scholz@Navajo>
Subject: -- PotLuck UpDate --
To: faculty@score, staff@score, students@score
Reminder: the potluck is this friday! if you're planning on being there
& haven't RSVP'd (RSVPOIBYL'd) the original message, please do as soon as
possible...
Here is how to get to the Nilssons:
South (Hillward)
/\ L |
a |
|
M | ←
| e |←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← |←| Nilsson
| s | Coquito Way 150 Coquito Way
A | a | 854-5265
l | ←←←←←←
p | /
i | /
n | |
e |-----------|
| La Mesa Drive (highly schematic)
R |
o | (Ladera Shopping Center)
a |
d |-------------
| La Cuesta Drive
|
|
|
|
|
S.J. <=========================== I-280 S.F. =>
|
|
Menlo Park
Take Alpine Road hillward (toward Portola Valley), cross underneath
I-280, look for Ladera Shopping Center on right, continue on Alpine
until Chevron Station at La Mesa Drive. Turn right on La Mesa,
follow its twists and turns (it tries to lose you at one point by
pulling an abrupt left turn) for about a mile until you come to
Coquito Way. Turn right on Coquito Way; we are at end of street.
theexcitingnottobemissedsocialeventoftheeighties
∂05-Feb-85 1424 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Richard Karp
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 14:23:51 PST
Date: Tue 5 Feb 85 13:58:19-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Richard Karp
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Dick Karp just now phoned to say that he (reluctantly) had decided
not to accept our offer of a position at Stanford. He cited as
reasons: 1) the upcoming complexity year at Berkeley ('85-86);
2) the need to spend a year here visiting first so that he and
his wife could get to know Stanford and the area better. [If he
were to spend a visiting year before deciding, he wouldn't be able
to decide on our offer until, perhaps, 1987. Tying up the offer
that long became unacceptable to Engrg--who (through OR) was
a partner in our offer.] -Nils
-------
∂05-Feb-85 1449 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA Forum Reply forms
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 14:49:19 PST
Date: Tue 5 Feb 85 14:13:22-PST
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Forum Reply forms
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
It would be very much appreciated if you would get your reply form
turned in as soon as possible. ESPECIALLY, if you have any special
dietary needs. We are trying to plan menus and give estimates of
attendance. I have to give firm guarantees by Monday latest.
You can reply on-line.
buffet supper
lunch Wed.
banquet Wed.
lunch Thurs.
Thanks,
Carolyn
-------
∂05-Feb-85 1626 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WELCH@Ames-VMSB SIGBIG
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 16:26:09 PST
Received: from Ames-VMSB.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 5 Feb 85 16:18:42-PST
Date: 5 Feb 1985 1544-PST
From: WELCH at Ames-VMSB
Subject: SIGBIG
To: SUPER at SU-SCORE.ARPA.ARPA
Reply-To: WELCH@Ames-VMSB
"SIGBIG" Special Interest Committee
For Large High Speed Computers
Meetings on the first Wednesday of each month at 7:30 PM. Speakers
who can give insights to various aspects of SUPERCOMPUTING are
featured each month.
For information contact Mary Fowler, Chairperson (415) 694-6515
Arpanet: MER.SIGBIG@Ames-VMSB
or Mike Austin, Publ. Chair (415) 423-8446
Next meeting:
Wednesday, February 6,1985, 7:30 PM
Speaker: Tony Hasegawa, General Electric
Subject: A Computational Fluid Dynamics Graphics Model
for Supercomputers.
Location: General Electric
1277 Orleans Drive, Sunnyvale
Directions: Near Moffett Park Drive, between Mathilda
and Fair Oaks.
Previous Meetings:
1-4-84 George Michael/LLNL Survey of Supercomputing
2-1-84 Peter Denning/NASA Supercomputing circa 1995
3-7-84 Kent Koeninger/TDC Cray X-MP Performance studies
4-4-84 Cathy Schulbach/NASA Data Flow Machines
5-2-84 Leonard Shar/ELXSI Description of the ELXSI
6-6-84 Raul Mendez/Naval PGS Japanese Supercomputers
7-11-84 John Killeen/NMFE Supercomputers in Fusion Research
8-01-84 Eugene Miya/NASA-Ames Using Multiple Processors
11-7-84 John Roberts/Amdahl Description of the Fujitsu VP-200
12-5-84 Norm Hardy/TYMSHARE Early Timesharing on Supercomputers
1-09-85 Ken Stevens/NASA-Ames The ILLIAC IV Supercomputer
Tape-recordings of most of these meetings may be
obtained in exchange for a tape cassette or $5.00 by contacting:
Mary Fowler (415) 694-6515
------
∂05-Feb-85 1847 TOH@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: -- PotLuck UpDate --
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 85 18:47:31 PST
Date: Tue 5 Feb 85 18:40:16-PST
From: Thomas O. Huleatt <TOH@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: -- PotLuck UpDate --
To: scholz@SU-NAVAJO.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, staff@SU-SCORE.ARPA, students@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
TOH@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Karen Scholz <scholz@Navajo>" of Tue 5 Feb 85 13:59:49-PST
Here's my RSVP, or RSVPOIBYL ...whatever.
I'm not much of a cook, but I'd be glad to bring along something
to drink (wine, maybe?). I'm open to suggestions.
Tom Huleatt
-------
∂06-Feb-85 0736 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Budapest Semesters in Mathematics
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 85 07:36:26 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 6 Feb 85 07:35:45-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Wed, 6 Feb 85 09:28:27 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Wed, 6 Feb 85 05:54:26 cst
Message-Id: <8502061154.AA21575@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from csnet-relay.arpa by wisc-crys.arpa; Wed, 6 Feb 85 05:54:18 cst
Received: from uchicago by csnet-relay.csnet id ah09737; 6 Feb 85 6:49 EST
Received: by gargoyle.UChicago (4.12/4.7)
id AA10256; Tue, 5 Feb 85 15:41:18 cst
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 85 15:41:18 cst
From: Laszlo Babai <laci%uchicago.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: theory@uwisc.csnet
Subject: Budapest Semesters in Mathematics
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
An exciting educational experience:
BUDAPEST SEMESTERS IN MATHEMATICS
for American and Canadian undergraduates
Through this program, **mathematics and computer science majors**
in their **junior/senior years** may spend one or two semesters
in Budapest and study under the tutelage of eminent Hungarian
scholar-teachers. Initiated by Paul Erdo:s and La'szlo' Lova'sz,
BUDAPEST SEMESTERS IN MATHEMATICS provide a unique opportunity
for North American undergraduates to study in Hungary, a country with
a long tradition of excellence in mathematics research and education.
** All courses are taught in English.
** Credits are transferable to American and Canadian universities.
** Classes are held in small groups. Students receive individual attention.
** The school is near the center of historic Budapest.
** Living costs are modest.
The instructors are members of Eo:tvo:s University and the
Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Tuition is $1850 (U.S.) per semester.
The fall semester begins around the first of September and
ends around the 20th of December. Deadline for application for the
fall semester is May 15.
Please let colleagues and students know about this exciting new program.
For further information write to the American Representative of
BUDAPEST SEMESTERS IN MATHEMATICS,
Prof. W. T. Trotter, Jr., Chairman
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, S. C. 29208
or to the Program Coordinator
L. Babai
Department of Computer Science
University of Chicago
1100 E 58th St.
Chicago, IL 60637
(CSNET : laci@uchicago )
∂06-Feb-85 1027 HPP-SECRETARY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA siglunch Feb. 8
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 85 10:27:09 PST
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 10:09:17-PST
From: Renate Kempf <HPP-SECRETARY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: siglunch Feb. 8
To: siglunch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
SIGLUNCH
DATE: Friday, February 8, 1985
LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Pierre Bierre
Clairvoyant Systems
sensory learning machine research
ABSTRACT: The Totality of Knowledge
Would it be possible, in a few words or a single illustration, to
capture and enclose all the knowledge both existing now and in the
indefinite future?
The field of AI stands to benefit by coming to grips with the totality
of that which it claims to study. Having a way to once-and-for-all
embrace all knowledge will help AI researchers blaze the trail beyond
limited-domain systems in future work. The practical payoff will be
knowledge systems where the user steers the conversation at the
human-machine interface without running up against artificially
imposed domain boundaries. Once more, the same fluidity will apply to
knowledge transmission among intelligent machines.
Come munch on lunch while Pierre attempts to throw a lasso around
everything that will ever be known.
-------
∂06-Feb-85 1308 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:scholz@Navajo Overwhelming Response
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 85 13:08:41 PST
Received: from Navajo by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 6 Feb 85 12:53:13-PST
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 85 12:53:05 pst
From: Karen Scholz <scholz@Navajo>
Subject: Overwhelming Response
To: faculty@score, staff@score, students@score
Due to the overwhelming response to our potluck this friday, we are
sorry to have to announce that we can accept no more guests. (Nil's
house holds only a finite number of people).
If you haven't RSVP'd yet, you've missed out... but don't despair!
Nils has generously suggested having *another* potluck at his house in
the near future, so you'll get another chance to wine, dine, discuss,
entertain, indulge, enlighten, frivolicize, and enjoy.
butyoudbetternotbesotardyreplyingnexttime!
∂06-Feb-85 1401 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Stanford/Berkeley Cooperative Library Program
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 85 14:01:43 PST
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 13:56:52-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Stanford/Berkeley Cooperative Library Program
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
For a number of years now, Stanford and Berkeley have participated in a
cooperative library program. Stanford graduate students and faculty can
apply for a Berkeley card at the privleges desk in the Green Library.
This card will allow you to call Berkeley (Baker Books) and request material
to be sent to you here at Stanford. The books will arrive at the Green
Library where you can pick them up. This can be very useful if a book you
are looking for as either not been received in the Stanford Libraries, is
missing, or for some other reason not available within a reasonable amount
of time.
The service does work very nicely and if Berkeley can not supply the book,
either checked out, missing, or for some other reason, they will let you
know and will tell you what the status of your request is: ie recalling
the book from a Berkely user, missing will look again etc.
I urge all of you who qualify for this program to obtain a card so when you
need the service you will be able to use it.
Harry Llull
-------
∂06-Feb-85 1538 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Advisory Panel
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 85 15:38:42 PST
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 15:36:40-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Advisory Panel
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
For your information:
The Advisory Panel will be meeting with us here on the day of February
19. In order that it not interfere with the research too much this
time, the plan is to have the Executive Committee make a presentation
in the morning and have a general discussion between the Executive
Committee and the Panel in the afternoon. Some of the Panel members
will be coming earlier or staying longer, though, so those of you who
want to talk with them should make contact with them. Also, Ingrid
knows (or will soon know) the exact arrival and departure plans of the
panel members.
-------
∂06-Feb-85 1722 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 85 17:22:01 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 6 Feb 85 17:16:23-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Wed, 6 Feb 85 19:01:52 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Wed, 6 Feb 85 14:50:49 cst
Message-Id: <8502062050.AA29687@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from COLUMBIA-20.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Wed, 6 Feb 85 14:50:43 cst
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 15:50:07-EST
From: Zvi Galil <GALIL@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
To: theory@WISC-CRYS.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
THE SIXTH THEORY DAY
at Columbia University
Sponsored by the Department of Computer Science
Friday, March 22, 1985
10:00 PROFESSOR MICHAEL J. FISCHER
Yale University
"Robust and Verifiable Cryptographically Secure
Elections"
11:00 DR. JEFFREY C. LAGARIAS
AT&T Bell Laboratories
"Finding Short Vectors in Lattices and Their
Applications"
2:00 PROFESSOR VIJAY V. VAZIRANI
Cornell University
"NP is as Easy as Detecting Unique Solutions"
3:00 DR. MICHAEL E. SAKS
Bell Communications Research
"Recent Developments in Linear Programming"
Coffee will be available at 9:30 a.m.
All Lectures will be in the Kellogg Conference Center on the
Fifteenth Floor of the International Affairs Building, 118th
Street and Amsterdam Avenue.
The Lectures are Free and Open to the Public.
Call (212) 280-2736 for more information.
-------
-------
∂06-Feb-85 1734 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Seminar Announcement
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 85 17:34:33 PST
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 17:22:31-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar Announcement
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT
THE ANALYSIS OF NOMINAL COMPOUNDS
Pierre Isabelle
Dept. of Linguistics, Universite de Montreal
Friday, February 8, 1985, 10 a.m.
SRI, room EK242
The analysis of nominal compounds (NC's) raises a number of difficult
and important problems. From a theoretical point of view, the whole
question of how to deal adequately with noun semantics is raised.
Since noun meaning appears to be intimately connected with world
knowledge, one is led to explore the modes of interaction between
semantics and conceptual knowledge. From the standpoint of natural
language processing, NC's have turned out to be an important stumbling
block in the search for more effective systems, especially when
dealing with scientific and technical texts.
In order to reduce the overwhelming complexity of the problems that we
face, we will focus our attention on the most important compounding
processes of one particular sublanguage: technical maintenance manuals.
We will describe the semantic basis of these processes. We will
examine the kinds of knowledge required to correctly analyze the
corresponding classes of NC's and show how this knowledge can be
encoded in logical representations.
Finally, we will illustrate our results in a small scale NLP system
capable of analyzing some interesting classes of NC's.
-------
∂06-Feb-85 1738 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa CWI-Amsterdam Jobpportunity
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 85 17:38:11 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 6 Feb 85 17:28:04-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Wed, 6 Feb 85 19:04:46 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Wed, 6 Feb 85 18:15:19 cst
Received: from seismo.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Wed, 6 Feb 85 18:15:11 cst
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by seismo.ARPA with UUCP; Wed, 6 Feb 85 19:14:48 EST
Received: from boring.UUCP (boring) by mcvax.UUCP; Thu, 7 Feb 85 00:50:21 -0100 (MET)
Received: by boring.UUCP; Thu, 7 Feb 85 00:48:52 -0100 (MET)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 85 00:48:52 -0100
From: mcvax!paulv@seismo.ARPA
Message-Id: <8502062348.AA18621@boring.UUCP>
To: seismo!uwvax!THEORY@WISC-CRYS.ARPA
Subject: CWI-Amsterdam Jobpportunity
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
-------------------------------------------------------------------
***CENTRE FOR MATHEMATICS & COMPUTER SCIENCE (CWI)***
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The CWI (Centre for Mathematics & Computer Science) in Amsterdam
looks for a junior computer scientist with a Masters or Ph. D. in
Computer Science or equivalent for its algorithms and complexity
theory group in the following area:
* distributed computing (networks & multiprocessorsystems)
* reliability in distributed systems
* computation using time
Other research in the group currently concerns:
* machine complexity
* VLSI algorithms & complexity
Candidates with a Masters degree which is recognized in The
Netherlands may obtain a Doctorate in The Netherlands on a Thesis
resulting from the research. The CWI is an equal opportunity
employer. The Centre for Mathematics & Computer Science (CWI)
has been a leading institute for fundamental research in
mathematics and computer science in The Netherlands for over 35
years. Some 70 researchers work at the CWI in an international
atmosphere with "good contacts with industry". The CWI has no
students, and researchers have no teaching obligations. PEOPLE:
At present the Computer Science Department has a staff of about
20-25 people, mainly at the M.Sc. - Ph.D. level. Of these, about
one quarter are engaged in Theory of Computer Science. The CWI
Computing Laboratory runs a Local Area Network based on Ethernet.
This connects VAXen, SUNs, BLITs & PDPs. The department has a few
IBM PC & DEC Personal Computers. CWI is the UNIX representative
in Europe. Part of the task of the Computer Lab is the
management of EUNET, the European Wide Area Network of UNIX.
From the CWI we have direct access to the computing equipment of
SARA (Foundation Academic Computing Centre Amsterdam) which
comprises two big CYBERS running NOS/BE [sic] and one CYBER-205
Supercomputer. CWI has an extensive collection of journals (950
current subscriptions), ca. 30.000 books, and a large collection
of research reports (ca. 40.000). At CWI phototypesetting
facilities are available. Although the language spoken in the
institute is mainly Dutch, the CWI already employs a significant
number of English speaking people, most of whom experience no
serious language barriers. All scientific publications in the CWI
are in English. Our computer centre speaks Berkeley 4.2 Unix.
If you are interested, or if you would just like some more
information, please send electronic mail (if possible including a
curriculum vitae) to Paul Vitanyi @ CWI:
email:
paulv@mcvax.UUCP ({seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!paulv)
or snail-mail:
Paul M.B. Vitanyi
CWI
Kruislaan 413
1098 SJ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
∂06-Feb-85 1806 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Feb. 7, No. 15
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 85 18:06:40 PST
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 17:20:59-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Feb. 7, No. 15
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
February 7, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 15
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, February 7, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Excerpts from Charles Bigelow's ``Principles of
Conference Room Structured Font Design for the Personal Workstation''
and Fernand Baudin's
``Typography: Evolution + Revolution''
Discussion led by David Levy
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Reasoning About Actions and Processes''
Room G-19 Michael Georgeff, CSLI
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium (See the notice below)
CCRMA ``From Sound to Score: Computerized
Transcription of Music''
Bernard Mont-Renard, Center for Computer Research
in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA)
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, February 14, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning''
Conference Room Ronald Fagin, IBM San Jose Research Laboratory
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Logic and Functional Programming''
Room G-19 Joseph Goguen, CSLI
Discussion will be led by Fernando Pereira
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Against Theory''
Room G-19 Steve Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels,
English Department, UC Berkeley
(Abstract on page 2)
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
COLLOQUIUM NOTICE
Unfortunately, since this week's colloquium cannot be held at Redwood Hall,
it can only accommodate 25 people and is already full.
!Page 2 CSLI Newsletter February 7, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
Possible-worlds semantics for knowledge and belief do not seem appropriate
for modelling human reasoning since they suffer from the problem of what
Hintikka calls ``logical omniscience''. This means that agents are assumed
to be so intelligent that they must, in particular, know all valid
formulas. Moreover, each agent's knowledge is also closed under deduction,
so that if an agent knows p, and if p logically implies q, then the agent
must also know q. Unfortunately, this is certainly not a very accurate
account of how people operate! People are not logically omniscient for
several reasons, including (1) Lack of awareness: how can someone say that
he knows or doesn't know about p if p is a concept he is completely unaware
of? (2) People are resource-bounded: they simply lack the computational
resources to deduce all the logical consequences of their knowledge. (3)
People don't focus on all issues simultaneously: it is possible for a
person to have distinct frames of mind, where the conclusions drawn in
distinct frames of mind may contradict each other. Some new logics for
belief and knowledge are introduced which model these phenomena, so that,
in particular, agents need not be logically omniscient. This talk
represents joint work with Joe Halpern. --Ronald Fagin
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Logic and Functional Programming''
We begin by reviewing what logic and functional programming are, indicating
basic aspects of their programming styles, applications and implementations.
We then show how to enrich logic programming with some features of current
interest in programming methodology, maintaining both logical rigor and
efficient implementation. The first and most important feature is
functional programming; full logical equality provides an elegant way to
combine the power of logic programming (including logical variables,
pattern matching and automatic backtracking) with functional programing
(supporting functions and their composition, as well as strong typing and
user definable abstract data types). An interesting new feature that
emerges here is a complete algorithm for solving equations containing
logical variables; this algorithm uses ``narrowing,'' a technique from the
theory of rewrite rules. The underlying logical system here is many-sorted
Horn clause logic *with* equality. A useful refinement is ``subsorts,''
which can be seen as an ordering relation on the set of sorts (usually
called ``types'') of data. Finally, we provide generic modules by using
methods developed in the specification language Clear. These features make
up a language called Eqlog; we illustrate them with a program for the
well-known Missionaries and Cannibals problem, and with some simple
examples from natural language processing. --Joseph Goguen
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``Against Theory''
Walter Michaels and Steven Knapp, English Department, UC Berkeley
A discussion of the role of intention in the interpretation of text. We
argue that linguistic meaning is always intentional; that linguistic forms
have no meaning independent of authorial intention; that interpretative
disagreements are necessarily disagreements about what a particular author
intended to say; and that recognizing the inescapability of intention has
fatal conse- quences for all attempts to construct a theory of
interpretation.
!Page 3 CSLI Newsletter February 7, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF THIS WEEK'S NL4 ACTIVITIES
This week, Phil Cohen demonstrated how theorems characterizing direct
requests (one's mentioning an action) and non-specific direct requests (to
make some state-of-affairs true) could be derived from principles of
rational action. The characterizations could distinguish felicitous
requests from non-serious or insincere ones (e.g., ``go jump in the lake'',
``fly me to mars'') through general principles of action.
We will meet again Feb. 19, at 12:45 in the trailers' classroom. Cohen
will this time derive characterizations of real, teacher/student, and
rhetorical yes-no questions from the earlier ones for requesting, and
informing.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF AREA C MEETING
``Algebraic Specifications in an Arbitrary Institution''
Andrzej Tarlecki
Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Edinburgh
The pioneering papers on algebraic specification used many-sorted
equational logic as a logical framework in which specifications were
written and analyzed. Nowadays, however, examples of logical systems in
use include first-order logic, higher-order logic, infinitary logic,
temporal logic, and many others. Note that all these logical systems may
be considered with or without predicates, admitting partial operations or
not. This leads to different concepts of signature and of model, perhaps
even more obvious in examples like polymorphic signatures, order-sorted
signatures, continuous algebras, or error algebras. The informal notion of
a logical system for writing specifications has been formalized by Goguen
and Burstall who introduced for this purpose the notion of institution.
The first and presumably most important application of this notion is its
use in the theory of algebraic specifications. It turns out that most of
the work on algebraic specification, especially concerning specification
languages, may be done in an institution-independent way. We briefly
present a collection of simple but very powerful specification-building
operations and give their semantics in an arbitrary institution. In this
context we outline a very simple and mathematically elegant view of the
formal development of programs from their specifications. The notion of
institution is also used to formulate (and prove) some model-theoretic
results at an appropriately general level. We show how to generalize to an
arbitrary institution a Birkhoff-type characterization of quasi-varieties
as implicational classes. This result may be used to prove that Mahr and
Makowsky's characterization of standard algebraic institutions which
strongly admit initial semantics holds for arbitrary institutions
satisfying a number of technical assumptions. Finally, we briefly outline
some problems concerning the notion of institution itself. We discuss the
need for some tool for constructing new institutions and for combining
institutions (``putting institutions together''). We also indicate
possible generalization of this notion which would provide a mold for
richer semantical systems than just collections of sentences with a notion
of their truth.
!Page 4 CSLI Newsletter February 7, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF F-4 MEETING
``Robot Design: In Search of the Mind-Body Synapse''
Stan Rosenschein, CSLI
For purposes of the discussion, the term ``robot'' was taken refer to a
collection of (man-made) sensors and effectors connected through a computer
controller. To lend an air of reality to the discussion, a ``hands-on''
display was given of an ultrasonic rangefinder, a small CCD camera, a
battery-operated robotics kit including a motorized gripper, and a small
computer. The challenge facing the robot designer is how to assemble these
(or similar) components to build a device capable of complex and
interesting behaviors. The most complex and difficult part of the robot
design task is programming the controller. Many AI researchers have sought
to manage this complexity by developing computational abstractions based on
some version of commonsense belief-desire-intention (BDI) psychology--the
``folk'' theory of mind. In addition, they have tended to adopt a
``representationalist'' tactic in which the components of mental state
(beliefs, desires, intentions) are realized as symbolic structures to be
manipulated by the program. Another approach, one based on an abstract
correlational theory of information-bearing states in automata, was put
forward as an alternative. There was much discussion on the utility of
belief-desire-intention psychology, especially in its
``representationalist'' form, as a framework for building robots.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
TUTORIAL LECTURES ON LINGUISTICS FOR NON-LINGUISTS
The third of three sessions intended for non-linguists on Government and
Binding (Chomsky), Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (Gazdar/Klein/
Pullum/Sag), and Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan/Kaplan) takes place on
February 12. The sessions are in the trailer seminar room on Tuesdays from
1:00 to 3:00 PM. Each lecturer sketches the leading ideas of one theory,
and (perhaps) contrast it with the other theories. The complete schedule
is listed below.
January 29 GB Lecture by Peter Sells
February 5 GPSG Lecture by Geoff Pullum
February 12 LFG Lecture by Joan Bresnan
Linguists are asked not to attend.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CONFERENCE ON EVOLUTION AND INFORMATION
A conference on Evolution and Information with major support from CSLI will
be held at Stanford this April 19-21. The specific focus of the conference
will be on the use of optimality models both in biology and in the human
sciences. Papers will be contributed to the conference by biologists,
philosophers, psychologists, and anthropologists. Apart from addressing
problems and limitations of optimality models within biology, an important
aim of the conference will be to explore the relevance of biological
results, either factually or methodologically, to other areas of inquiry.
Papers to be discussed at the conference will be circulated about a month
before the meeting. Contributors will be asked to give a brief summary of
their papers at the conference sessions but papers will not be read.
Therefore, anyone who would be interested in seeing the papers in advance,
or would like any further information about the conference, should contact
John Dupre, Philosophy, Stanford University (415-497-2587, Dupre@Turing).
!Page 5 CSLI Newsletter February 7, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
FIRST VOLUME OF CSLI LECTURE NOTES
The first in the series of CSLI Lecture Notes has just been published.
Entitled ``Manual of Intensional Logic,'' the 75-page book by Johan van
Benthem constitutes a graduate course that the author taught in the Winter
of 1984 while at CSLI.
``Intensional Logic as understood here,'' the author writes in the
Introduction, ``is a research program based upon the broad presupposition
that so-called `intensional contexts' in natural language can be explained
semantically by the idea of `multiple reference.' ''
Unlike CSLI Reports, the Lecture Notes will be sold for a nominal fee to
defray part of production costs. The price of ``Manual of Intensional
Logic'' is $5, and it may be purchased at the Stanford Bookstore or by
writing to Dikran Karagueuzian at the Center. A 25% discount is offered to
all members of the CSLI community or to anyone ordering three or more
copies to be used for instructional purposes. California residents should
add sales tax.
-------
∂06-Feb-85 1832 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:brassard%ucbernie@Berkeley Re: FOCS Follies
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 85 18:28:45 PST
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 6 Feb 85 18:20:49-PST
Received: from ucbernie.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA03778; Tue, 5 Feb 85 17:57:28 pst
Received: by ucbernie.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA05846; Tue, 5 Feb 85 17:58:29 pst
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 85 17:58:29 pst
From: brassard%ucbernie@Berkeley (Gilles BRASSARD)
Message-Id: <8502060158.AA05846@ucbernie.ARPA>
To: aflb.all@score, broder@decwrl.ARPA
Subject: Re: FOCS Follies
My favorite sketch was given by our favorite NSA spy,
and my favorite line was the improvement on the one-time-pad
consisting of enciphering x by taking its exclusive or with itself.
(in fact, my favorite line was : "we are still working on
the decipherement:).
Gilles
∂06-Feb-85 2123 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA CSD Colloquium CS300 Feb.12: Change of speaker => Nils Nilsson on Triangle Tables
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 85 21:22:55 PST
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 21:19:30-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: CSD Colloquium CS300 Feb.12: Change of speaker => Nils Nilsson on Triangle Tables
To: ALL-COLLOQ@SU-SCORE.ARPA, TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FACULTY@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
MILTON@SRI-AI.ARPA, MORGENSTERN@SRI-CSL.ARPA
CS 300 -- Computer Science Department Colloquium -- Winter 1984-1985.
Our sixth meeting will not be according to the original schedule. David
Warren had a conflict and will talk on March 5th. On
Tuesday, Februray 12, 1985
at 4:15 in Terman Auditorium
Nils J. NILSSON
Chairman, Stanford Computer Science Department
will present:
TRIANGLE TABLES:
A Proposal for a Language for Programming Robot Actions
Structures called ``triangle tables'' were used in connection with the
SRI robot SHAKEY for storing sequences of robot actions. Since the
original motivation for triangle tables still seems relevant, I have
recently elaborated the original concept and have begun to consider
how the expanded formalism can be used as a general robot programming
language. This talk will describe this new view of triangle tables
and how they might be used in a language that supports asynchronous
and concurrent action computations.
-------------------------------->
Cookies, and if we can find a Juice-getting-volunteer, juice prior to the
colloquium, at 3:45 in the Margaret Jacks Hall Lounge.
---------------------------------------> see you there
-------
∂07-Feb-85 1453 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Math/CS Library New Books
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Feb 85 14:51:21 PST
Date: Thu 7 Feb 85 14:53:02-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Math/CS Library New Books
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
UKSC Conference on Computer Simulation Proceedings 1984 University of Bath
England. ed. by Murray-Smith QA76.9.C65U38 1984
Advanced Programming; a Practical Course by Barron and Bishop QA76.6.B368 1984
Software Design and Development by Gilbert QA76.6.G553 1983
Teaching and Applying Mathematical Modelling QA401.T43 1984
Computer Aided Design; Fundamentals and System Architectures by Encarnacao and
Schlechtendahl TA174.E47 1983 c.2
Leonhard Euler 1707-1783 Beitrage zu Leben und Werk. Gedenkband des Kantons
Basel-Stadt. QA29.E8L46 1983 c.2
H.Llull
-------
∂07-Feb-85 1652 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA First Inamori Prize
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Feb 85 16:52:25 PST
Date: Thu 7 Feb 85 16:54:19-PST
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: First Inamori Prize
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: BScott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Nils Nilsson has asked me to send you the following announcement he has
just received concerning the First Inamori Prize:
INVITATION TO NOMINATORS FOR THE FIRST INAMORI PRIZE
The Inamori Foundation was established in April 1984 with a Y20 billion
endowment from Kyocera founder and president Kazuo Inamori in order to re-
cognize and reward individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the
development of science and civilization or otherwise enriched the human heri-
tage. In addition to granting assistance for deserving research, the Inamori
Foundation has established the Inamori Prizes to be awarded annually for
significant work in each of three different fields.
The three fields for which the Inamori Prizes are awarded are Advanced
Technology, Basic Sciences, and Creative Arts and Moral Sciences. Realizing
that these are very broad fields, the Foundation's Board of Directors meets
each year to decide the specific disciplines to be covered in light of
scientific progress and other considerations. The specific disciplines
covered by the Inamori Prizes for 1985 are:
Advanced Technology: Electronics, telecommunications technology, laser
technology, control engineering, computer sciences,
information engineering and artificial intelligence.
Basic Sciences: Mathematical sciences (including pure mathematics)
Creative Arts and
Moral Sciences: Music
One Prize is awarded annually in each field, each Prize carrying an
award of Y45,000,000.
The first Inamori Prizes will be awarded on November 10, 1985. However,
nominations must be received by March 31, 1985, so that the Committee can
have adequate time to review all nominations and select the best candidates
prior to the July announcement of winners.
-----------------
I have additional information and the Nomination Forms in my office, MJH 208.
Also, Nils said that he would be glad to assist with nominations.
Betty
-------
∂07-Feb-85 1812 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Feb. 12
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Feb 85 18:12:07 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA11627; Thu, 7 Feb 85 18:11:25 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA18199; Thu, 7 Feb 85 18:13:03 pst
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 85 18:13:03 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8502080213.AA18199@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Feb. 12
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
←λS←λp←λr←λi←λn←λg ←λ1←λ9←λ8←λ5
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
TIME: Tuesday, February 12, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Frank Keil, Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences, Stanford
TITLE: ``Concepts, Word Meanings, and Cognitive
Development''
A series of studies is described that explore apparent develop-
mental shifts in the ways in which concepts and word meanings
are represented. The shifts are first examined with a special
set of terms whose adult meanings are somewhat closer to clas-
sical definitions. The influences of conceptual domains, paren-
tal input, and explicit instruction on the shifts are also dis-
cussed. Shifts for similar terms are also discussed in a study
with the Yoruba people of Nigeria.
The question then arises as to how this developmental pat-
tern might be extended to terms with meanings that don't even
approximate classical definitions, the natural kind terms. An
analogous shift is proposed for these terms and studies are
presented in support of this proposal. A second cross-cultural
study with the Yoruba is also presented. Finally, evidence is
presented for an underlying conceptual framework or skeleton
that seems to exert a guiding influence on the shift.
More generally, it is argued that the developmental pat-
terns described and the probable theoretical explanations of
them not only require a certain kind of developmental theory,
they also pose a set of requirements on theories of concepts
and word meaning in general, requirements that are much less
apparent without a developmental analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
February 19: Philip Johnson-Laird, Psychology Department,
Stanford University (Note: Johnson-Laird's
talk will start at 11:30!)
February 26: Paul Kay, Linguistics Department, UC Berkeley
March 5 Hubert Dreyfus, Philosophy Department, UC
Berkeley
March 12: Ned Block, CSLI
March 19: Janet Fodor, CSLI
----------------------------
ELSEWHERE ON CAMPUS
Linguistics Group Meeting: February 12, 8pm. Tan Oak Room,
ASUC Bldg.
Joseph Greenberg, Professor of Anthropology at Stanford,
will be speaking on ``The Genetic Classification of the
Indigenous Languages of the Americas.''
∂08-Feb-85 1206 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:halvorsen.pa@Xerox.ARPA Lisa Selkirk: **The Meaning of Accent**
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Feb 85 12:06:28 PST
Received: from Xerox.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Fri 8 Feb 85 11:59:52-PST
Received: from Salvador.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 08 FEB 85 11:59:06 PST
Date: 8 Feb 85 11:51 PST
From: halvorsen.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Lisa Selkirk: **The Meaning of Accent**
To:NL1@SU-CSLI.ARPA,P2@SU-CSLI.ARPA,NLInterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA,
PInterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: halvorsen.pa@XEROX.ARPA,Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Who: Lisa Selkirk (University of Massachusetts)
What: **The Meaning of Accent*
Place: Ventura Hall
Time: 3:30 pm, Friday, Feb. 15
Abstract
Intonational pitch accents (in the sense of Pierrehumbert (l980))
serve to "mark" constituents of the sentence with respect to their
role in discourse. It is argued that the "accenting" of a noun
phrase may mean one (or more) of the following:
(a) the NP corresponds to a new discourse referent
(b) the NP is a FOCUS of a FOCUS/"Presupposition" structure
(c) the NP is a TOPIC of a TOPIC/Comment structure
An attempt is made to characterize (a - c) as a natural class, given
an elaborated conception of discourse representation in terms of a
file (Heim (l982)).
∂10-Feb-85 1851 SCHOLZ@SU-SCORE.ARPA Who made those truffles?
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Feb 85 18:51:02 PST
Date: Sun 10 Feb 85 18:50:10-PST
From: Karen Scholz <SCHOLZ@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Who made those truffles?
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, staff@SU-SCORE.ARPA, students@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Much gratitude to everyone who contributed to making the potluck
the exciting social event and titillating sensory experience that it was.
Except for the guy who brought the can of water-packed tuna as his
main dish, everyone really outdid themselves. No kidding.
Thanks to Nils and Karen Nilsson for staging our retreat in the hills;
thanks to Carolyn Tajnai and the Forum for the fabulous chicken teriyaki
platter; thanks to Mark Goldstein for providing live tunes and unbeatable
ambience; thanks to all who helped set up, clean up, and transport;
and most of all thanks to all the generous chefs who shared their creations.
For those of you who couldn't make it this time, Nils has offered to
play host to this madness all over again if there is interest.
Keep those suggestions a-comin'.
your social committee
-------
∂10-Feb-85 1939 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Who made those truffles?
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Feb 85 19:39:50 PST
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sun 10 Feb 85 19:39:53-PST
Date: Sun 10 Feb 85 19:38:24-PST
From: Ellie Engelmore <EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Who made those truffles?
To: SCHOLZ@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, staff@SU-SCORE.ARPA, students@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Karen Scholz <SCHOLZ@SU-SCORE.ARPA>" of Sun 10 Feb 85 18:55:51-PST
Everyone who knows me will, no doubt, attest to the fact that I am of
extraordinarily sunny disposition...rarely grumpy, seldom miffed. :-)
I, who see things under the aspect of eternity, would never (of
course) grouch about electronic foul-ups resulting in my receiving, in
rapid order, 1) my first notice that a pot-luck at the Nilssons' house
was planned and 2) a notice that there was no more room available for
ME to be there.
HOWSOMEVER...Now it has gone TOO FAR! To read afterward about what a
terrific time was had by all has tipped me over the edge right into
churliness.
I really think that, if they are willing, the Nilssens would do well
to have another pot-luck someday...and tell the STAFF about it first.
Ellie
-------
∂11-Feb-85 0239 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #4
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Feb 85 02:39:35 PST
Date: Saturday, February 9, 1985 1:02PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #4
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Monday, 11 Feb 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 4
Today's Topics:
Puzzles - Revised Alpine Club,
Implementations - Tablog & C-Prolog & Native Compiler,
& Functional and Logic Programming,
LP Library - Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 85 16:58:04 pst
From: Allen VanGelder <AVG@Diablo>
Subject: Revised Alpine Club Puzzle
The following problem is a more difficult variant of
the one taken from Manna's "Mathematical Theory of
Computation", pg. 160.
Tony, Mike and John belong to the Alpine Club. Every
member of the Alpine Club is either a skier or a mountain
climber or both. No mountain climber likes rain, and all
skiers like snow. Mike dislikes whatever Tony likes and
likes whatever Tony dislikes.
Is there a member of the Alpine Club who is a mountain
climber but not a skier?
(Note: Every member either likes or dislikes rain; also,
every member either likes or dislikes snow. No mugwumps
in this club!)
-- Allen Van Gelder
------------------------------
Date: 2 Feb 85 17:06:13-EST (Sat)
From: "Zerksis D. Umrigar" <Zerksis@Syr-cis-aos>.
Subject: Alpine Club Problem.
I have looked at the two solutions to the Alpine Club Problem in
Vol 3. No. 3 of the Digest. Even tho' they both give the correct
answer to the specified query, both solutions have problems.
The first solution due to Tim Shimeall appears to have implications
backwards. The meaning of the "member" clause is unclear - for
instance, the query "member(john)" fails. In addition, the problem
says that no mountain climber likes rain, whereas the program has a
clause "climber(X):-likes(X,not(rain))", which is not the same.
Specifically, there may be a person who dislikes rain, but still
is not a climber.
The second solution due to Didier allows one to deduce that mike
is both a skier and a non-skier.
-- Zerksis
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 31-Jan-85 3:09:24-GMT
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
Subject: Alpine Club problem.
This is a lovely little example of how very easy it is to handle
a lot of negations. I developed my solution in the following way:
1. Write the puzzle down in full 1st-order calculus
2. Stuff that through CLAUSES.PL (which has a bug; if you want to
use CLAUSES.PL and OCCUR.PL you'll have to change 'contains'
to 'includes' in CLAUSES.PL). The result is a set of clauses.
Some of them aren't Horn.
3. Check whether the clauses are renamable-Horn. They aren't, but
if you delete literals involving likes(Person,Thing) the residue
is. You have to rename skier(Person) to nonskier(Person).
Finding a renaming can be done in time linear in the size of the
clause set, if one exists. likes/2 can be omitted automatically
as well. This isn't in the library yet, so I did it by hand.
4. This leaves us with one predicate likes/2 which occurs in non-
Horn clauses. There is a standard dodge for that. We add an
extra argument. We put
likes(X,Y) <=> likes(X,Y,yes)
~likes(X,Y) <=> likes(X,Y,no).
At the price of adding
likes(X,Y,yes) v likes(X,Y,no) <- % range
<- likes(X,Y,yes) & likes(X,Y,no) % functionality
to our clauses we can rename all likes(X,Y) literals as we please.
If we delete likes(X,Y,yes) v likes(X,Y,no) we lose completeness,
not soundness. The result is a set of Horn clauses.
5. The query <-likes(X,Y,yes) & likes(X,Y,no) can be processed
independently of the main query as a consistency check.
The result of this mechanical process is the program
aplinist(tony). alpinist(tony). alpinist(mike). alpinist(john).
likes(tony,rain). likes(tony,snow).
OOPS, sorry.
likes(tony, rain, yes).
likes(tony, snow, yes).
likes(mike, X, yes) <- likes(tony, X, no).
likes(mike, X, no) :- likes(tony, X, yes).
likes(X, rain, no) :- climber(X).
nonskier(X) :- likes(X, snow, no).
climber(X) :- alpinist(X), nonskier(X).
?- alpinist(X), climber(X), nonskier(X).
This gives the answer X=mike once, and no others. No loops.
No problems. Next to no thinking.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 28 Jan 85 17:28:22-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-Reddy@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Logic + functions, Tablog
I am glad that the debate on the classification of logic
+functions approaches has taken off. I have also had some
private comments to which I have responded. Before the
point of the classification is missed, let me state that
we want to emphasize similarities rather than differences.
We don't get anywhere if everybody sits on an island claiming
his approach to be unique. Various approaches are coming in
from various lines of research, but often they just happen to
be the same even if they use different terminology. Secondly,
the differences of interest are those involving how logic and
functions are combined, not those involving how the logic part
is handled or or how the function part is handled. For example,
what kind of resolution is used in the logic part does not affect
which of the four classes the language belongs to.
Coming to Malachi's comments on Tablog, the one that is relevant
to the classification is his statement
"A term gets rewritten using an equality rule that is
applied to the goal to be reduced and an assertion in
the program".
He could not be using the term "rewritten" in the technical
sense. If he were, Tablog would belong to class 1 rather
than class 4.
The description of Tablog's equality rule in the cited paper
appears to me to be simply a version of narrowing, suitably
extended to deal with first order logic syntax. Hence, it
is not very distant from Eqlog (at least as far as the
interaction between functions and predicates is concerned).
-- Uday Reddy
------------------------------
Date: 2 Feb 1985 00:36:11 PST
From: Mike Newton <Newton@CIT-20.ARPA>
Subject: CProlog and IBM 4341's (Glorified 370's)
Hello,
I have managed to port CProlog from the Vax/Sun code version to
and IBM 4341 version. It is currently running under Amdahl's
Version 7 UTS. The changes are relatively minor -- something
which i found quite suprising considering the widely different
architectures. Anyway, here are the changes to CProlog Version
1.5:
File Aprox. Line Change:
sysbits.c 30 The definition of TIMESCALE to "(1E-6)".
pl.h 416 Change the #define IN←USE.. that has a
comment continued across lines to be all
on the same line.
main.c 258 The line that used to read "savepS =
savead-lcl0;" to read "savepS =
savead-(PTR *)lcl0;".
main.c 270 The line that used to read "llclS=savead
-lcl0+2;" to read: "llclS = savead-(PTR
*)lcl0+2;".
I've tested the code on a couple of several hundred line Prolog
programs, and it seems to work fine, but there are no guarantees.
I'll TRY to answer any questions about this.
-- Mike
------------------------------
From: Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart (Pelegri%ucbernie@Berkeley)
Subject: Native code Prolog Compiler.
There is a group at Caltech working on a Prolog compiler for IBM.
I wonder if any of the people working here on Prolog compilers
would be interested in keeping in touch with them. They contacted
me for something related to UNSW prolog.
Here is the text of their mail
Date: 1 Feb 1985 11:33:40 PST
Subject: UNSW Prolog
From: Jim Kajiya <KAJIYA@CIT-20.ARPA>
To: Pelegri@UCB-VAX.ARPA
I've sent Sammut a letter asking for permission to use UNSW
Prolog.
I should say a bit about the compiler we're doing for the IBM
It has DEC-10 syntax. We're compiling a superset of the DEC-10
compiler ( we can compile ";", "->", is expressions, etc). We
intend to be able to compile the entire Stanford Prolog library.
It's written in Prolog, of course.
We would most certainly like to keep in touch with others who
are doing compiler work at Berkeley.
-- Jim
-- Eduardo.
------------------------------
Date: Thu 7 Feb 85 11:09:03-PST
From: Joseph A. Goguen <GOGUEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Functional and Logic Programming
Here's a little more For those who have been eagerly
following recent discussions in the Digest about the
relationship between logic and functional programming.
This appears to be a very exciting field just now, with
a rapidly expanding literature, much of it not yet even
published. First, I want to add some bits of information
to the very helpful classification that Reddy recently
sketched for the Digest. Barbutti, Belia, Levi and their
gang in Pisa, Italy may have been the first workers in
this field, with papers going back to the late 70s; their
latest work is on embedding logic programming into
functional programming. Drosten and Ehrich from Braunschweig,
Germany have recently given a fully rigorous translation from
algebraic specifications to logic programs. There are several
functional languages that use unification or narrowing.
Qute by Sato (of Tokyo, Japan) really is cute, and is notable
for its higher order functions. Fribourg in France has done
some really elegant work; and so has Kanamori in Japan; and
Dershowitz and Plaisted are thinking along similar lines at
Illinois; all of these have some interesting ideas about how
to make things more efficient. I also like the work of Haridi
and Tarnlund (Uppsala, Sweden), Lindstrom at Utah (in the
latest POPL), and of course the LOGLISP system of Alan Robinson
at Syracuse.
Uday Reddy was kind enough to send me copies of the unpublished
papers that he mentioned in a recent Digest. I enjoyed reading
them, especially his ideas on how to control control. Reddy's
approach views logic programs as functional programs by viewing
predicates as functions. Unfortunately, his approach is
constructor-based, so you can't give Append an associative syntax
(with which you could write things like [1,2] [3,4] [5,6] to append
three lists (using an "empty" infix syntax). Also, as Reddy notes,
his approach cannot treat all logic programs as functional programs
without somehow extending the basic framework, for example with ad
hoc mechanisms to support set-valued functions. This seems an
interesting area for further research.
Our Eqlog system (see vol.1, No.2, Logic Programming Jnl.) is
misleadingly characterized in Reddy's papers and Prolog Digest
note, and also in Lindstrom's paper and Malachi's Digest note on
Tablog. Eqlog has an equational sublanguage with logical variables,
and uses narrowing to solve equations for values of the logical
variables (this sublanguage has the syntax of OBJ2, for which see
POPL85). However, Eqlog is not purely functional, or even
"equational"; it is a logic programming language, whose logic is
first order Horn clause logic *with equality*. Since this equality
is real *semantic* equality (as opposed to Prolog's syntactic
equality), i.e., it is interpreted as *identity* in models, and the
logic of this equality is the usual equational logic; this is what
gives the semantics of the equational sublanguage. However, Eqlog
also allows real predicates; its Horn clauses can have both
predicates and equations in their heads and tails. The operational
semantics of Eqlog integrates unification with term rewriting; the
result is that Prolog-like clauses (without real equality) are
solved in the usual way with standard unification, while terms are
automatically simplified by term rewriting, and narrowing is used
to solve equations for the values of logical variables, which can
yield "partially resolved expressions". A fair-interleaving
version of the usual Prolog-like backtracking not only takes
care of predicates, but also handles conditional equations
correctly, both forsimplification and for solving; thus, a number
of computational methods appear as special cases. Also, it avoids
the infinite descents that can cause non-termination in Prolog.
This is not just universal unification. It is perhaps worth
emphasizing that these features are not just hacked together, but
are the natural outcome of taking Horn clause logic with equality
as the semantic basis: interleaved unification and rewriting then
give the right operational semantics.
Termination plus confluence of the equations viewed as rewrite
rules is a sufficient conditition for completeness of narrowing.
Since equational goals can contain logical variables, this gives
a powerful "constraint language like" facility for solving over
user defined data abstractions. Our operational semantics (fair
interleaving of unification and rewriting) seems to work reasonably
even without the termination condition; but we no longer have a
*theorem* that guarantees completeness. It would be nice to have a
formal semantics for the non-terminating case, including infinite
(lazy) data structures, but of course equality (in the theory) of
terms won't generally be decidable in such a scheme. Moreover,
some pretty hard math is needed to do it right. So it is very
comforting that we understand the case where the rewrite rules
terminate, even though it's not the end of the story. My objection
to Tablog is just that it is not complete. Without a completeness
theorem, the programmer has no idea which programs are going to
terminate and which are not. This seems like another interesting
area for further research.
By the way, it's worth mentioning that when you program
for a parallel machine, you should probably give preference
to straight term rewriting over unification and narrowing,
since no general implementation of unification can really
exploit the parallelism (by a theorem of Dwork, Kanellakis
& Mitchell, and also Yasuura).
Finally, I would like to mention that if anyone out there
is really turned on by this sort of thing, we are expecting
to have some job openings at SRI in this area soon, and we
would really like to hear from you.
------------------------------
Date: Sat 9 Feb 85 12:59:51-PST
From: Chuck Restivo <RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Update
Ehud Shapiro sent in the documentation to the Concurrent←Compiler.Pl
code. It is available as
{SU-SCORE.ARPA}<Prolog>Concurrent←Compiler.Doc
Ehud also forwarded a list of available publications from the Weizmann
Institute. This is available as <Prolog>Weizmann←Abstracts.Doc
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂11-Feb-85 0847 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Chomsky Book
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Feb 85 08:46:55 PST
Mail-From: SELLS created at 8-Feb-85 16:15:40
Date: Fri 8 Feb 85 16:15:40-PST
From: Peter Sells <Sells@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Chomsky Book
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 08:43:41-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
I sent this message to folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA but it may have not got to
everybody, so here goes again:
All,
I have a copy of a draft of a book by Chomsky "Knowledge of
Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use" (Oct. 1984). I would be happy to
arrange to get copies for anyone interested. The draft is 400pp long and
is a "Reflections on Language" kind of book, some philosophy and some
linguistics. The Chapters are:
1. Knowledge of language as a focus of inquiry
2. Concepts of language
3. Facing Plato's problem (the linguistics!)
4. Questions about rules
Appendix: 1984: Orwell's and ours
Peter
-------
∂11-Feb-85 1006 BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics for Non-linguists
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Feb 85 10:06:15 PST
Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 10:04:23-PST
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Linguistics for Non-linguists
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA, bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA,
su-bboards@SU-CSLI.ARPA
TUTORIAL LECTURES ON LINGUISTICS
FOR NON-LINGUISTS
JOAN BRESNAN will talk on Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), (which she
developed, together with Ron Kaplan), in the final lecture in this
series.
This Tuesday, Feb. 12, 1-3
Trailer seminar room (in trailer c-d, next to Ventura Hall)
-------
∂11-Feb-85 1123 FAGERSTROM@SU-SCORE.ARPA Who made those truffles?
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Feb 85 11:23:06 PST
Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 10:40:12-PST
From: Goran Fagerstrom <FAGERSTROM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Who made those truffles?
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, staff@SU-SCORE.ARPA, students@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Who made those truffles? Eagerly awaiting your recipe - please post.
- Goran
-------
∂11-Feb-85 1328 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Linguistics for Non-linguists
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Feb 85 13:28:06 PST
Mail-From: BLOCK created at 11-Feb-85 10:04:23
Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 10:04:23-PST
From: Ned Block <BLOCK@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Linguistics for Non-linguists
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA, bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA,
su-bboards@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 13:21:02-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
TUTORIAL LECTURES ON LINGUISTICS
FOR NON-LINGUISTS
JOAN BRESNAN will talk on Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), (which she
developed, together with Ron Kaplan), in the final lecture in this
series.
This Tuesday, Feb. 12, 1-3
Trailer seminar room (in trailer c-d, next to Ventura Hall)
-------
∂11-Feb-85 1454 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Feb 85 14:54:23 PST
Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 14:26:56-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New Books in the Math/CS Library
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Online Communities; a case study of the office of the future. by Hiltz
QA76.9.I58H54 1984
Hackers; heroes of the computer revolution. by Levy QA76.6L469 1984
HLlull
-------
∂11-Feb-85 1512 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Mathematics: People, Problems, Results edited by Douglas Campbell and John Higgins
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Feb 85 15:12:37 PST
Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 14:41:07-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Mathematics: People, Problems, Results edited by Douglas Campbell and John Higgins
To: su-bboard@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Mathematics: People, Problems, Results is a three volume book which is now
in the Math/CS Library--QA7.M34466 1984, v.1, v.2, v.3.
V.1--Historical Sketches, Some Mathematical Lives,The Development of Mathematics
V.2--The Nature of Mathematics, Real Mathematics, Foundations and Philosophy
V.3--Computers, Mathematics in Art and Nature, Counting Guessing Using,
Sociology and Education
The following authors have papers included in the three volumes: D.E.Knuth,
N.Wiener,A.L.Samuel,H.A.Simon,M.Kline,M.Minsky,Bertrand Russell,Richard Courant,
D.R.Hofstadter,George Polya,John von Neumann,David Hilbert
HLlull
-------
∂11-Feb-85 1532 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Lunch
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Feb 85 15:32:02 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 11 Feb 85 15:29:21-PST
Date: 11 Feb 85 1524 PST
From: Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty Lunch
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FFL@SU-AI.ARPA
This is a reminder of our regular Faculty Lunch, noon, Tuesday, Feb. 12,
146 Jacks Hall. Deans Ross and Bower will be our guests and discuss
their thinking about the Computer Science Department.
∂12-Feb-85 1120 SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA ignore this message
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Feb 85 11:17:49 PST
Date: Tue 12 Feb 85 11:16:15-PST
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: ignore this message
To: KSL-Lisp-Machines@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Testing the change of the mailing list name.
-------
∂12-Feb-85 1127 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Feb 85 11:26:50 PST
Date: Tue 12 Feb 85 11:22:15-PST
From: Eckart Forster <FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Phil. Dept. Colloquium
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT COLLOQUIUM
Speaker: Henry E. Allison (UC San Diego)
Title: Morality and Freedom: Kant's Reciprocity Thesis
Time: Friday, February 15, 3:15
Place: Philosophy Seminar Room 90:92Q
-------
∂12-Feb-85 1152 EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLunch - Friday - February 15
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Feb 85 11:52:19 PST
Date: Tue 12 Feb 85 11:49:29-PST
From: Ellie Engelmore <EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLunch - Friday - February 15
To: SIGLunch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
SIGLUNCH
DATE: Friday, February 15, 1985
LOCATION: BRAUN AUDITORIUM - Next to Mudd Chemistry Building
Roth Way - Near Campus Drive
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Edward Feigenbaum
Professor of Computer Science
Stanford University
TITLE: Fifth Generation Revisited--Some Informal Impressions
ABSTRACT
The Japanese Fifth Generation Project, and its central institute ICOT,
held the Second International Conference on Fifth Generation Systems
last November. Well over a thousand people attended this impressive
gathering and its associated Open House to hear about and see progress
on the project and plans for its future.
I'll recount my impressions of these events and impressions of
industrial activity in the AI area both inside and outside of the
Fifth Generation project.
-------
∂12-Feb-85 1306 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:AN.KTG@Lindy Course Abstracts: Spring Qtr Courses For Undergraduates
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Feb 85 13:05:52 PST
Received: from Lindy by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 12 Feb 85 13:04:22-PST
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 85 11:56:13 PST
From: Kathy Thoelecke <AN.KTG@Forsythe>
To: FACULTY@SU-SCORE
Subject: Course Abstracts: Spring Qtr Courses For Undergraduates
The Academic Information Center publishes the Course Abstracts
quarterly. The abstracts provide current course descriptions to
be used in undergraduate course selections during the
Advance Registration period. The format includes a
course description written by the faculty member, a
synopsis of how class time is to be used (lecture,
seminar, projects) a complete booklist, number and
format of midterms and finals, grading options, and
reserve book list. If you have a syllabus/outline
for a Spring quarter course appropriate for undergraduates
please send it to me online (an.ktg) and I will include it
in the information now being gathered for students.
To: FACULTY@SCORE
∂12-Feb-85 1608 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA BUFFET SUPPER
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Feb 85 16:08:30 PST
Date: Tue 12 Feb 85 15:52:53-PST
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: BUFFET SUPPER
To: FACULTY@SU-SCORE.ARPA
The buffet supper is at the Faculty Club tonight
beginning at 6 p.m. Will probably be over around 8.
Wed. morning sessions at CERAS
Wed. lunch at Tresidder
Wed. afternoon sessions at Kresge
Wed. banquet at SRI
Thurs. morning sessions at CERAS
Thurs. lunch at Holiday Inn -- buses will transport from CERAS - Holiday
Inn and return to Kresge
Thurs. afternoon sessions at Kresge
Thursday final reception: Faculty Club from 4:30 to 6.
-------
∂13-Feb-85 0224 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Feb 85 02:24:30 PST
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 02:27:01-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk(s)
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA
2/14/85 - Prof. Micha Sharir (Tel Aviv)
"Motion planning algorithms - a survey"
We discuss the problem of planning automatically a continuous motion
of a given robot system B having k degrees of freedom, from an initial
position to a final desired position. During the required motion B has
to avoid certain obstacles whose geometry is known. In abstract
terms, the problem is reduced to that of calculating the connected
components of the (k-dimensional) manifold FP of all free positions of
B, and is thus a problem in "computational topology". In the talk we
will survey the main results in this area as developed during the last
four years. Some of the topics of the talk (as time will permit) will
be:
(1) We show that the problem is solvable in time polynomial in the
geometric complexity n of the obstacles, provided that k is fixed.
(2) The problem is PSPACE-hard if k is arbitrary, even for very simple
systems.
(3) Efficient solutions exist for several simple systems. We will
describe some of them.
(4) Review of the main solution techniques.
(5) Spin-off problems in computational geometry.
(6) Variants of the problem: motion planning with a gripped object,
motion planning in the presence of moving obstacles, optimal motion
planning, etc.
***** Time and place: February 14, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
2/21/85 - Andrei Broder (DEC - SRC)
"A provably secure polynomial approximation scheme for the distributed
lottery problem"
It was shown by Michael Rabin that a sequence of random 0-1 values
("coin tosses"), prepared and distributed by a trusted "dealer," can
be used to achieve Byzantine agreement in constant expected time in a
network of n processors, despite the fact that t of the processors
might behave in a malicious and collusive manner. A natural question
is whether it is possible to generate these tosses uniformly at random
within the network. The subject of this talk is a constructible,
provably-secure, fully-polynomial approximation scheme to obtain such
tosses. In other words, if the bias of the coin is allowed to be
epsilon, the length of the messages required by this scheme is
polynomial in n and 1/epsilon, and it can be shown that breaking the
cryptographic devices used by this scheme is equivalent to solving a
hard number theoretic problem. Previous algorithms for this problem
were provably secure and constructible, but exponential in the size
the network (Yao, Awerbuch & al.), provably secure and and polynomial,
but not constructible (Yao), and polynomial, constructible, but not
provably secure in the above sense (Broder & Dolev).
***** Time and place: February 21, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂13-Feb-85 0824 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Journal of Logic Programming
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Feb 85 08:24:10 PST
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 08:26:57-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Journal of Logic Programming
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: ym@SU-AI.ARPA, faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
We do have the first two issues of Journal of Logic Programming. We will be
keeping the current issues in the office. These issues were sample/gift
copies but I do have the title on order for the Math/CS Library.
Harry
-------
∂13-Feb-85 1013 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:reid@Glacier forum lunch today
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Feb 85 10:13:18 PST
Received: from Glacier by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 13 Feb 85 10:14:07-PST
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 85 10:13:02 pst
From: Brian Reid <reid@Glacier>
Subject: forum lunch today
To: faculty@score
The Computer Forum lunch today is in Tressider at 12:15. Room 281.
If you RSVP'd to Carolyn that you are going, then please go.
We would like to ask that faculty not sit together, but rather try to
situate themselves so that as many tables as possible contain at
least one faculty member. This will give the Forum Visitors
a better chance to have conversations with faculty. Think of it
as an informal "birds of a feather" session.
Brian
∂13-Feb-85 1040 JOHN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Survey
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Feb 85 10:40:45 PST
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 10:33:56-PST
From: John Perry <JOHN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Survey
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Presently CSLI spends about 17% of its operating budget on the computational
environment. We need to cut the budget in this area along with other cuts
we must make in the coming years. We'll need to make the cuts by cutting
services or by charging for services or by a combination of these approaches.
We could charge for services within CSLI and/or rent equipment to the wider
research community. To make choices most beneficial (least harmful) to our
present users, we need to know what type of computing facilities you expect
to use in the coming years and how badly you need them.
To learn this we have devised a computing survey that we would like each of
you to complete and return to us. Suzy will have copies at the front desk
in Ventura tomorrow, February 14, as will Elsie Chappell at SRI and Jackie
Guibert at PARC. Would you please pick one up from the most convenient place
and return it to Sandy Riggs by Thursday, February 21? Notice there is a place
to fill in your name; we need a response from each CSLI "folk".
Thanks in advance.
John
-------
∂13-Feb-85 1158 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA Prog. Project, Last Request
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Feb 85 11:57:52 PST
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 11:15:35-PST
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Prog. Project, Last Request
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: students@SU-SCORE.ARPA, faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
This Sunday, Feb. 17, 1985, I will summarize all of the comments that have
been sent to bureaucrat about the Comp Programming Project. I'll submit
the summary and the comments to the Comp Committee and to Nilsson, as well as
posting them on various computers. THEREFORE:
1) If you want to voice an opinion, do so by Sunday.
2) If you want to retract a previous opinion or have it kept confidential,
tell me by Sunday.
As usual, send messages concerning all this to bureaucrat@score.
-------
∂13-Feb-85 1201 EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA CORRECTION/SIGLunch Location/Feb. 15
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Feb 85 12:00:24 PST
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 10:29:45-PST
From: Ellie Engelmore <EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: CORRECTION/SIGLunch Location/Feb. 15
To: SIGlunch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Friday, February 15, 1985 SIGLunch will be held in Braun LECTURE HALL
- Next to Mudd Chemistry Building Roth Way - Near Campus Drive
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Edward Feigenbaum
Professor of Computer Science
Stanford University
-------
∂13-Feb-85 1452 WASOW@SU-CSLI.ARPA Talk announcement
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Feb 85 14:52:28 PST
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 14:47:26-PST
From: Tom Wasow <WASOW@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Talk announcement
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Speaker: Edith L. Bavin
Department of Linguistics, La Trobe University
Melbourne, Australia
Time: Monday, February 25, 3:45 pm
Place: Ventura Seminar Room
The talk will be a general discussion of work that Dr. Bavin has been
engaged in with Tim Shopen (of the Australian National University) on
the question of how children acquire a free word order language, using
data from Warlpiri, a free word order langage (in most respects). They
have collected data on the comprehension of Warlpiri sentences with
varied word order, and discontinuous word order. They have also
collected some discourse data, which they are analyzing in an attempt
to find out if there is a functional use of word order. They are
also looking at the discourse linking morphology and the use of
anaphoric ellipsis.
-------
∂13-Feb-85 1519 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA [Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>: Approval of apppointments by Dean's office ]
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Feb 85 15:19:50 PST
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 15:21:53-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>: Approval of apppointments by Dean's office ]
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Return-Path: <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 13 Feb 85 13:38:59-PST
Date: 13 Feb 85 1333 PST
From: Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Approval of apppointments by Dean's office
To: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FFL@SU-AI.ARPA
Dean Bower called to say his office had approved reappointments of Keith
Lantz and Ernst Mayr and had forwarded their papers to the Provost's office
for further consideration.
-------
∂13-Feb-85 1715 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA the future
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Feb 85 17:15:27 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Wed 13 Feb 85 17:11:39-PST
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 16:40:49-PST
From: Phil Cohen <PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: the future
To: NL4: ;
I have been asked to come up with an informal research plan for NL4
that will serve as the basis for deciding what to fund for the next
few years as CSLI attempts to stretch its dollars farther. So,
I need some information from you, especially from those of you who are
receiving CSLI funding.
First, I need to know what are your short-term NL4 goals (say thru
August). E.g., what papers will you be writing, what research will
you be doing, etc., that are within the purview of NL4.
Second, do the same as above, but for 3 years out.
That is, what are your long-term NL4-related goals, and how will you reach
them? How crucial is CSLI funding for achieving those goals?
Do you need just a place to have informative discussions?
Do you need computational support, and if so, of what kind? Can
you make good use of a Dandelion/Dandetiger for other than text-processing.
Anything else useful to know about your plans and future actions?
Thanks for your cooperation,
Phil
-------
∂13-Feb-85 1802 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Feb. 14, No. 16
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Feb 85 18:02:25 PST
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 17:25:56-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Feb. 14, No. 16
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
February 14, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 16
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, February 14, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning''
Conference Room Ronald Fagin, IBM San Jose Research Laboratory
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Logic and Functional Programming''
Room G-19 Joseph Goguen, CSLI
Discussion will be led by Fernando Pereira
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Against Theory''
Room G-19 Steve Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels,
English Department, UC Berkeley
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, February 21, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Donald Davidson's ``Communication and Convention''
Conference Room Discussion led by Douglas Edwards
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Emotion: Theory and Language''
Room G-19 Helen Nissenbaum, CSLI
Discussion led by Per-Kristian Halvorsen
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Quine and Rorty, Analysis and Deconstruction''
Room G-19 Hilary Putnam, Harvard University
(No abstract)
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter February 14, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
In the selected paper, Davidson challenges the notion that language
is founded upon conventions that link together (a) the intentions of
speakers, (b) the literal meanings of their utterances, (c) the words
they use. His central point is that we frequently interpret
utterances in ways that do not fall under any fixed or known rules,
whereas a convention must be common knowledge among the parties to it.
Davidson argues first that no convention can account for the relation
between an utterance's illocutionary force and the grammatical mood of
the sentence uttered. Then he proceeds to argue that the literal
meaning of words and sentences (as types) is not conventionally tied
to any standard use that they have. Finally, he denies that the
meanings given to words and sentences (as tokens, on particular
occasions of utterance) is conventionally assigned. He concludes by
expressing considerable skepticism as to whether the practice of
correct interpretation of natural language can be formalized,
conventionally or otherwise.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Emotion: Theory and Language''
Emotions are neither feelings, neuro-physiological processes, nor
cognitions. Existing views that incorporate any of these claims have
a flawed presupposition built into them regarding the fundamental
structure of emotion: they regard emotion as an occurrent property. I
argue, by contrast, that a significant class of emotions, including
love, envy, dread, and anger, are dispositional and relational.
Emotion terms, or concepts, refer to, or provide a means of
identifying, complex relations between one individual, who is the
subject of an emotion, and another individual, event, or object. This
picture offers, instead of an occurrence model of emotion, one of
emotion as a `syndrome'. Emotions span a number of heterogeneous
occurrences, dispositions, and variable time periods. Evidence for
this position is found in:
(1) Sentences that involve emotion predication.
(2) Emotions that cover great time spans.
(3) The fact that emotions have a number of other types of mental
and physiological states as essential componenents.
--Helen Nissenbaum
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter February 14, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI TALK
``The Meaning of Accent''
Lisa Selkirk, University of Massachusetts
Ventura Hall Seminar Room
3:30 pm, Friday, February 15
Intonational pitch accents (in the sense of Pierrehumbert (l980))
serve to "mark" constituents of the sentence with respect to their
role in discourse. It is argued that the "accenting" of a noun phrase
may mean one (or more) of the following:
(a) the NP corresponds to a new discourse referent
(b) the NP is a FOCUS of a FOCUS/"Presupposition" structure
(c) the NP is a TOPIC of a TOPIC/Comment structure
An attempt is made to characterize (a - c) as a natural class,
given an elaborated conception of discourse representation in terms of
a file (Heim (l982)).
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF AREA C MEETING
``The Compilation of Prolog Programs
Without the Use of a Prolog Compiler''
Ken Kahn, Xerox PARC
An efficient Prolog interpreter written in Lisp was presented. The
interpreter was then specialized to run different Prolog predicates.
These specializations are generated automatically by a partial
evaluator for Lisp programs called Partial Lisp. It transforms Lisp
programs to other Lisp programs and knows nothing about Prolog. It was
argued that the partial evaluation of interpreters can be a substitute
for compilation. The results of partially evaluating the Prolog
interpreter for simple Prolog predicates were presented. The speed of
the specialized interpreters has been found to be about ten times
faster than ordinary interpretation. These speeds compare favorably
with an optimizing compiler for the same Prolog dialect and computer
system. The advantages of using partial evaluation upon an interpreter
include a much smaller and easily modifiable implementation. The major
difficulty in generating thousands of small specialized interpreters
is that it currently takes about two orders of magnitude more time
than compilation. Different approaches to reducing partial evaluation
time were presented. The possibilities of specializing the interpreter
for different uses of the same Prolog predicate were discussed.
!
Page 4 CSLI Newsletter February 14, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI TALK
``Quantified NP's and Plural Anaphors''
Rebecca Root, University of Texas
Ventura Hall Seminar Room
2:00 pm Friday, February 15
There is a type of anaphora construction, called "E-type" anaphora
by Evans, in which a quantified noun phrase serves as the antecedent
of an anaphor which it does not bind. This is illustrated by the
following discourse:
- Every farmer at the meeting raised a question
- They sounded hostile
Here the pronoun "they" can be construed to mean either the farmers
at the meeting or the questions which they raised. I will be
discussing this phenomena within the context of discourse
representation theory, which, because of its non-quantificational
treatment of singular indefinite descriptions, offers a good framework
in which to account for the possible meanings of a discourse such as
this.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI TALK
Talk by Andrew Jones, Institute for Philosophy, University of Oslo
10:30, Thursday, February 21
Ventura Conference Room
Jones is the author of a book entitled Communication and Meaning,
in which, "a new framework is proposed for the description of
interpersonal communication -- one flexible enough to cover various
ways in which agents exploit the communication systems they
use....[the framework is] expressed in a formal language employing
modal-logical techniques." He is currently working with others
(including Dagfinn Follesdal) at the University of Oslo to develop an
extended course (a one-year full-time program of studies, on the
introductory level) in communication theory and semantics. Its four
basic components will be:
1) Logic and Computability
2) Semantics (focusing on Montague semantics and situation semantics)
3) Communication and intention (including speech act theory and
additional topics such as human-machine communication)
4) Information and knowledge (based on Dretske)
He will describe the program and the intentions behind it and is
interested in general discussion of teaching programs in this area of
knowledge.
-------
∂13-Feb-85 1942 CLT Special Seminar in Logic and Foundations
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA, "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Speaker: Prof. Erwin Engeler, E.T.H., Zurich
Title: Logic programming and combinatory algebras
Time: Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2:30-4:00
Place: Room 380-X, Math Corner Stanford
S. Feferman
∂13-Feb-85 2052 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA Clearly, my last msg was meant for
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Feb 85 20:52:26 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Wed 13 Feb 85 20:49:56-PST
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 20:50:00-PST
From: Phil Cohen <PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Clearly, my last msg was meant for
To: NL4: ;
NL4 people only, not for the interested parties who also get these
msgs
P
-------
∂14-Feb-85 0948 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Users of SOCRATES and SCORE,SAIL, etc: Communicating Between Systems From Your Own Account and/or the Library Termina
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 85 09:48:18 PST
Date: Thu 14 Feb 85 09:47:03-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Users of SOCRATES and SCORE,SAIL, etc: Communicating Between Systems From Your Own Account and/or the Library Terminal Account
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Section 11 of "A Reference Guide to Socrates" (the green sheet I gave you when
you received your Socrates account) explains how you can send messages from
either your individual Socrates account and/or the account you use on the
library terminal. Basicall what you do is:
Display 2 Full to Account
The system will then ask for the account and computer to which you want the
citations sent. You can send them to either your Score, ITS or what ever
system is on the network. This example would send all citations from the
second (#2) set in full format to your mailbox on the system you indicate.
IMPORTANT: If you want to send the Math/CS Library a question about a
citation or a request to place on hold, first you have to mail it to your
own account. At that point you can then transfer the citation to your
active (editing file) add your question and then mail it to us
Library@SCORE.
You may have seen in this weeks Campus Reports that at some point your
individual Socrates account will be able to access Socrates at any time
during the day. Tentatively we are expecting that to happen by the end
of February. I will let you know by an electronic bboard message as soon
as I know when it is in effect.
For those of you who do not have Socrates accounts, come by the Math/CS
Library and fill out a form and I can give you an account immediately.
Harry
-------
∂14-Feb-85 1333 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Forsythe Lecturer '86
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 85 13:33:32 PST
Date: Thu 14 Feb 85 13:33:31-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Forsythe Lecturer '86
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Suggestions from the faculty about who ought to be candidates
for the 1986 Forsythe Lecturer can be sent to me anytime during
the next couple of months. -Nils
-------
∂14-Feb-85 1422 MACKINLAY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Help
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 85 14:22:04 PST
Date: Thu 14 Feb 85 14:20:39-PST
From: Jock Mackinlay <MACKINLAY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Help
To: ksl-lisp-machines@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
I am suppose to bring an overhead to the SLUG meeting tomorrow, but
I will be out of town. Is there someone who can do it for me?
Thanks in advance,
Jock
-------
∂14-Feb-85 1449 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA CSD Colloquium, Tuesday Feb.19, Browne on Parallel Architectures
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 85 14:49:24 PST
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 14 Feb 85 14:49:03-PST
Date: Thu 14 Feb 85 14:47:30-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: CSD Colloquium, Tuesday Feb.19, Browne on Parallel Architectures
To: All-COLLOQ@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA, faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
milton@SRI-AI.ARPA
CS 300 -- Computer Science Department Colloquium -- Winter 1984-1985.
Our seventh meeting will be on
Tuesday, Februray 19, 1985
at 4:15 in Terman Auditorium
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE REPRESENTATION
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE REPRESENTATION
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE REPRESENTATION
AND EVALUATION OF PARALLEL COMPUTATIONS
AND EVALUATION OF PARALLEL COMPUTATIONS
AND EVALUATION OF PARALLEL COMPUTATIONS
AND PARALLEL ARCHITECTURES
AND PARALLEL ARCHITECTURES
AND PARALLEL ARCHITECTURES*
J. C. BROWNE
Department of Computer Sciences
The University of Texas at Austin
Abstract
Parallelism adds new dimensions to the requirements for representation
of algorithms, computations and architectures. Formal definition of a
model of parallel computation followed by construction of abstract
machines realizing the model of computation provides a uniform
framework for representation of both abstract computations and
abstract machines. This framework facilitates mapping of abstract
descriptions of computations to executable and thus evaluatable
representations of computations. It also focuses attention on the
critical issues for the evaluation of architectures. This talk is an
informal resentation of this unified framework and its application.
--------------------------------> Cookies, and if we can find a
Juice-getting-volunteer, juice prior to the colloquium, at 3:45 in the
Margaret Jacks Hall Lounge.
--------------------------------------->see you there
* graphics by J.C.Browne
-------
∂14-Feb-85 1459 MACKINLAY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA [Joe Karnicky <KARNICKY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: BareSlug meeting, Fri. Feb. 15]
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 85 14:59:54 PST
Date: Thu 14 Feb 85 14:22:13-PST
From: Jock Mackinlay <MACKINLAY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: [Joe Karnicky <KARNICKY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>: BareSlug meeting, Fri. Feb. 15]
To: ksl-lisp-machines@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Return-Path: <KARNICKY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Mon 11 Feb 85 18:22:43-PST
Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 15:44:07-PST
From: Joe Karnicky <KARNICKY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: BareSlug meeting, Fri. Feb. 15
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA, ailist@SRI-AI.ARPA, slug@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
BAY-AREA SLUG PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT- FEBRUARY 1985 MEETING
--------------------------------------------------------
******** note the time and location changes *************
Date: Friday, February 15, 1985
Time: 3:15-5:15 PM
Place: Stanford Campus , Room 041 Jordan Hall (in the basement)
See the directions at the end of this notice
for additional information contact:
Tom Fall, General Chairman 408/289-2373
Ron Antinoja, Program Chairman 415/966-4043
Ken Olum, Program Librarian 415/858-4498 <KDO@SRI-KL>
Joe Karnicky, Correspondence Secretary 415/424-5085 <KARNICKY@SCORE>
PROGRAM
--------
Tom Jensen of Evans and Sutherland will give a talk
entitled: "Essential Adaptation: Computer Assisted Symbolic
Manipulation and Computer Aided Geometric Design". The talk will
include, but not be limited to, discussion of MACSYMA.
Rich Cohen at U. Texas is interested in organizing a two day national
users group meeting, probably in S. F. probably at the end of May. At
the business meeting we'll discuss the interest in (and desirable content
of) such a meeting.
We'll finish with the usual gripe session.
SUMMARY OF LAST MEETING (Jan. 11, 1985)
-----------------------
Richard Lamson talked on "hacking the window system". He focused on
the way the window system handled the mouse. This can be a fairly
complex process, in part because the process must appear to run real
time while sharing the machine with other processes. (e.g. mouse
clicks are time tagged so that when they are handled the response is
to the window the cursor was in at the time of the click rather then
the time of handling.) The talk gave valuable insight into the inner
workings of the Symbolics machine and helped clarify the window system
operations.
Tom Fall spoke of his experiences using the KEE system (version 1.2,
*not* the current release) on Symbolics. Strong points of the system
included the ability to rapidly create a prototype, thus quickly
providing a focus and device for knowledge acquisition, good graphics,
ease of use, and excellent support. Weak points include
difficulty in connecting the KEE program to other code, some difficult,
opaque bugs, and documentation that could stand improvement.
During the business meeting, interest was expressed in hearing about
other software systems, such as ART or S1. Especially interesting would be
discussion by someone from an installation that used several different
systems.
===========================================================================
Map to next meeting:
-- | quadrangle |
| | | X | <-- X=Jordan Hall
-- ---------- ----------
Hoover Tower ---------------------------- ←←←←
/ \ serra St. @@@ \-----------
/ \ @@@ | \ ---------
Notes: | | | |
1)the map is *not* to scale \ / | |
\ / | |
2)look for parking |<-Palm Drive | |
in the pay-parking lot shown by | <-- | |
the @ characters, -------------------------------------- |
or along Serra. -----------------------------------------
| Campus Dr. -->
-------------|-------------
| Arboretum Rd.
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<--to S.J. El Camino Real to S.F.-->
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------
∂14-Feb-85 1600 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Lunch, Feb. 19
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 85 15:59:59 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 14 Feb 85 16:01:51-PST
Date: 14 Feb 85 1458 PST
From: Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty Lunch, Feb. 19
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FFL@SU-AI.ARPA
This is to remind you of the regular Faculty Lunch, Tuesday, Feb. 19,
12:15 p.m. Dean Gibbons will talk about "The Role of Televised
Instruction at Stanford."
∂14-Feb-85 1621 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Faculty Lunch, Feb. 19
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 85 16:20:49 PST
Date: Thu 14 Feb 85 16:22:55-PST
From: Gene Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Faculty Lunch, Feb. 19
To: FFL@SU-AI.ARPA, faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Thu 14 Feb 85 14:58:00-PST
I hope we can talk to Gibbons about more than the TV network!
GENE
-------
∂14-Feb-85 1650 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Opening Position
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 85 16:50:30 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 14 Feb 85 16:45:03-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 14 Feb 85 18:31:12 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 14 Feb 85 14:06:16 cst
Message-Id: <8502142006.AA16572@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Thu, 14 Feb 85 14:06:01 cst
Date: 14 Feb 1985 1506-EST
From: ELIZA.at.MIT-XX@wisc-crys.arpa
Subject: Opening Position
To: theory@UWISC.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
PLEASE POST, NOTIFY ANYONE YOU THINK MIGHT BE INTERESTED, AND TELL ME IF YOU
KNOW ANY GOOD CANDIDATES.
The Theory of Distributed Computing group at MIT has an opening for a PhD
level research associate, to work in the area of concurrency control and
reliability. The position is for work on a particular project on evaluation
of high level models for distributed computing. The objective of the project
is to compare different models (such as the nested transaction model and
recent nonstop operation models) for their usefulness in different types
of applications, their expressive power and efficiency.
Familiarity with typical distributed data processing algorithms and
applications is required, as well as the ability to carry out rigorous,
theoretical treatment of complicated and ill-defined ideas.
The position is for approximately 12 months, sometime during 1985-86. Please
send a CV, list of references and copies of relevant publications to:
Professor Nancy A. Lynch
Laboratory for Computer Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
545 Technology Square, NE43-522
Cambridge, MA. 02139
-------
∂14-Feb-85 1654 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Opening Position
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 85 16:54:47 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 14 Feb 85 16:45:03-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 14 Feb 85 18:31:12 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 14 Feb 85 14:06:16 cst
Message-Id: <8502142006.AA16572@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from MIT-XX.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Thu, 14 Feb 85 14:06:01 cst
Date: 14 Feb 1985 1506-EST
From: ELIZA.at.MIT-XX@wisc-crys.arpa
Subject: Opening Position
To: theory@UWISC.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
PLEASE POST, NOTIFY ANYONE YOU THINK MIGHT BE INTERESTED, AND TELL ME IF YOU
KNOW ANY GOOD CANDIDATES.
The Theory of Distributed Computing group at MIT has an opening for a PhD
level research associate, to work in the area of concurrency control and
reliability. The position is for work on a particular project on evaluation
of high level models for distributed computing. The objective of the project
is to compare different models (such as the nested transaction model and
recent nonstop operation models) for their usefulness in different types
of applications, their expressive power and efficiency.
Familiarity with typical distributed data processing algorithms and
applications is required, as well as the ability to carry out rigorous,
theoretical treatment of complicated and ill-defined ideas.
The position is for approximately 12 months, sometime during 1985-86. Please
send a CV, list of references and copies of relevant publications to:
Professor Nancy A. Lynch
Laboratory for Computer Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
545 Technology Square, NE43-522
Cambridge, MA. 02139
-------
∂15-Feb-85 1109 @MIT-MC:boys%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Feb 85 11:09:00 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 15 Feb 85 13:47-EST
Received: from ti-eg by csnet-relay.csnet id a008403; 15 Feb 85 13:07 EST
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 85 07:55 CDT
From: Randy←Boys <boys%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: phil-sci-request@mit-mc.ARPA
cc: boys%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa, phil-sci@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
To whom it may concern --
I am hoping to determine the status of my addition to the phil-sci csnet
distribution list. I requested to be added to the list in December and have
received neither confirmation of being added to the list nor any mailings. Is
this B-board alive and well?
Thank you --
Boys@TI-EG
∂15-Feb-85 1403 @MIT-MC:crummer@AEROSPACE Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Feb 85 14:03:14 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 15 Feb 85 17:01-EST
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 85 13:59:52 PST
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
To: Randy←Boys <boys%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
CC: phil-sci@mit-mc
Subject: Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 15 Feb 85 07:55 CDT
Well, I got your message anyway. I guess no one has had anything philosophical
to say lately. I believe that thinking has gradually gone out of style for
lack of administrative support.
I have a subject for discussion. How is our understanding of the nature of
reality affected by the Aspect experiment? This is a form of the so-called
EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) experiment proposed as a gedankenexperiment
in a famous paper of 1937. The results of this experiment seem to imply that
certain system aspects (no pun), i.e. quantum numbers, actually cease to
exist under certain circumstances. It is not that they exist and are
completely unknown to the observer; no, they really seem to have no value at
all!
--Charlie
∂15-Feb-85 1539 hardyck%ucbcogsci@Berkeley upcoming talk
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Feb 85 15:39:22 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA09923; Wed, 13 Feb 85 15:52:04 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA07106; Wed, 13 Feb 85 15:53:16 pst
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 85 15:53:16 pst
From: hardyck%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Curtis Hardyck)
Message-Id: <8502132353.AA07106@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: msgs%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: upcoming talk
Cc: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
To cogsci-friends
From Steve Palmer
There is a talk Thursday, Feb 21 at 1.pm , room 2515 Tolman Hall,
that many of you may find of interest.
Speaker: Paul Smolensky, Institute for Cognitive Science
University of California, San Diego
Title: A FORMAL FRAMEWORK FOR MODELLING INTITUTION IN
PROBLEM SOLVING
The following hypotheses will be elaborated and analyzed:
Expert's intuitions derive from their specially developed perceptions
of the problem domain;
The perceptual processor solves the problem's simultaneous constraints
literally in parallell;
The level at which processing is governed by formal laws involves small units of knowledge, not elaborate "rules" or symbolic structure
These formal laws involve numerical, not symbolic, variables and
operations.
I will discuss the motivation for these hypotheses, the presumed roles of
intutition and rule interpretation in problem solving, and implications for
instruction.
Then I will describe how the hypotheses lead to a principled formal framework
for modelling intuition. This framework is derived from probability theory
and exploits a formal isomorphism with statistical (thermal) physics. Three
theories will be described that give a formal competence model, a realization
in a parallell processor, and a learning procedure through which the processor
acquires its knowledge. These theorems are part of an effort to develop a
new theory of computation describing massively parallell systems.
An application of the framework to simple quantitative problems in electricity will be described.
Concepts and techniques from statistical physics guide analysis of the
processing.
∂15-Feb-85 1549 NET-ORIGIN@MIT-MC Re: Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Feb 85 15:48:54 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 15 Feb 85 18:42-EST
Received: by lll-tis.ARPA (4.30/4.7)
id AA22366; Fri, 15 Feb 85 15:16:22 pst
Message-Id: <8502152316.AA22366@lll-tis.ARPA>
Date: Fri Feb 15 15:16:18 1985
From: mcb%lll-tis.ARPA@lll-tis (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Re: Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
To: boys%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA
Cc: phil-sci@mit-mc
X-Orig-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 85 07:55 CDT
X-Orig-From: Randy←Boys <boys%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
X-Orig-Message-Id: <8502151922.AA19761@lll-tis.ARPA>
Status: N
This happened to me, too. I forwarded your letter to
zellich@sri-nic, who maintains the interest-group list.
Michael C. Berch
mcb@lll-tis.ARPA
{akgua,ihnp4,sun}!idi!lll-tis!mcb
∂16-Feb-85 0555 @MIT-MC:mex101@MITRE Re: Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Feb 85 05:55:09 PST
Received: from MIT-MC by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 16 Feb 85 08:54-EST
Date: 16 Feb 1985 8:48:12 EST (Saturday)
From: Mark Zimmerman <mex101@mitre>
Subject: Re: Status of Phil-Sci Distributions
In-Reply-to: Your message of Fri, 15 Feb 85 13:59:52 PST
To: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
Cc: phil-sci@mit-mc
Re EPR: "cease to exist" is a classically-biased phrase (which is probably
why the EPR authors used it, or something analogous) ... the whole EPR
'paradox' rests on our demand to think classically ... in a similar context,
the double-slit experiment discussed at length in the FEYNMAN LECTURES and
elsewhere has the same 'paradoxical' nature ... I think there has been a
fair amount of discussion (not too enlightening, perhaps) on the PHYSICS mailing
list about EPR ... I find the whole thing interesting mainly for psychological
reasons, not physical or philosophical reasons. In essence: why are we humans
so firmly-wedded to our limited sensory data (slow speeds, big objects) that
we refuse to accept reality(?!) as being different in other realms? The
many relativity 'paradoxes' show the same psychological phenomenon.... z
∂17-Feb-85 1437 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:guibas@decwrl.ARPA Re: What have you done lately?
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Feb 85 14:37:27 PST
Received: from decwrl.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sun 17 Feb 85 14:38:59-PST
Received: from magic.ARPA by decwrl.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34)
id AA21722; Sun, 17 Feb 85 14:36:57 pst
Received: by magic.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34)
id AA23046; Sun, 17 Feb 85 14:36:05 pst
From: guibas@decwrl.ARPA (Leo Guibas)
Message-Id: <8502172236.AA23046@magic.ARPA>
Date: 17 Feb 1985 1436-PST (Sunday)
To: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Subject: Re: What have you done lately?
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue 29 Jan 85 16:26:07-PST.
<8501300044.AA14198@decwrl.ARPA>
Nils,
Below is a list of items covering calendar year 1984. I hope this is
the time frame of interest.
I'd like to have a brief chat with you about the understandings
with which I come to Stanford and my vision of the future. I tried to
express some of that in my acceptance letter to Stanford last spring.
It would be nice if we can do this coming week.
Leo
--------
Calendar Year 1984 (mostly spent teaching at the National Technical
University of Athens, Greece)
1. Publications in refereed journals
"Primitives for the manipulation of general subdivisions and the computation
of Voronoi diagrams", with J. Stolfi. To appear in ACM Trans. on Graphics.
"Optimal point location in monotone subdivisions", with H. Edelsbrunner
and J. Stolfi. To appear in SIAM J. Comp.
"The power of geometric duality", with B. Chazelle and D.T. Lee. To
appear in BIT.
"Probabilistic analysis of a network resource location algorithm", with
N. Lynch, M. Fischer, and N. Griffeth. To appear in Information and
Control.
2. Publications in conference proceedings
"Fractional Cascading: a data-structuring technique with geometric
applications", with B. Chazelle. To appear in the proceedings of the
1985 ICALP conference.
"Visibility and intersection problems in plane geometry", with B.
Chazelle. To appear in the proceedings of the 1985 ACM Computational
Geometry conf.
"Periodicities in strings". To appear in the proceedings of the 1984
NATO workshop on Algorithms on Words (Maratea, Italy).
3. Service to the profession
member of the 1984 ACM Symp. on Theory of Comp. program committee
editor of Journal of Algorithms (problem section)
SIAM Journal on Computing
Algorithmica
Journal of Discrete and Computational Geometry
Journal of Symbolic Computation
ACM Transactions on Graphics
invited speaker at INRIA, Paris, France
IEI, Pisa, Italy
NATO conference on Algorithms on Words (Italy)
Bay Area Theory Seminar
Oberwolfach Math. Inst. workshop on
Efficient Algorithms (W. Germany)
ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
Teschn. Univ. Graz, Austria
co-teacher of the following 1984 SIGGRAPH courses
Bitmap Graphics
Mathematical Foundations of Computer Graphics
-------
Well, I have probably forgotten some items, but that's how it goes. Is
it helpful to you to know about opportunities that I declined (job
offers, editorships, etc.)?
∂18-Feb-85 1552 BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA ADvisor
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Feb 85 15:52:37 PST
Date: Mon 18 Feb 85 15:50:47-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: ADvisor
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
This is just a reminder that the Advisory Panel (except for Miller and
Burstall) is in town and will be meeting with the Executive Committee
off and on all day tomorrow, Tuesday, in the Conference Room.
-------
∂19-Feb-85 0825 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA meeting tomorrow
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Feb 85 08:25:24 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Tue 19 Feb 85 08:23:26-PST
Date: Mon 18 Feb 85 21:31:35-PST
From: Phil Cohen <PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: meeting tomorrow
To: NL4: ;
We will meet tomorrow, Feb 19, at 12:45 in the trailers' classroom
(the advisory panel is in the conf. room).
I will be continuing my discussion of illocutionary acts, and will
finally (i hope) get to analyze three varieties of yes/no questions --
real, teacher/student, and rhetorical.
Phil
-------
∂19-Feb-85 0830 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA T/Th 2:45-4
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Feb 85 08:30:17 PST
Date: Tue 19 Feb 85 08:31:33-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: T/Th 2:45-4
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Keith Lantz has proposed that we "unfreeze" the T/Th 2:45-4 time
slot so that people can teach courses then. It is not used now
because, I'm told, that time is saved for faculty meetings, etc.
Typically we only have general faculty meetings once a quarter
and senior faculty meetings once a month and these could
be scheduled for Th at 4. If anybody has any reasons why we
shouldn't unfreeze the T/Th time, please let me know soon. -Nils
-------
∂19-Feb-85 0837 WASOW@SU-CSLI.ARPA Summer RAships
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Feb 85 08:37:45 PST
Date: Mon 18 Feb 85 19:26:14-PST
From: Tom Wasow <WASOW@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Summer RAships
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
CSLI will provide up to 15 Research Assitantships for the summer of 1985.
These will generally be 50%-time RAships, permitting students to register
for units; they will provide each recipient with two months of support.
Each application should include a plan of research and/or study for the
summer, plus a letter of support from a senior CSLI researcher, who agrees
to serve as the applicant's sponsor during the summer. Both the plan and
the letter should be brief (ca. 1 page).
Send applications to Sandy McConnel-Riggs (trailer E5) by April 1, 1985.
-------
∂19-Feb-85 0859 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Summer RAships
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Feb 85 08:59:41 PST
Mail-From: WASOW created at 18-Feb-85 11:40:22
Date: Mon 18 Feb 85 11:40:21-PST
From: Tom Wasow <WASOW@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Summer RAships
To: Friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Tue 19 Feb 85 08:56:01-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
CSLI will provide up to 15 Research Assitantships for the summer of 1985.
These will generally be 50%-time RAships, permitting students to register
for units; they will provide each recipient with two months of support.
Each application should include a plan of research and/or study for the
summer, plus a letter of support from a senior CSLI researcher, who agrees
to serve as the applicant's sponsor during the summer. Both the plan and
the letter should be brief (ca. 1 page).
Send applications to Sandy McConnel-Riggs (trailer E5) by April 1, 1985.
-------
∂19-Feb-85 0909 kuhn%ucbcogsci@Berkeley seminar announcement
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Feb 85 09:09:38 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA16589; Tue, 19 Feb 85 09:09:34 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA10737; Tue, 19 Feb 85 09:11:35 pst
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 85 09:11:35 pst
From: kuhn%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Elisabeth Kuhn)
Message-Id: <8502191711.AA10737@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: seminar announcement
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Spring 1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
TIME: Tuesday, February 19, 11:30 - 12:30
(Please note that the talk starts at 11:30 this week)
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4
Philip Johnson-Laird, Visiting Professor at Stanford - from MRC
Applied Psychology Unit, Cambridge
``Mental Models''
The aim of this talk is to explore the hypothesis that a major class
of mental representations take the form of models of the world.
Such models contrast with propositional representations, i.e.
syntactically structured strings of symbols in a mental language,
because models are assumed to make explicit the perceived or conceived
relations between things in the world. The explanatory value of models
will be illustrated in three areas: reasoning, comprehension, and
the representation of discourse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
February 26:
Paul Kay, Linguistics Department, UC Berkeley
March 5:
Hubert Dreyfus, Philosophy Department, UC Berkeley
March 12:
Ned Block, CSLI
March 19:
Janet Fodor, CSLI
March 26:
George Lakoff, Linguistics Department, UC Berkeley
April 2:
Lucy Suchman, Xerox PARC
April 9:
Jerry Fodor, Philosophy Department, UC Berkeley
April 16:
Mark Johnson, Philosophy Department, Southern Illinois University
April 23:
David Dowty, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
April 30:
Herbert H. Clark, Psychology Department, Stanford University
---------------------------------------------------------------------
∂19-Feb-85 1051 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Feb 85 10:51:43 PST
Date: Tue 19 Feb 85 10:48:42-PST
From: Eckart Forster <FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Phil. Dept. Colloquium
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT COLLOQUIUM
Speaker: Nancy Cartwright (Stanford)
Title: The Priority of Singular Causes
Time: Friday, February 22, 3:15
Place: Philosophy Seminar Room 90-92Q
-------
∂19-Feb-85 1957 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:YM@SU-AI.ARPA travel to STOC
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Feb 85 19:57:34 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 19 Feb 85 19:59:25-PST
Date: 19 Feb 85 1955 PST
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: travel to STOC
To: aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
∂19-Feb-85 1759 thompson%ucbarpa@Berkeley travel to STOC
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Feb 85 17:59:32 PST
Received: from ucbernie.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA29976; Tue, 19 Feb 85 17:59:38 pst
Received: from ucbarpa.ARPA by ucbernie.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA00456; Tue, 19 Feb 85 18:01:13 pst
Received: by ucbarpa.ARPA (4.24/4.40)
id AA07135; Tue, 19 Feb 85 18:01:10 pst
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 85 18:01:10 pst
From: thompson%ucbarpa@Berkeley (Clark Thompson)
Message-Id: <8502200201.AA07135@ucbarpa.ARPA>
To: theory%ernie@Berkeley
Subject: travel to STOC
I just booked a couple of $258 round-trip tickets. Non-stop SFO-BOS
is available, as is OAK-Providence (with a plane change).
I'd advise ticketing soon. Seating is limited, and there's a
fare increase coming up in a few weeks.
The $258 tickets have a couple of disadvantages: 25% cancellation charge,
and you must stay over a Saturday pm. On the other hand, all other
tickets are > $500/round-trip.
Clark
∂20-Feb-85 0007 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA CS300 colloquium, Feb.26, Bob Balzer of ISI on Knowledge-based Software Developmemt.
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Feb 85 00:06:55 PST
Date: Wed 20 Feb 85 00:05:00-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: CS300 colloquium, Feb.26, Bob Balzer of ISI on Knowledge-based Software Developmemt.
To: ALL-COLLOQ@SU-SCORE.ARPA, TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FACULTY@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
MILTON@SRI-AI.ARPA, MORGENSTERN@SRI-CSL.ARPA
cc: ark@SU-AI.ARPA, linton@SU-SIERRA.ARPA, balzer@USC-ISI.ARPA
CS 300 -- Computer Science Department Colloquium -- Winter 1984-1985.
Our eigth meeting will be on Februray 26th, 4:15 in Terman Auditorium:
KNOWLEDGE BASED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT IN FSD
by
Dr. Robert BALZER
USC Information Sciences Institute
Abstract:
Our group is pursuing the goal of an automation based software development
paradigm. While this goal is still distant, we have embedded our current
perceptions and capabilities in a prototype (FSD) of such a software
development environment. Although this prototype was built primarily as a
testbed for our ideas, we decided to gain insight by using it, and have added
some administrative services to expand it from a programming system to a
computing environment currently being used by a few ISI researchers for all
their computing activities. This "AI operating System" provides specification
capabilities for Search, Coordination, Automation, Evolution, and Inter-User
Interaction.
Particularly important is evolution, as we recognize that useful systems can
only arise, and remain viable, through continued evolution. Much of our
research is focused on this issue and several examples will be used to
characterize where we are today and where we are headed. Naturally, we have
started to use these facilities to evolve our system itself.
( After the presentation Bob will show a Video tape in )
( the Auditorium to show all that, and how it works. )
-------------------------------->
Cookies by Ginger and juice provided by an unknown volunteer, prior to the
colloquium, at 3:45 in the Margaret Jacks Hall Lounge.
---------------------------------------> see you there
-------
∂20-Feb-85 1052 BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Reminder
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Feb 85 10:52:16 PST
Date: Wed 20 Feb 85 10:48:27-PST
From: Betsy Macken <BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Reminder
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Please remember to turn in your completed Computing Usage Survey
tomorrow. We badly need your input for our upcoming decisions.
Thanks.
Betsy
-------
∂20-Feb-85 1146 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Michael Green
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Feb 85 11:46:33 PST
Date: Wed 20 Feb 85 11:46:02-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Michael Green
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Does anyone know Michael Green, a graduate (PhD?) of our
department in 1966? -Nils
-------
∂20-Feb-85 1342 WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA siglunch Feb. 22
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Feb 85 13:42:20 PST
Date: Wed 20 Feb 85 11:19:46-PST
From: Carol Wright <WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: siglunch Feb. 22
To: siglunch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
cc: WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
SIGLUNCH
DATE: Friday, February 22, 1985
LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic
Chemistry
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Jeffrey S. Rosenschein
Stanford University
TITLE: Rational Interaction: Cooperation among Intelligent
Agents
The development of intelligent agents presents opportunities to
exploit intelligent cooperation. Before this can occur, however, a
framework must be built for reasoning about interactions. This work
describes such a framework, and explores strategies of interaction
among intelligent agents.
The formalism that has been developed removes some serious
restrictions that underlie previous research in distributed artificial
intelligence, particularly the assumption that the interacting agents
have identical or non-conflicting goals. The formalism allows each
agent to make various assumptions about both the goals and the
rationality of other agents. In addition, it allows the modeling of
restrictions on communication and the modeling of binding promises
among agents.
This talk describes work done in conjunction with Matthew L. Ginsberg
and Michael R. Genesereth.
-------
∂20-Feb-85 1822 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA Borrow IBM PC
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Feb 85 18:22:04 PST
Date: Wed 20 Feb 85 18:21:57-PST
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Borrow IBM PC
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Would one of you have an IBM PC that Bill McKeeman could borrow
for his WICS course the week of August 19-23?
Carolyn
-------
∂21-Feb-85 0304 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Feb 85 03:03:55 PST
Date: Thu 21 Feb 85 03:04:56-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk(s)
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Sorry for the lateness of this message - the SCORE connection was
flaky lately.
A clarification about my talk Thursday: I plan to talk also at BATS
about the distributed lottery problem. In the BATS version the
emphasis will be on the overview of the different solutions, omitting
proofs and fine print. The AFLB version will describe in more depth
the latest new and improved product and I will try to give the
intuition behind the story; however, gory details will be shown only
if requested. My guesstimate at this point is that the overlap
between the two talks is 50%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2/21/85 - Andrei Broder (DEC - SRC)
"A provably secure polynomial approximation scheme for the distributed
lottery problem"
It was shown by Michael Rabin that a sequence of random 0-1 values
("coin tosses"), prepared and distributed by a trusted "dealer," can
be used to achieve Byzantine agreement in constant expected time in a
network of n processors, despite the fact that t of the processors
might behave in a malicious and collusive manner. A natural question
is whether it is possible to generate these tosses uniformly at random
within the network. The subject of this talk is a constructible,
provably-secure, fully-polynomial approximation scheme to obtain such
tosses. In other words, if the bias of the coin is allowed to be
epsilon, the length of the messages required by this scheme is
polynomial in n and 1/epsilon, and it can be shown that breaking the
cryptographic devices used by this scheme is equivalent to solving a
hard number theoretic problem. Previous algorithms for this problem
were provably secure and constructible, but exponential in the size
the network (Yao, Awerbuch & al.), provably secure and and polynomial,
but not constructible (Yao), and polynomial, constructible, but not
provably secure in the above sense (Broder & Dolev).
***** Time and place: February 21, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
2/28/85 - Amos Israeli (Tel Aviv)
Title and abstract to be published.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂21-Feb-85 0808 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Andrew Jones talk
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Feb 85 08:08:43 PST
Date: Thu 21 Feb 85 08:08:04-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Andrew Jones talk
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
New abstract for Andrew Jones talk Thursday Feb 21, 10:30, Ventura
(The previous notice was done from correspondence. This one is actually
from the speaker)
Characterizing communicative interaction
Those who have worked on the construction of formal semantical models of
natural language have largely remained silent on the broader issue of
characterizing the conditions under which a language may be said to be
used by, or adopted by, a group of agents. One important exception here
is to be found in the work of David Lewis. The present talk, which will
not presuppose familiarity with Lewis' work, gives a critical outline of
his theory, and then sketches the basis for an alternative view; it also
provides some indications of the ways in which some systems of modal logic
might be applied to the task of describing patterns of interpersonal
interaction within which communication occurs.
The apparent tension in current philosophy of language between the
formal-semanticists' conception of meaning, and approaches to meaning to
be found in speech-act theory and the theory of language-use, is a central
theme in a new interdisciplinary programme of studies which will shortly
begin at the University of Oslo. The talk concludes with some comments
about that programme.
(Please address all questions to TW@sail)
-------
∂21-Feb-85 0837 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter announcement
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Feb 85 08:37:14 PST
Date: Thu 21 Feb 85 08:36:08-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter announcement
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
Since our computer was down yesterday, I was unable to prepare the
newsletter but hope to get it out sometime this morning. Below is a
list of today's activities.
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, February 21, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Donald Davidson's ``Communication and Convention''
Conference Room Discussion led by Douglas Edwards
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Emotion: Theory and Language''
Room G-19 Helen Nissenbaum, CSLI
Discussion led by Per-Kristian Halvorsen
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Quine and Rorty, Analysis and Deconstruction''
Room G-19 Hilary Putnam, Harvard University
-------
∂21-Feb-85 1015 TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA Commencement Marshall
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Feb 85 10:15:10 PST
Date: Thu 21 Feb 85 10:15:28-PST
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Commencement Marshall
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I need a volunteer for one faculty member to serve as Marshal for
Commencement Ceremony.
?????
Carolyn
-------
∂21-Feb-85 1356 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Parking ticket
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Feb 85 13:56:26 PST
Date: Thu 21 Feb 85 13:54:50-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Parking ticket
To: bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA, folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
Will the person with license plate number, FALUN 1, please get
in touch with Jamie Marks. (jamie@csli).
-------
∂21-Feb-85 1514 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Feb. 21, No. 17
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Feb 85 15:14:11 PST
Date: Thu 21 Feb 85 14:50:16-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Feb. 21, No. 17
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
February 21, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 17
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, February 21, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall Donald Davidson's ``Communication and Convention''
Conference Room Discussion led by Douglas Edwards
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Emotion: Theory and Language''
Room G-19 Helen Nissenbaum, CSLI
Discussion led by Per-Kristian Halvorsen
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Quine and Rorty, Analysis and Deconstruction''
Room G-19 Hilary Putnam, Harvard University
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, February 28, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``The Conway Paradox: Its Solution in an
Conference Room Epistemic Framework'' by Peter van Emde Boas,
Jeroen Groenendijk, and Martin Stokhof
Discussion led by Peter van Emde Boas
(no abstract)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Literature and Meaning''
Room G-19 Paul Schacht, CSLI
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium scheduled
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI LECTURE NOTES
Please send future orders for Johan van Benthem's `Manual of
Intensional Logic', the first of the CSLI Lecture Notes series, to
David Brown. His mail address is CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305;
his Net address is Brown@CSLI. The price of a `Manual of Intensional
Logic' is $5 plus tax, and it may also be purchased at the Stanford
Bookstore. When ordered through CSLI, a 25% discount is offered to
all members of the CSLI community or in cases of three or more copies
intended for instructional purposes.
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter February 21, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
SUMMARY OF F4 MEETING
At the meeting of project F4 on February 11, Bob Moore presented
arguments for the representational approach to designing AI systems
and modelling mental activities in humans. Moore first noted the
relative ease with which a human can acquire individual beliefs
without disturbing very much of the rest of his mental state. This
supports the idea that distinct beliefs ought to be embodied
more-or-less individually, since acquiring a new belief does not seem
to require wholesale reorganization of one's mental state. Moore went
on to argue that the combinatorial structure of what can be believed
suggests a similar combinatorial structure to how it is believed. The
idea is that the combinatorial structure of the sentences used to
characterize belief states does not serve merely to distinguish one
belief state from another; there are regularities in behavior that
depend on that structure. For instance, having a belief of the form
``if not P, then Q'' is associated with behavior appropriate to Q's
being true when evidence of P's being false is presented, but not
necessarily with behavior appropriate to P's being true when evidence
of Q's being false is presented, even though ``if not P, then Q'' and
``if not Q, then P'' are equivalent under most interpretations of the
conditional. The fact that this and many other structural
distinctions in sentences used to classify belief states correspond to
systematic distinctions in behavior presents a prima facie case that
the belief states themselves are similarly structured. But, Moore
argued, under a conception of representation sufficiently abstract to
cover the kinds of ``representation'' actually used in computational
models of mental states, the claim that mental states involve
``syntactic'' representations--a language of thought--probably comes
to no more than this. Moore concluded by noting that none of these
arguments bear on the question of whether the language of thought is
distinct from natural language, but that empirical considerations,
such as the indexicality of natural language and the difficulty of
stating principles of reasoning that apply directly to natural
language, suggest that the two are distinct.
-------
∂21-Feb-85 1620 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa baby
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Feb 85 16:20:35 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 21 Feb 85 16:14:03-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 21 Feb 85 18:03:31 cst
Message-Id: <8502212120.AA14264@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: from csnet-relay.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Thu, 21 Feb 85 15:20:32 cst
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id ae22424; 21 Feb 85 16:07 EST
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 85 11:57:14 PST
From: Maria Klawe <klawe%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: theory@wisc-rsch.ARPA
Subject: baby
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
Nick Pippenger and Maria Klawe are delighted to announce the
birth of Sasha Kathleen Klawe Pippenger. She was born on
February 13 at 2:08 p.m., weighed 7lbs. 8 oz., and was 20 inches
long. Though Janek didn't arrive at the hospital in time to actually
see the birth, he was able to participate in the Leboyer bath afterwards
and hold and touch Sasha. His main comments so far are "that's MY sister"
and "she's gorgeous".
Maria and Sasha are fine, Nick and Janek have the flu but are in good
spirits anyhow, and generally we all are delighting in having a baby
again.
∂22-Feb-85 1252 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ARK@SU-AI.ARPA CS Dept Colloquium for Spring
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Feb 85 12:52:09 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 22 Feb 85 12:52:10-PST
Date: 22 Feb 85 1245 PST
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: CS Dept Colloquium for Spring
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
CC: ARK@SU-AI.ARPA
I'm coordinating the CS Colloquium for Spring quarter. If you know of
someone you think should give a talk, perhaps someone who will be in
the area, please let me know. Thanks.
Arthur
∂22-Feb-85 1339 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA Course renumbering
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Feb 85 13:39:38 PST
Date: Fri 22 Feb 85 13:40:51-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Course renumbering
To: dek@SU-AI.ARPA, faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Great. One general note and some specific notes:
The x4x slot is fairly full now, and I would expect it to overflow
if we increase our cooperation with EE, and if the proposed ug program
adds faculty members, who may want to teach some of their own material.
CS220 Medical computer Science (120,220) and
CS521 Seminar on Biomed. Research (321)
are not AI courses, probably best in x0x or x7x category.
CS344AB contains important fundamental material, and might be more
appropriate CS244AB or CS244 and CS344. Keith or Dave should
have the deciding opinions here.
Actually, calling the current CS347 now CS344B is misleading.
It is not a logical continuation, but is protocol rather than
system-oriented. Also taught normally by different faculty.
CS269 (assembly language) seems to be more appropriate in
general x0x or hardware x1x rather than 'mezzanine||Analysis of
Algorithms||topics'
thanks, gio.
-------
∂22-Feb-85 1406 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA renumbering
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Feb 85 14:06:07 PST
Date: Fri 22 Feb 85 13:49:26-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: renumbering
To: dek@SU-AI.ARPA, faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
more radical suggestion:
if we used x8x for CS courses under CSL sponsorship (crosslisted
with EE) we would
1. expand the space for a dense area
2. permit matching numbers with EE who now use x8x for Computer courses.
Gio
-------
∂22-Feb-85 1416 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:lantz@Gregorio Re: Course renumbering
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Feb 85 14:15:32 PST
Received: from Gregorio by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 22 Feb 85 14:00:28-PST
From: Keith Lantz <lantz@Gregorio>
Date: 22 Feb 1985 1401-PST (Friday)
To: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Cc: shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Subject: Re: Course renumbering
In-Reply-To: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA> /
Fri 22 Feb 85 13:40:51-PST.
I second Gio's comments on 344AB -- and previously sent a message to
Don on that subject. I also agree with his other comments and might as
well tell everyone something else I previously told Don: that it's long
past time that graphics, 348, be considered "fundamental" and should
therefore be down in the 200's.
∂22-Feb-85 1708 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Grey Tuesday
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Feb 85 17:08:39 PST
Date: Fri 22 Feb 85 16:19:13-PST
From: Stuart Reges <REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Grey Tuesday
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Office: Margaret Jacks 210, 497-9798
Nils and I have set March 5th for the Grey Tuesday date this year. The meeting
will start at 4 PM and will be held in Jacks 146. In order to have the most
accurate information possible, Victoria and I are going to send out mail to the
PhD students showing them what information is on file about them currently. We
will ask them to inform Victoria of any corrections. On Friday of next week I
will generate a Grey Tuesday report showing the current status of all PhD
students and will distribute this to all of you in hardcopy form. The meeting
will go faster if you take a moment to look over the information before the
meeting, particularly the information for your own advisees.
If you can't make the meeting, please talk to me ahead of time to let me know
what comments you have about the progress of your advisees or any other
information you think might be helpful to us.
-------
∂22-Feb-85 1743 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Grey Tuesday Change
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Feb 85 17:43:23 PST
Date: Fri 22 Feb 85 17:09:46-PST
From: Stuart Reges <REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Grey Tuesday Change
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Office: Margaret Jacks 210, 497-9798
I have already heard from two different people that Tuesday is a bad day
because of the Colloquium and other conflicts. So I'm moving the day to
Thursday instead. There is a Senior Faculty Meeting that day starting at 2:30,
so Nils thinks that we should have Grey Tuesday starting at 3:30. I'll send
out another note early next week when I've scheduled a room.
-------
∂22-Feb-85 1744 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA addendum
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Feb 85 17:44:23 PST
Date: Fri 22 Feb 85 17:11:05-PST
From: Stuart Reges <REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: addendum
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Office: Margaret Jacks 210, 497-9798
I forgot the date in my last message about Grey Tuesday: Thursday, March 7th,
3:30, place to be announced.
-------
∂22-Feb-85 1745 REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Immediate Space Needs
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Feb 85 17:45:24 PST
Date: Fri 22 Feb 85 17:18:22-PST
From: Stuart Reges <REGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Immediate Space Needs
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Office: Margaret Jacks 210, 497-9798
Nils is waging two battles with the University--one to solve our long-term space
needs and one to solve our short-term space needs. Holly Ullman is collecting
information to help Nils work on the long-term problem. Nils has asked me to
collect information about the short-term problem.
If you have significant short-term space needs that are not currently met,
please send me a note about it. I'm looking for this information:
o How much space do you need?
o How will the space be used?
o Are there any special requirements for the space?
o What will happen if you don't get the space?
The last of these is the most important to give me details on. Nils would like
to paint an intricate worst-case portrait for the University that says, "If you
don't give us any space then we'll have to cancel this course and turn down
this equipment grant and discontinue this research and send away these
distinguished visitors. . ."
-------
∂25-Feb-85 0238 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #5
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Feb 85 02:37:54 PST
Date: Sunday, February 24, 1985 2:12PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #5
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Monday, 25 Feb 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 5
Today's Topics:
Puzzles - Oliver's Challenge & Alpine Club & Chess
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat 23 Feb 85 13:21:06-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <Nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Puzzle
Barney Oliver, ex research director of Hewlett Packard,
poses the following problem as one he doesn't think a
computer can solve. (I haven't had the time yet to think
about its solution at all!) If a "Prolog Digest" reader
solves it, I'd like to rub Barney's nose in the solution.
-- Nils Nilsson
If f(f(x)) = x↑2 - 2, what is f(x)?
------------------------------
Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 14:23:28-EST
From: Vijay <Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Subject: Revised Alpine Club Puzzle
What is to be gained by trying to solve problems like the
Alpinists' problem in Prolog in a `natural fashion'? The
limitations of Horn logic are clear and so is the way
around them. The general solution is, of course, to write
a general purpose theorem prover in Prolog, and feed these
axioms to it. I doubt if any special purpose hack for this
particular problem can be found because the only method to
show that the answer is true seems to be to show that the
formula (mc(tony) & ~skier(tony)) OR (mc(mike) & ~skier(mike))
is true in all models of the given axioms. (Note that in
some models mike is such a person and in the rest tony.
Using SLD-resolution (which does not use factoring and is
hence not complete for full FOPC), is like trying to answer
the question `EXISTS x. fool(X)' given the only axiom
`fool(john) OR fool(jane)' by trying to construct a value
for X.)
In this special case, the problem can be solved by generating
all possible models with domain {tony, mike, john, rain, snow}
and predicates mc/1, skier/1, ac/1, likes/2, filtering out
those for which the given axioms hold and then evaluating the
truth value of the above formula in it. All this can be done
in a straightforward fashion in Prolog by treating the problem
specific axioms, expressed in full first order predicate
caluclus notation,if you so desire, as data-structures,
so-called amalgmation via bootstrapping.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 85 16:51:52 pst
From: Allen VanGelder <AVG@Diablo>
Subject: Revised Alpine Club
Vijay Saraswat (above) asserts the limitations of Horn logic
are clear, but he does not explain why it is clear that Prolog
can solve the original puzzle in a somewhat natural way, but
not my revised version. Non-Horn clauses arise in both
formulations, but somehow they are worked around in the first
version.
Meanwhile, O'Keefe says in the previous issue that it is "very
easy" to handle negation. He continues by saying that to solve
the problem, you leave out a certain non-Horn clause, which
loses completeness. It seems that this means (a) if you find
no non-skiers you can't conclude all club members are skiers,
hence can't answer the original question in this case and (b)
if you find some non-skiers you can't conclude that you found
them all. Also, his approach cannot be used in conjunction
with \+ and retain soundness. I am interested to see if he
tries it out on the revised problem.
Elsewhere, O'Keefe states that Horn-renaming can be done in
linear time "if it exists". But then testing for Horn
renamability must also be linear:
- Assume it exists and run the program for a sufficient
length of time.
- If it hasn't succeeded yet, conclude that the clauses
are not Horn-renamable.
People should be glad to hear about this linear algorithm
for a known NP-Complete problem! Perhaps Richard meant
"if it exists and is known"?
It seems to me that there are still plenty of issues
concerning negation and quantifiers that have not yet
been resolved. Puzzles and sample problems help bring them
to light.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Feb 85 2356 PST
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Alpine club puzzle - solution in Tablog
The following is a Tablog program for solving the Alpine
club puzzle. Unlike Prolog a Tablog program starts with
declarations.
new alpine ; program name and declaration
var (u v w x y z)
pred (member person likes skier climber)
member(John) & member(Tony) & member(Mike).; John, Tony and Mike are
; taken to be constants by
; default.
climber(u) or skier(u).
~climber(u) :- Likes(u,rain).
~skier(u) :- ~likes(u,snow).
likes(tony,rain) & likes(tony,snow).
likes(Mike,x) iff ~likes(Tony,x).
end ; of program assertion
member(z) & climber(z) & ~skier(z). ; a goal (query)
The solution is of course z=Mike
Comments:
---------
The procedural interpretation of Tablog forced me to used
~skier :- ~likes(u,snow)
rather than
skier implies likes(u,snow)
which will be regarded as definition for likes( , ).
This is the only transformation to the original
specifications.
The disjunction "skier(u) or climber(u)"
is used to reduce climber(z) to ~skier(z).
Note that this is the only positive fact about skier
and climber in the original puzzle. O'keefee coded
it as:
climber(X) :- alpinist(X), nonskier(X).
which is correct for the given query but will not work
for the query
skier(Z).
for which Tablog will generate the answer Z=Tony.
A more accurate specification should of course be
skier(u) or climber(u) :- member(u)
but it does not matter for the query given (or the
skier(z) query).
Since Tablog does not use negation as failure there is
no way to deduce anything about John (except that he
is a member).
------------------------------
Date: 16 Feb 85 16:22:36-EST (Sat)
From: "Zerksis D. Umrigar" <Zerksis%Syr-cis-aos.csnet>
Subject: Alpine Club Problem.
I like O'Keefe's solution to the Alpine Club problem
in that it is very natural and does not use
any of the Prolog nasties like cut, negation-by-failure
or database hacking. However, I do have a few
comments.
1) I would appreciate a brief description of, or a
reference to a *linear-time* algorithm for converting
a set of non-Horn clauses into Horn clauses using renaming.
2) Is there any particular reason for using the likes/3
predicate for getting rid of the non-Horn clause involving
likes/2? It appears that using a likes/2 and a dislikes/2
would also have sufficed.
3) My only objection to the given solution is that it
is biased towards the given query. For instance, the query
requires a nonskier and climber - the program has the
predicates climber and nonskier, while the predicates skier
and nonclimber are absent. I can understand that such a bias
can occur in a very natural way by including the query
clause with the axiom clauses during the renaming process.
However, if one were to attempt to write an unbiased
program, one should include all of climber, nonclimber, skier,
nonskier and would have to add the following rules
(contrapositives of rules in O'Keefe's solution):
nonclimber(X):- likes(X,rain,yes).
likes(X,snow,yes):- skier(X).
skier(X):- alpinist(X), nonclimber(X).
As for likes/3, one would have to omit
skier(X) v nonskier(X) <-
and
climber(X) v nonclimber(X) <-.
We could also include consistency checks as for likes/3.
This does not cause any problems for the given query,
except that it results in 4 solutions of Mike, due
to the program being able to deduce independently the
given fact that Tony likes snow, because it succeeds
in proving him to be a skier.
However, from the problem statement that "Mike dislikes
whatever Tony likes and likes whatever Tony dislikes",
one would be forced to include the following rules:
likes(mike,X,yes):- likes(tony,X,no).
likes(mike,X,no):- likes(tony,X,yes).
likes(tony,X,yes):- likes(mike,X,no).
likes(tony,X,no):- likes(mike,X,yes).
The last two are contrapositives of the first two. If
they were not included the program would be incomplete
in that it would be unable to conclude that Tony dislikes
ice from (say) a fact that Mike likes ice. However,
inclusion of these two additional rules for likes/3,
causes Prolog to loop on the given query!
4) When I sent in this problem to the Digest I wanted to
see different approaches for handling non-Horn clauses
and negation. If one wishes to represent knowledge in
Prolog databases one will have problems since the
world is non-Horn. If one has a disjunctive answer to a
query (like Van Gelder's variation on the Alpine Club
problem), Prolog will again have problems. Of course,
one could implement a general first-order theorem prover
in Prolog.
Any comments?
-- Zerksis
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 19 Feb 1985 15:04:28-PST
From: (Brad Merrill) zBrad%mrfort.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
Subject: Chess
Does anyone out there know of any Chess programs or
templates of, written in Prolog? Are they available
to be shared?
On a similar note, I would think that someone
might have developed a set of Prolog tools for game
creation in general. Any available information?
These tools would be along the general lines of any
strategy games involving alpha-beta decisions with
modified move selection based on hueristic strategy.
I am a chess player, who has become dissatisfied with
the level of play in currently available chess programs
and machines. My own USCF rating is 1902. Only Ken
Thompsons' Belle machine, has a higher rating, and it
isn't commercially available, and runs on custom hardware.
An aside note, Cray Blitz has beaten Belle recently but I
would consider it also generally unavailable.
I am familiar with the internals of most all the
current computer Chess programs, and none have yet
implemented heuristic long term strategy. This is crucial
in a game like chess, where the brute force method breaks
down due to its horizon effect, and it therefore cannot
tell that it is transforming its game into a lost
endgame. Most all chess programs use the negative/
positive piece and/orposition count to make their move
decisions. Some number of position evaluations can be
solved in this way, but for a long term solution, it has
many avenues of failure.
I plan to write such a program completely in Prolog, at
least at first. An optimization would be a concurrent
process doing alpha-beta pruning on the position tree, to
weed out any obviously bad moves. This is similar to the way
the program Belle has distributed its decision making.
Another design idea, is to change the nature of move generation.
Human chess players, after gaining experience, avoid making
obviously bad moves and really never even consider them. A
move generator that only produced useful moves, would also be a
great speedup.
Any information, small programs, or pointers to literature,
would be very helpful.
Thank you,
-- Brad Merrill
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂25-Feb-85 1136 SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA HPP-3600-5 added to CHFINGER
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Feb 85 11:36:39 PST
Date: Mon 25 Feb 85 11:34:32-PST
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: HPP-3600-5 added to CHFINGER
To: KSL-Lisp-Machines@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Added the net address for HPP-3600-5 to CHFINGER on the
2060 so it now probes all KSL machines.
--Chrisothper
-------
∂25-Feb-85 1159 @SUMEX-AIM.ARPA:JOCK@SU-SCORE.ARPA HPP-3600-1
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Feb 85 11:59:38 PST
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Mon 25 Feb 85 11:51:43-PST
Date: Mon 25 Feb 85 11:49:03-PST
From: Jock Mackinlay <JOCK@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: HPP-3600-1
To: ksl-lisp-machines@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
By the way, when HPP-3600-1 was moved to Jacks, I changed its name to SILVER.
Jock
-------
∂25-Feb-85 1332 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty meeting, Tuesday, Feb. 26
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Feb 85 13:32:45 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 25 Feb 85 13:21:51-PST
Date: 25 Feb 85 1315 PST
From: Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty meeting, Tuesday, Feb. 26
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FFL@SU-AI.ARPA
Faculty will meet as usual in Room 146, at 12:15. Guest will be Jacqueline
Bryan of the H & S Dean's office, who will talk about Planning for a new
CSD Building.
∂25-Feb-85 1349 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Missing Qume
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Feb 85 13:49:28 PST
Date: Mon 25 Feb 85 13:45:50-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Missing Qume
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA, consultants@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
Two QUMES are presently unaccounted for. If you have a Qume
anywhere except the Ventura trailers, Ventura, or Casita, please send
me a message saying where it is and its department tag # (located on a
green and grey tag usually found on the base of the Qume).
Your help is much appreciated,
Emma Pease
-------
∂25-Feb-85 1439 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Public-Key Cryptography in Science-Fiction
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Feb 85 14:07:16 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 25 Feb 85 13:37:36-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 25 Feb 85 15:23:14 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 25 Feb 85 13:03:12 cst
Message-Id: <8502251819.AA12964@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from su-aimvax.arpa by wisc-crys.arpa; Mon, 25 Feb 85 12:19:27 cst
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 85 10:16:33 pst
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@diablo>
Subject: Public-Key Cryptography in Science-Fiction
To: theory@uwisc
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
From "2010: Odyssey Two" by A.C. Clark:
"Floyd unlocked his little communication console, set the decription
keys, and called for the information on Tsien that had been transmitted to
him from Washington. He wondered if his hosts had had any luck in unscrambling
it; the cipher was based on the product of two hundred-digit prime numbers,
and the National Security Agency had staked its reputation on the claim that
the fastest computer in the universe could not crack it before the Big Crunch
at the end of the Universe. It was a claim the could never be proved - only
disproved."
Moshe
∂25-Feb-85 1707 chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Feb. 26
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Feb 85 17:07:33 PST
Received: from ucbkim.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.42)
id AA10579; Mon, 25 Feb 85 17:03:27 pst
Received: by ucbkim.ARPA (4.24/4.27)
id AA29835; Mon, 25 Feb 85 17:10:43 pst
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 85 17:10:43 pst
From: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8502260110.AA29835@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbkim@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--Feb. 26
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Spring 1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
TIME: Tuesday, February 26, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
(followed by)
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Paul Kay, Department of Linguistics, UC
Berkeley
TITLE: ``Scalarity and Informativeness''
In this report on WORK IN PROGRESS (in collaboration with
C. Fillmore, A. Dahlstrom, M.C. O'Connor, and T. Larsen), it
is suggested that the same theoretical machinery required
to explain the contrasts in (1), which concern semantic
SCALARITY, can also serve to explicate the phenomenon of
quantity implicature--illustrated by the fact that (2)b is
normally inferred in conversation from (2)a. The latter
involves the Gricean notion of relative INFORMATIVENESS.
(1)a John can't jump six feet, let alone seven feet.
b *John can't jump seven feet, let alone six feet.
(2)a John ate some of the cookies.
b John didn't eat all of the cookies.
The idea that the phenomena illustrated in (1) and (2)
are related has been around in one form or another at least
since the work of Lawrence Horn (1972 On the semantic pro-
perties of logical operators in English, Ph.D. Thesis,
UCLA), but to my knowledge no entirely satisfactory formula-
tion, let alone solution, of the problem has been presented
heretofore, if ever.
∂26-Feb-85 0924 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Parking at Ventura
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Feb 85 09:24:14 PST
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 09:22:37-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Parking at Ventura
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
Dear Folks,
The Stanford parking authorities have asked us not to use the
temporary, orange C stickers that were issued at the front desk i.e.
the stickers are NO LONGER valid. Please contact Jamie Marks for
refunds or further information.
-Emma Pease
ps. If you don't own a regular parking sticker, some options for
parking are listed below.
Pay parking lots can be found at the corner of Serra and Campus drive
and at Tresidder Union. You can then use the Marguerite bus shuttle
or walk.
Use the shuttle to come in from the Stanford shopping center during
lunch and rush hours. (Outside those hours it only goes as far as the
corner of Quarry and Welch road.)
Carpool with someone that has a Stanford sticker.
-------
∂26-Feb-85 0945 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1985
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Feb 85 09:45:32 PST
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 09:39:50-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1985
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Folks,
Here is the Siglunch Abstract for this week:
SIGLUNCH
DATE: Friday, March 1, 1985
LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Matthew Ginsberg, Computer Science Department and
Heuristic Programming Project, Stanford University
ABSTRACT: COUNTERFACTUALS
Counterfactuals are a form of commonsense non-montonic inference that
has been of long-term interest to philosophers. In this paper, we
begin by describing some of the impact counterfactuals can be expected
to have in artificial intelligence, and by reviewing briefly some of
the philosophical conclusions which have been drawn about them.
Philosophers have noted that the content of any particular
counterfactual is in part context-dependent; we present a formal
description of counterfactuals that allows us to encode this
context-dependent information clearly in the choice of a sublanguage
of the logical language in which we are working. Having made this
choice, we show that our description of counterfactuals is formally
identical to the accepted "possible worlds" interpretation due to
David Lewis. Finally, we examine the application of our ideas in the
domain of automated diagnosis of hardware faults.
Paula
-------
∂26-Feb-85 1023 POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk announcement
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Feb 85 10:23:24 PST
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 10:22:27-PST
From: Bill Poser <POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: talk announcement
To: nlinterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Mamoru Saito (USC-Linguistics) will give a talk on "Topicalization and
Scrambling" in a room to be announced at CSLI at 14.30 this Thursday
(28 February).
-------
∂26-Feb-85 1114 VSINGH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Silver has been resurrected
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Feb 85 11:14:24 PST
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 11:10:55-PST
From: Vineet Singh <vsingh@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Silver has been resurrected
To: ksl-lisp-machines@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
e
-------
∂26-Feb-85 1246 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WALESON@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA IBM Fellowship
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Feb 85 12:45:23 PST
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 26 Feb 85 12:43:14-PST
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 12:35:04-PST
From: Anthea Waleson <WALESON@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: IBM Fellowship
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: Waleson@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
The Computer Science Dept. has been requested to nominate two candidates
for IBM's Manufacturing Research Fellowships. IBM's letter reads in
part as follows:
"The fellowships cover disciplines related to the needs
of future manufacturing, including materials processing,
measurement science, artificial intelligence and automation
systems. A few examples of specific areas are surface
analysis, optics, measurement, chip testing, analytical
instrumentation, CAD/CAM/CAE/CIM, robotics, machine vision,
operations research and systems engineering.
The stipend of each fellowship is ten thousand dollars for
the nine month acadmeic year. In addition, the fellowship
pays tuition and includes an unrestricted departmental grant
of two thousand dollars."
The fellowships are intended for doctoral students and can be renewed.
No candidates from Eastern Bloc countries can be considered, but U.S.
citizenship is not required.
Please submit names of nominees to Bruce Buchanan by Monday, March
4, l985. Application forms are on hand and will be distributed to
nominees. Since three letters and other supporting documentation is
required, please send your nominees or suggestions for nominees as
soon as possible so that the candidates will have time to assemble
their credentials.
Thank you.
Anthea (B. Buchanan's secretary)
-------
∂26-Feb-85 1608 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Feb 85 16:08:44 PST
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 16:07:55-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk(s)
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA
2/28/85 - Amos Israeli (Tel Aviv)
Title and abstract to be published.
***** Time and place: February 28, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
3/7/85 - Professor Ingo Wegener (Frankfurt)
"Tradeoffs and lower bounds for branching programs"
Branching programs are for several reasons an interesting
computational model for Boolean functions. The branching program size
of f is larger than its Boolean network complexity and smaller than
its formula size. One knows that branching program depth and size are
lower bounds on time and space of any reasonable sequential
computational model. Therefore one is interested also in size or
depth restricted branching programs. We argue that the proper models
are width-k branching programs and k times only branching programs
where each variable may be tested on each path of computation at most
k times. We present functions with exponential one time only
branching program complexity but polynomial width-2 branching program
complexity. On the other hand Yao proved a non-polynomial lower bound
on the width-2 complexity of the majority function which may
efficiently be computed by one time only b.p.'s. Furthermore we
present a function with exponential one time only but polynomial two
times only branching program complexity. We believe that the
polynomial k times only b.p.'s build a proper hierarchy as has been
conjectured by Yao for width-k b.p.'s. By our method of proving lower
bounds we obtain exponential lower bounds on the one time only b.p.
complexity of the clique function. For symmetric functions we can
construct even optimal one time only b.p.'s.
***** Time and place: March 7, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂26-Feb-85 1831 POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA saito talk and nl-2 meeting
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Feb 85 18:31:45 PST
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 18:30:55-PST
From: Bill Poser <POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: saito talk and nl-2 meeting
To: bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA, nlinterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA, linguists@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Jerry Sadock will not be able to attend the NL-2 meeting
scheduled for Thursday at 15.45. Instead, Mamoru Saito's
talk on "Topicalization and Scrambling", previously scheduled
for 14.30, will be moved to this time.
-------
∂26-Feb-85 1902 POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Sadock
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Feb 85 19:02:34 PST
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 19:02:24-PST
From: Bill Poser <POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Sadock
To: nlinterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Jerry Sadock will attend the NL-2 meeting on 28 March instead of 28
February.
-------
∂27-Feb-85 0841 SELLS@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: Sadock
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Feb 85 08:40:55 PST
Date: Wed 27 Feb 85 08:40:35-PST
From: Peter Sells <Sells@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Sadock
To: POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: nlinterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Bill Poser <POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>" of Tue 26 Feb 85 19:03:02-PST
March 28 is a bad time to have Jerry talk as some of us will be on our way
to WCCFL, which begins the following morning.
Peter
-------
∂27-Feb-85 0919 POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Re: Sadock
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Feb 85 09:19:32 PST
Date: Wed 27 Feb 85 09:18:13-PST
From: Bill Poser <POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Sadock
To: Sells@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: nlinterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Peter Sells <Sells@SU-CSLI.ARPA>" of Wed 27 Feb 85 08:40:41-PST
I think so too since I will be in LA myself. I was just passing on what
Joan Bresnan told me. I don't know where the date comes from.
Bill
-------
∂27-Feb-85 1613 chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 5
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Feb 85 16:12:50 PST
Received: from ucbkim.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.42)
id AA18872; Wed, 27 Feb 85 16:08:13 pst
Received: by ucbkim.ARPA (4.24/4.27)
id AA23696; Wed, 27 Feb 85 16:15:29 pst
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 85 16:15:29 pst
From: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8502280015.AA23696@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbkim@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 5
Cc: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Spring 1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
TIME: Tuesday, March 5, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
(followed by)
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Hubert Dreyfus, Department of Philosophy, UC
Berkeley
TITLE: ``Varieties of Phenomenology: Husserl, Heidegger
and Merleau-Ponty''
A tutorial review of the three most important accounts of
intentionality in recent continental philosophy, with emphasis on
their relevance to current theories of mental representation.
Edmund Husserl begins the phenomenological concern with inten-
tionality. In his earlier work, The LOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS, he
holds a view similar to Searle's that intentional content type
individuates mental acts. Later, in IDEAS, he changes to a posi-
tion, which he calls ``cognitive science,'' in which mental
representations are held to be hierarchies of strict rules,
involved in all intelligent activity. I take this to be an early
version of the computational view of the mind.
Husserl's account leads to two important counter-views.
Martin Heidegger in BEING AND TIME argues that intentional states
do not play the central role in intelligent behavior Husserl sup-
posed, and that even in those cases where intentional states are
involved their intentional content can not be treated as abstract
structures. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, like Heidegger, argues for a
primitive form of intentionality which does not involve mental
representation, but whereas Heidegger is primarily interested in
an account of action and its social setting, Merleau-Ponty bases
his critique on a phenomenology of perception and bodily skills.
Together, Heidegger's and Merleau-Ponty's work constitutes
the most powerful critique of cognitivism so far offered.
------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
March 12: Ned Block, CSLI
March 19: Janet Fodor, CSLI
March 26: George Lakoff, Linguistics Dept, UC Berkeley
April 2: Lucy Suchman, Xerox PARC
April 9: Jerry Fodor, Philosophy Dept, UC Berkeley
April 16: Mark Johnson, Philosophy Dept, So. Illinois University
April 23: David Dowty, Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences
April 30: Herbert H. Clark, Psychology Dept, Stanford University.
------------------------------------------
∂27-Feb-85 1705 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA [WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA: talk by mike gordon, 3/6, 4:15, el381]
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Feb 85 17:05:09 PST
Return-Path: <WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Wed 27 Feb 85 16:05:49-PST
Date: Wed 27 Feb 85 16:03:18-PST
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: [WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA: talk by mike gordon, 3/6, 4:15, el381]
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Wed 27 Feb 85 16:55:28-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
that's 333 ravenswood avenue, menlo park.
---------------
Mail-From: WALDINGER created at 27-Feb-85 15:53:09
Date: Wed 27 Feb 85 15:53:09-PST
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: talk by mike gordon, 3/6, 4:15, el381
To: bboard@SRI-AI.ARPA, zm@SU-AI.ARPA, ashcroft@SRI-CSL.ARPA,
AIC-Associates: ;
cc: CSL: ;
speaker: michael gordon, cambridge university, england
topic: hardware verification and higher-order logic
time: wednesday, march 6, 4:15pm
place: csl small conference room, el 381, building e,
sri international (visitors from outside please
come to the lobby
preceded by: coffee in richard waldinger's office
abstract: to be concocted
-------
-------
∂27-Feb-85 1743 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Feb. 28, No. 18
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Feb 85 17:43:17 PST
Date: Wed 27 Feb 85 17:32:23-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Feb. 28, No. 18
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
February 28, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 18
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, February 28, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``The Conway Paradox: Its Solution in an
Conference Room Epistemic Framework'' by Peter van Emde Boas,
Jeroen Groenendijk, and Martin Stokhof
Discussion led by Peter van Emde Boas
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Literature and Meaning''
Room G-19 Paul Schacht, CSLI
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall No colloquium scheduled
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, March 7, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall No TINLunch this week
Conference Room
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Objects, Chomeurs, and Careers in Clause Structure''
Room G-19 David Perlmutter,
Linguistics Department, UC San Diego
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``A Theory of Variables''
Room G-19 Kit Fine, University of Michigan
(Abstract on page 2)
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter February 28, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT ON NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Objects, Chomeurs, and Careers in Clause Structure''
David M. Perlmutter, U.C.S.D.
This paper attacks two distinct problems:
(1) How are so-called 'double object' constructions to be described?
Which of their properties must be stipulated, and which follow
from universal principles?
(2) In a multilevel theory of syntax, how many different grammatical
relations can a nominal bear at different levels?
In the background lies the problem of how to characterize
language-particular differences with respect to which nominals behave
like objects. This paper adopts the traditional relational grammar
approach to this problem by positing advancements, demotions, and
ascensions. It is then argued that the ostensibly unrelated questions
in (1) and (2) can both be answered by the same principle - the
Noninitial Demotion Ban (NDB) - which rules out demotion to term
relations by noninitial terms. However, it does not rule out demotion
to chomeur. Much of the paper hinges on distinguishing between direct
objects, indirect objects, and chomeurs - distinctions which in some
languages are not morphologically marked. It is argued that these
distinctions are crucial to an adequate account of what appear to be
objects cross-linguistically.
In support of the NDB, it is first shown that it makes correct
predictions about the Inversion construction in Georgian - predictions
which correctly extend to Russian and Albanian. Most of the paper is
devoted to double object constructions in the Bantu language
Kinyarwanda. A proposal in terms of advancements and ascensions is
motivated. It is then shown that the NDB correctly predicts the
properties of clauses in which more than one nominal advances or
ascends. Implications of this analysis for other languages are
briefly discussed. The paper concludes with the NDB's answer to (2),
making explicit the very small range of possibilities the theory
allows.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``A Theory of Variables''
Kit Fine, University of Michigan
I shall describe a theory of variables as objects, not as signs.
Applications of the theory to problems in logic, linguistics, and
computer science will be indicated.
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter February 28, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
LOGIC SEMINAR
``Truth, Fixed-points and Clones''
Prof. Joel Berman, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Tuesday, March 5, at 4:15-5:30 P.M.
Room 381-T, Math Corner, Stanford
Several examples are presented of propositional logics for which there
is a partially ordered set P and a natural correspondence between the
sentences of the logic and the family of monotonic operations on P.
Also presented is a general result which guarantees, for partially
ordered sets P and Q, that Q is isomorphic to the set of fixed-points
of some monotonic function on P. These results are used to amplify a
recent paper by Albert Visser, ``Four-valued semantics and the liar''.
The talk represents work done jointly with W.J.Blok.
-------
∂28-Feb-85 0229 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #6
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Feb 85 02:29:12 PST
Date: Wednesday, February 27, 1985 6:59PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #6
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Thursday, 28 Feb 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 6
Today's Topics:
Query - New Engine
Implementation - CP Bounded Merge & AT1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 85 16:16:14 gmt
From: William Clocksin <WFC%Cl.Cam@UCL-cs.arpa>
Subject: Query
Has anybody else tried to implement David Warren's New
Engine from his SRI Report 300? Am I correct in thinking
that nrev(X,[1,2]) fails to work properly? I think the
problem can be solved by changing the [deallocate]
instruction to copy any permanent variables down to the
previous environment if the call is non-determinant.
------------------------------
Date: Fri 22 Feb 85 17:38:52-EST
From: Vijay <Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Subject: Bounded merge in Concurrent Prolog.
The bounded merge problem in Concurrent Prolog is to
write merge/3 such that its third argument is an
indeterminate merge of its first two arguments.
(All three arguments may be thought of as streams.) In
addition it must be the case that if an input stream
already has some value in it, that value must be passed
to the output stream within a bounded number of steps.
The solution I propose is rather strong. It ensures
that if and when an input is present at the head of an
input stream, it will be the first or the second
subsequent output of the merge process. It does this by
ensuring that if anelement is popped off a stream and
there is an element on the other then that is popped
off too.
merge(X?, A.Y, A.Z):- merge(X?, Y?, Z).
merge(A.X, Y?, A.Z):- merge(X?, Y?, Z).
merge(A.X, B.Y, A.B.Z):- merge(X?, Y?, Z).
merge(A.X, B.Y, B.A.Z):- merge(X?, Y?, Z).
The reason this works is as follows. Because there is
only one occurrence of X in the head of the first clause
and it is write-protected, it can only match a variable.
Therefore the first clause is a candidate clause iff the
first stream is empty and the second has an element in it
(assuming that in the call both the streams are write
protected). Symmetrically for the second. The third and
fourth clauses ensure there is no built in bias between the
two streams.
This hinges on an understanding of the '?' read-only
annotation in Concurrent Prolog. My understanding of this
annotation is that if a term with that annotaion is unified
against another term than this unification succeeds iff
the first term is already instantiated (and normal unification
would succeed) or else the first term is a uninstantiated and
the other is a read-only variable or a variable.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 85 16:50:07 pst
From: Newton@CIT-Vax (Mike Newton)
AT1 was designed as an extension to Prolog that would
allow the user to combine Logical and Functional
programming notations in one program. Unlike Loglisp,
the language that was extended was Prolog. In fact,
the extension is conservative up to the use of the
arrow and quote symbols (All Prolog programs that use
neither '=>' nor '#' as functors will run identically
in the new language).
The extensions were in the form of rewrite rules:
a(args.a) => b(args.b) :- c(args.c)
which meant that when rewriting a term with head 'a',
one could rewrite it to the term 'b', if the Prolog
goals 'c' were satisfiable. In all cases arity has
to agree -- if 'a(foo,blah)' were being rewritten
it would have to match a rewrite rule with a head of
the form a/2.
In addition, the monadic rewrite arrow is added. If
a Prolog goal has no monadic rewrite symbol, it is
treated as a normal Prolog goal to be proved. If,
however, it has a monadic rewrite symbol (not quoted),
the unifier will start rewriting this goal.
The programmer maintains control by the inclusion (or
absence) of monadic rewrite arrow within a rewrite rule.
Thus,
sick(tests) => sick(exams) :- true.
would cause only a single rewriting, whereas:
sick(tests) => =>sick(exams) :- true.
would cause rewriting to be continued.
Much of the effort in the project involved designing a
clean semantics that was usable (and controllable). I
will not go into that here, but the curious can see:
Technical Report 5172:TR:85
Caltech Computer Science
Caltech 256-80
Pasadena, CA 91125
Unfortunately, they charge $4 for a copy!
During the process of checking the proposed language,
I built an interpreter that runs under Prolog. A copy
of this has been put in the [SU-SCORE]::<Prolog> directory
as well as several samples of AT1 code (1 large example
and several small test cases).
The technical report mentioned above also contains a
section on the compilation of AT1 code using an extension
of Warren's abstract instruction set. This implementation
of this is currently being investigated.
[ {SCORE:}<Prolog>AT1←Bigger.txt ! large maze example
AT1←Smaller.txt ! smaller examples
AT1←Interpreter.pl ! the vehicle ]
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂28-Feb-85 1358 MARJORIE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Tedit
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Feb 85 13:58:42 PST
Date: Thu 28 Feb 85 13:56:12-PST
From: Marjorie Maxwell <MARJORIE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Tedit
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
There are TEDIT manuals for Harmony now available at the Ventura
Hall receptionist's desk.
-------
∂28-Feb-85 1422 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:YM@SU-AI.ARPA CS 298-3
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Feb 85 14:21:55 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 28 Feb 85 14:09:05-PST
Date: 28 Feb 85 1406 PST
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: CS 298-3
To: aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
CS Colloquium
Panelists: I. Adler, UCB; I. Lustis, Stanford;
N. Meggido, IBM; W. Murray, Stanford; J. Tomlin,
Ketron, Inc.
Moderator: E. Lawler, UCB
Panel Discussion of Karmarkar's Algorithm
4:00 - 6:00 pm
Wednesday, 6 March 1985
60 Evans Hall
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
∂28-Feb-85 2216 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA CS colloquium March 5 <= correction, it's Warren and prolog on tuesday.
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Feb 85 22:16:17 PST
Date: Thu 28 Feb 85 22:13:24-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: CS colloquium March 5 <= correction, it's Warren and prolog on tuesday.
To: ALL-COLLOQ@SU-SCORE.ARPA, TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FACULTY@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
MILTON@SRI-AI.ARPA, MORGENSTERN@SRI-CSL.ARPA
Twenty-eight days hath this February, so that Tuesday, and the CS colloquium
is March 5th, and not on the 4th, as mistakenly announced.
Dave WARREN, of Quintus, will talk on PROLOG, of which he is both an original
implementor and a reimplementor of an industrial strength version, as well
as a consultant to the Japanese 5th generation project. He will also
present an application, CHAT, which processes natural language queries
against a database, and is of course wholly written in PROLOG.
And there will be juice in MJH at 3:45! Thanks to Karen Scholz and the Pony.
Gio
-------
∂28-Feb-85 2251 CLT Seminar in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics
To: "@DIS.DIS[1,CLT]"@SU-AI.ARPA
Speaker: Prof. Joel Berman, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Title: Truth, fixed-points and clones
Time: Tuesday, March 5, 1985 at 4:15-5:30 P.M.
Place: Room 381-T, Math Corner, Stanford
Abstract:
Several examples are presented of propositional logics for which there
is a partially ordered set P and a natural correspondence between the
sentences of the logic and the family of monotonic operations on P.
Also presented is a general result which guarantees, for partially
ordered sets P and Q, that Q is isomorphic to the set of fixed-points
of some monotonic function on P. These results are used to amplify a
recent paper by Albert Visser, "Four-valued semantics and the liar".
The talk represents work done jointly with W.J.Blok.
∂01-Mar-85 0840 JOHN@SU-CSLI.ARPA Daniel Sagalowicz
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Mar 85 08:40:46 PST
Date: Fri 1 Mar 85 08:38:32-PST
From: John Perry <JOHN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Daniel Sagalowicz
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: Sagalowicz@SRI-AI.ARPA
I have asked Daniel Sagalowicz to serve as a consultant, preparing a
report on computation at CSLI which I will use together with other
sources of information and advice in making a number of decisions that
need to be made between now and this summer.
Daniel is now with Teknowledge; he was the Assistant Director of the
AI Center at SRI under Nils Nilsson at the time the original proposal
was prepared, and I learned then to value his judgement very highly.
The main issues on which I hope Daniel can offer some useful advice are:
1. the optimal size and shape of our steady state
computational environment given the present budgetary
assumptions and research goals;
2. the staffing requirements that this entails;
3. a number of specific questions.
Daniel's advice will be in addition to, not in place of, valuable
counsel from the staff and researchers.
Daniel will be talking to a number of you, and I would appreciate it
if you would be as helpful to him in every way as you possible can
be.
John
-------
∂01-Mar-85 0844 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA SOCRATES: Update--Important Please Read
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Mar 85 08:44:20 PST
Date: Fri 1 Mar 85 08:43:12-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: SOCRATES: Update--Important Please Read
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I have just tried my personal SOCRATES account and I was able to get on
during the day. It appears that now those who already have their SOCRATES
accounts should be able to search anytime of the day or night.
For those of you who did not obtain SOCRATES accounts because you could not
use them during the day, you may want to get one now. SOCRATES is the online
catalog to materials which have been added to the database since 1972.
In the near future, the libraries will be closing all catalogs. That means
that all new materials will only be accessible through the online catalog.
If you are interested in obtaining an account, come by the Math/CS Library
to fill out a form and pick up your account number. If you are planning to
come by the library to get an account, please send me a message first with
the subject SOCRATES so that I can be sure to have enought forms on hand.
I have also heard that people with ITS accounts can also access SOCRATES
with these accounts at no charge. I HAVE NOT VERIFIED THIS AND WOULD NOT
RECOMMEND USING A PERSONAL ITS ACCOUNT TO SEARCH SOCRATES UNLESS YOU HAVE
ALREADY SEEN AN OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT EXPLAINING THIS.
If you have any questions about SOCRATES and how to search it, send them
to me Library@Score.
Harry Llull
Math/CS Library
-------
∂01-Mar-85 0901 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Bravo!
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Mar 85 09:00:52 PST
Date: Fri 1 Mar 85 08:59:47-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Bravo!
To: dek@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Don, You and your curriculum committee performed much beyond the
call of duty in completely re-organizing our course offerings
and numberings. It's particularly helpful for someone like me,
being new here, to start off next year with a typically Knuthian,
rationalized, cleaned-up system. I happen to know that you
stepped in to rewrite catalog course descriptions in many instances
in which these descriptions were not forthcoming from those sources
who probably owed them to the committee. We all appreciate this
effort very much. -Nils
-------
∂01-Mar-85 0905 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 5
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Mar 85 09:03:15 PST
Return-Path: <chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Thu 28 Feb 85 17:44:56-PST
Received: from ucbkim.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.42)
id AA19000; Wed, 27 Feb 85 16:14:21 pst
Received: by ucbkim.ARPA (4.24/4.27)
id AA23696; Wed, 27 Feb 85 16:15:29 pst
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 85 16:15:29 pst
From: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8502280015.AA23696@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbkim@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 5
Cc: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley
ReSent-Date: Fri 1 Mar 85 09:02:03-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Spring 1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
TIME: Tuesday, March 5, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
(followed by)
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Hubert Dreyfus, Department of Philosophy, UC
Berkeley
TITLE: ``Varieties of Phenomenology: Husserl, Heidegger
and Merleau-Ponty''
A tutorial review of the three most important accounts of
intentionality in recent continental philosophy, with emphasis on
their relevance to current theories of mental representation.
Edmund Husserl begins the phenomenological concern with inten-
tionality. In his earlier work, The LOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS, he
holds a view similar to Searle's that intentional content type
individuates mental acts. Later, in IDEAS, he changes to a posi-
tion, which he calls ``cognitive science,'' in which mental
representations are held to be hierarchies of strict rules,
involved in all intelligent activity. I take this to be an early
version of the computational view of the mind.
Husserl's account leads to two important counter-views.
Martin Heidegger in BEING AND TIME argues that intentional states
do not play the central role in intelligent behavior Husserl sup-
posed, and that even in those cases where intentional states are
involved their intentional content can not be treated as abstract
structures. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, like Heidegger, argues for a
primitive form of intentionality which does not involve mental
representation, but whereas Heidegger is primarily interested in
an account of action and its social setting, Merleau-Ponty bases
his critique on a phenomenology of perception and bodily skills.
Together, Heidegger's and Merleau-Ponty's work constitutes
the most powerful critique of cognitivism so far offered.
------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
March 12: Ned Block, CSLI
March 19: Janet Fodor, CSLI
March 26: George Lakoff, Linguistics Dept, UC Berkeley
April 2: Lucy Suchman, Xerox PARC
April 9: Jerry Fodor, Philosophy Dept, UC Berkeley
April 16: Mark Johnson, Philosophy Dept, So. Illinois University
April 23: David Dowty, Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences
April 30: Herbert H. Clark, Psychology Dept, Stanford University.
------------------------------------------
∂01-Mar-85 1130 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Missing Qumes
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Mar 85 11:29:11 PST
Date: Fri 1 Mar 85 11:26:52-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Missing Qumes
To: bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA, folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
We are still missing two Qume terminals.
If you have a Qume that is not in Ventura, Casita, or the trailers,
please check it and send me either its department tag number,
its serial number, or its location.
Many thanks to the following for already doing so.
Michael Bratman
John Etchemendy
Sol Feferman
Frederic Van der Elst
Brad Horak
John Perry
-Emma Pease
-------
∂01-Mar-85 1443 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA Tuesday meeting
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Mar 85 14:43:08 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Fri 1 Mar 85 14:39:33-PST
Date: Fri 1 Mar 85 14:39:54-PST
From: Phil Cohen <PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Tuesday meeting
To: NL4: ;
this Tuesday, the 5th, from 12:45 - 2:30, in the Ventura seminar room,
Dietmar Zaefferer will survey some work on interrogatives and
questions, as well as present some of his own results.
See you there,
Phil
-------
∂01-Mar-85 1506 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WELCH@Ames-VMSB SIGBIG
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Mar 85 15:04:41 PST
Received: from Ames-VMSB.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 1 Mar 85 14:53:33-PST
Date: 1 Mar 1985 1328-PST
From: WELCH at Ames-VMSB
Subject: SIGBIG
To: SUPER at SU-SCORE.ARPA.ARPA
Reply-To: WELCH@Ames-VMSB
"SIGBIG" Special Interest Committee
For Large High Speed Computers
Meetings on the first Wednesday of each month at 7:30 PM. Speakers
who can give insights to various aspects of SUPERCOMPUTING are
featured each month.
For information contact Mary Fowler, Chairperson (415) 694-6515
Arpanet: MER.SIGBIG@Ames-VMSB
or Mike Austin, Publ. Chair (415) 423-8446
Next meeting:
Wednesday, March 6,1985, 7:30 PM
Speaker: Richard Friedman of Pacific Sierra Research
Location: Pacific Sierra Research Corporation
2855 Telegraph Avenue 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA.
Directions: East on Ashby, North onto Telegraph
Previous Meetings:
1-4-84 George Michael/LLNL Survey of Supercomputing
2-1-84 Peter Denning/NASA Supercomputing circa 1995
3-7-84 Kent Koeninger/TDC Cray X-MP Performance studies
4-4-84 Cathy Schulbach/NASA Data Flow Machines
5-2-84 Leonard Shar/ELXSI Description of the ELXSI
6-6-84 Raul Mendez/Naval PGS Japanese Supercomputers
7-11-84 John Killeen/NMFE Supercomputers in Fusion Research
8-1-84 Eugene Miya/NASA-Ames Using Multiple Processors
11-7-84 John Roberts/Amdahl Description of the Fujitsu VP-200
12-5-84 Norm Hardy/TYMSHARE Early Timesharing on Supercomputers
01-09-85 Ken Stevens/AmesResearch The ILLIAC IV Supercomputer
02-06-85 Tony Hasegawa/ G.E. A Computational Fluid Dynamics Model
Tape-recordings of most of these meetings may be
obtained in exchange for a tape cassette or $5.00 by contacting:
Mary Fowler (415) 694-6515
------
∂01-Mar-85 1528 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:yao.pa@Xerox.ARPA Next BATS
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Mar 85 15:28:43 PST
Received: from Xerox.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 1 Mar 85 15:02:09-PST
Received: from Cabernet.MS by ArpaGateway.ms ; 01 MAR 85 13:52:15 PST
Date: 1 Mar 85 13:52:01 PST
From: yao.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Next BATS
To: theory-b@UCBERNIE.ARPA, aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Cc: yao.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Please reserve Friday, March 15 on your calender for the next BATS to be
held at Xerox PARC in Palo Alto. The speakers and talk titles are as
follows; abstracts and other details will come later. -- Frances
Andrei Broder (DEC): Vote Early and Vote Often
Ronald Graham (AT&T): The Radon Transform
Joe Halpern (IBM): What Does It Mean for Rewrite Rules to be "Correct"?
Andrew Yao (Stanford): Separating the Polynomial-Time Hierarchy by
Oracles
∂01-Mar-85 1550 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Capturing SOCRATES records into your own personal file
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Mar 85 15:50:19 PST
Date: Fri 1 Mar 85 15:10:17-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Capturing SOCRATES records into your own personal file
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
An easy way to capture SOCRATES records into your own file is to mail the
hits to your own account. One can mail up to 2000 citations at one time
The command is "Display 1/5 (sets one through five) to account". Socrates
will then come back and ask you your mailing address. In this way you
can store on your personal account files based on various subject searches.
It should also be possible to use the photo command if it is available on
your system. Has anyone used the photo command with SOCRATES yet?
Harry Llull
-------
∂02-Mar-85 1543 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Mar 85 15:42:52 PST
Date: Sat 2 Mar 85 15:39:04-PST
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
To: PhD@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I received the following proposal (from a PhD student) for a possible
modification to the written comprehensive exam. The author asked me to
circulate the proposal and collect comment. If you have comments or
questions, please send them to jf@score. It may take a while for me to
answer your questions, because I will have to consult the author.
Thanks,
Joan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To: JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Question:
Should the format of the comp exam allow for the requirement that
certain questions MUST be answered to some degree to get minimum
competency in that area?
(a) FULL credit on those questions would not be required;
Half credit on EACH might be.
(b) The requirement might be "at least half credit each on
3 out of 4" key questions.
The minimum overall pass for PhDs should be lowered somwhat to allow
for the fact that students are less free to optimize their scores.
(The Masters pass is not affected.)
If this format is to be put in effect, it should be announced ASAP.
Why this question is being asked:
(1) It appears possible that something like this requirement has been
implicit in the minds of some committee members. That is, there may
have been a tendency to deny minimum competency on an exam where an
important question is either not answered at all, or poorly answered.
A student, not expecting this, may "optimize" by spending all or
nearly all of his or her time on other questions.
Students should not be "blind-sided" by unstated evaluation criteria,
so implicit requirements (if they exist) should be made explicit.
(2) The purpose of the comp may be not be realized as fully if
students think they can ignore certain areas completely in their
preparation.
-------
∂02-Mar-85 1707 BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Mar 85 17:00:17 PST
Date: Sat 2 Mar 85 16:54:43-PST
From: Alexandre Bronstein <BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
To: JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: phd@SU-SCORE.ARPA, faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>" of Sat 2 Mar 85 15:39:50-PST
Joan,
I have been listening silently to this Comp discussion for a long
time now without saying anything. Not because i had nothing to say, but
because having passed the comp a while ago, my comments could have appeared
out of place.
But now this has overflowed my patience: I come from a country
where students have succeeded in destroying the University system by
fighting, bargaining and "winning" easier and easier exams. Net result?
Their degree is worth little more than the paper you can buy in rolls at
the supermarket.
Put people back at work studying COMP SCI instead of studying
how to "optimize" exams, or how to devise the perfect comp. And let's
keep our priorities straight.
Alex Bronstein
-------
∂02-Mar-85 1845 BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Mar 85 18:45:45 PST
Date: Sat 2 Mar 85 18:43:48-PST
From: Alexandre Bronstein <BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
To: phd@SU-SCORE.ARPA, faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Joan, and readers of my previous message,
In my previous message, "Put people back to work" should have been "Let's
put people back to work".
The first phrasing might make it sound like I was holding Joan responsible
for all this, which is not the case.
Alex
-------
∂02-Mar-85 1852 SANKAR@SU-SCORE.ARPA Comprehensive Exams
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Mar 85 18:52:27 PST
Date: Sat 2 Mar 85 18:44:58-PST
From: Sriram Sankar <SANKAR@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Comprehensive Exams
To: bronstein@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: phd@SU-SCORE.ARPA, faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I agree with you, Alex, and have also seen such things happening. i.e. fighting
bargaining, etc. and "winning" easier and easier exams.
Things are presently nice out here, I only hope it remains that way, however,
I do not feel that discussions, etc. should be banned, only the aim of such
discussions should be to get better quality exams in the future, rather than
in getting more students passed.
Not passing must be considered a positive experience rather than a reason for
depression.
I have not yet passed a qual, though have attempted quals in more than one area
but I seen no reason to complain. It has been conducted very well and fairly,
with the aim of creating top-quality students. And I know that when I pass, I
will have a sense of satisfaction that I will never get by lowering standards.
Sriram.
-------
∂02-Mar-85 1901 PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Mar 85 19:01:49 PST
Date: Sat 2 Mar 85 19:00:03-PST
From: C. Papadimitriou <PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
To: JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: PhD@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>" of Sat 2 Mar 85 15:39:41-PST
I don't think we need more rules,
and recent experience shows taht perceived rules cause problems.
I find the comp concept at Stanford basically sound.
A committee with sensitivity to both maintenance of standards and the
well being of students, and collective competence in all areas,
sounds enough of a guarantee. If not, recent events show that community
feedback ***in excep[tional cases*** can help.
---Christos.
-------
∂02-Mar-85 1931 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ARK@SU-AI.ARPA Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Mar 85 19:31:15 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sat 2 Mar 85 19:26:14-PST
Date: 02 Mar 85 1923 PST
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Exam
To: PhD@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I do not believe that the proposal that Joan distributed is in the best
interests of the students taking the comprehensive examination nor of the
department as a whole.
There are two major exams that students must pass before doing the
dissertation. The first is the comprehensive exam. It is specifically a
breadth exam. It shows that the student has a broad knowledge of all of
computer science, including some programming experience demonstrated by
the programming project. As such, it should be clear that a student
should demonstrate minimum competence in each area as well as show some
overall strength of knowledge by an overall passing score. The strategy I
personally recommend for passing the comprehensive is to briefly brush up
on your strong areas, but mainly to concentrate on your weak areas. That
is the idea behind a breadth exam, demonstrate you know something even in
your weak areas. The qualifying exam (or qual) demonstrates depth of
knowledge in your area of interest.
In demonstrating a broad competence, one should understand the basic
concepts of a field. Were the exam to cover precisely and completely the
basic concepts of each field, we would expect this to be a clear measure
of competence. However, it is usually necessary to test for knowledge of
basic concepts through problems that involve some knowledge beyond the
basic concepts. As such, it would be reasonable to expect that everyone
would be familiar with some of this knowledge but it would not be
reasonable to expect familiarity with all of this knowledge. Perhaps this
understanding is what's needed in formulating the standards of minimal
competence in future comprehensive exams.
Arthur
∂02-Mar-85 2212 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:pratt@Navajo repeat of earlier message on CS vs. information processing
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Mar 85 22:11:48 PST
Received: from Navajo ([36.8.0.48].#Internet) by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sat 2 Mar 85 22:12:03-PST
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 85 21:11:14 pst
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@Navajo>
Subject: repeat of earlier message on CS vs. information processing
To: faculty@score
I sent the following to faculty@score a couple of months ago. This rerun
is intended both for emphasis and as a reminder.
-v
The universities are the pinnacle of excellence, or of the ivory tower
syndrome, in the area of information gathering, organizing, storing, and
distribution. For the last few millennia they have been doing it manually.
Now there are machines to help. The idea that somehow the computer science
departments will be at the center of this revolution underestimates the
size, scope, and significance of the revolution.
The computer science departments will be to information processing as the
mathematics department is to calculation, and the physics department to
working with mechanical and optical equipment. They will have undergraduate
programs, not to cater to the revolution, nor to protect any turf (the
thought is ludicrous), but because as we streamline what we know and teach,
it becomes easier to teach it to progressively younger people.
Some of us will want to carry information down in this fashion, some to
go back up for more. Many will want to timeshare these two activities.
The department should above all preserve the flexibility needed for both
of these things to happen.
-v
∂03-Mar-85 1429 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA IBM Grant
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Mar 85 14:29:02 PST
Date: Sun 3 Mar 85 14:28:57-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: IBM Grant
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
On the basis of suggestions sent to me so far, I have decided to
split the IBM grant money ($12,500 each) between proposals by
David Cheriton and Bruce Buchanan/Ted Shortliffe. David will
be developing a new course on distributed systems and office
automation, and Bruce and Ted will be developing a new course
in advanced medical decision analysis. I will write IBM a letter
describing our plans for these courses and will then leave it to
David and Bruce/Ted to describe how the courses worked out. Both courses
will be offered during Spring 1985. -Nils
-------
∂03-Mar-85 1447 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Course Evaluations
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Mar 85 14:47:02 PST
Date: Sun 3 Mar 85 14:35:38-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Course Evaluations
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA
The Dean's office wants me to remind everyone who is teaching this
quarter to be sure that students are given an opportunity to fill
out course evaluation forms. I am told that experience in past years
indicates that we shouldn't wait for the ASSU to come around handing
out the forms, but that we should make sure we get them and hand them
out and that they find their way somehow to Betty Scott. Thanks, -Nils
-------
∂03-Mar-85 1539 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Dantzig Honor
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Mar 85 15:39:07 PST
Date: Sun 3 Mar 85 15:26:33-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Dantzig Honor
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I learned from George Dantzig late last week that he had just
been elected to the National Academy of Engineering. Professor
Dantzig is already a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Congratulations, George! -Nils
-------
∂04-Mar-85 0849 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Baby girl
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Mar 85 08:49:15 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 4 Mar 85 08:36:33-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 4 Mar 85 10:23:36 cst
Message-Id: <8503041522.AA22729@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: from csnet-relay.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 4 Mar 85 09:22:59 cst
Received: from ibm-sj by csnet-relay.csnet id a008029; 4 Mar 85 10:16 EST
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 85 15:50:08 IST
From: Martin Charles Golumbic <golumbic.haifasc%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: theory@wisc-rsch.ARPA
Subject: Baby girl
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
Marty Golumbic and Lynn Pollak are delighted to announce
the birth of Talia Rachel on February 24, 1985 in Haifa, Israel.
Baby, parents, and big sisters Elana Meira and Yaela Naomi are
all doing well and enjoying being together.
∂04-Mar-85 0939 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA SOCRATES searching technique: How to get around the two character limitation.
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Mar 85 09:39:33 PST
Date: Mon 4 Mar 85 09:26:34-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: SOCRATES searching technique: How to get around the two character limitation.
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, cn.sci@SU-FORSYTHE.ARPA, fy@SU-AI.ARPA
On SOCRATES when you are searching in one of the indexes such as the title,
subject etc, you have to have at list three characters in your search for
it to have content. One can get around this by searching phrase indexes or
browse. For example:
If you wanted to know what the library had on the game Go, you can not search
fin t go or fin s go because there are only two characters. The system will
come back with the message -- no content to your search. If you knew the
subject heading that the libraries used for the game go you could do a subject
pharase search beginning with the term go. However it is very unlikely that
anyone would know the exact subject phrase. If you knew a specific title
that was more then the word go, you could search the title phrase and find
out what the correct subject phrase is.
However I have discovered that the BROWSE command can overcome a lot of this.
If you serch on SOCRATES-- BROWSE S GO you will get a search that will
go into the subject index and you will come up with the subject heading that
contains all the titles in the database with the game Go as its subject.
By the way, we do have a number of Go books in the Math/CS Library.
The Browse command can also be helpful if you are searching single word
titles. If you search on a single work title with Fin T you may come up
with a large number of hits. If you are positive that the single word
is the only word in the title and there is no subtitle, you can place a
period (.) at the end of the word which acts as opposite to a truncation.
However you can also go into the Browse command and quickly find your
one word title.
Harry Llull
-------
∂04-Mar-85 0950 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Mar 85 09:50:09 PST
Date: Mon 4 Mar 85 09:39:48-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New Books in the Math/CS Library
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Implementations of Prolog by Campbell QA76.73.P76I56 1984 c.2
Method and Tactics in Cognitive Science edited by Kintsch, Miller & Polson
BF311.M4494 1984 c.3
Software Portablility and Standards by Dahlstrand QA76.6.D332 1984
The Handbook of Computers and Computing by Seidmand and Flores QA76.5H3544
1984 c.2
Fortan 77: a Structured, Disciplined Style 2nd ed. by Davis and Hoffman
QA76.73.F25D385 1983 c.2
Thinking Forth; a language and philosophy for solving problems by Brodie
QA76.73.F24B763 1984
Using the UCSD p-System by Buckner, Cookson, Hinxman, and Tate QA76.6U85
1984
Computer Project Management by Bentley QA76.9.M3B45 1982
HLlull
-------
∂04-Mar-85 0958 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: MARCH 8, 1985
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Mar 85 09:58:15 PST
Date: Mon 4 Mar 85 09:45:17-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: MARCH 8, 1985
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Folks,
There will be NO Siglunch this Friday. Thanx,
Paula
-------
∂04-Mar-85 1142 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Lunch
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Mar 85 11:42:40 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 4 Mar 85 11:32:44-PST
Date: 04 Mar 85 1130 PST
From: Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty Lunch
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FFL@SU-AI.ARPA
Regular Faculty Lunch is scheduled for Tuesday, March 5, 12:15 , 146 Jacks Hall.
Guest will be Prof. Robert White, who will talk about relationships with
Electrical Engineering.
∂04-Mar-85 1342 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA TGIF
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Mar 85 13:42:11 PST
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 4 Mar 85 13:29:15-PST
Date: Mon 4 Mar 85 13:25:43-PST
From: Peter Karp <KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: TGIF
To: csd@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
This weeks TGIF will be special for two reasons. First, it is the
second to last TGIF of the quarter (but not many people show up
during dead week..). Second, we will be giving a special send-off
to the Stanford programming team of Mike Dixon, Mike Hewett, Vivek
Sarkar, and Joe Weening. They head off to New Orleans on Monday
March 11 to compete in the "International Student Programming Contest".
So on Friday let's congratulate them for their past victories and
wish them luck on Monday!
TGIFs Brought To You By...
Peter, Ramsey, Arun
-------
∂04-Mar-85 1404 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Comprehensives
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Mar 85 14:01:43 PST
Date: Mon 4 Mar 85 13:59:17-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Comprehensives
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I want to thank Jeff Ullman and the "Comprehensive Committee" for
their hard work in organizing, administering and grading the
Winter Quarter Comprehensive. I've been reading some of the
discussion among students and faculty regarding the comprehensives,
and nothing I've read convinces me that Jeff's view of the matter
(expressed in various of his replies) is anything but extraordinarily
fair. Being responsible for these exams is hard and delicate work,
and the CSD is fortunate to have it performed so well. -Nils
-------
∂04-Mar-85 1616 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley Linguistics Lunchbag Colloquium--March 7
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Mar 85 16:14:58 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.42)
id AA09684; Mon, 4 Mar 85 16:07:26 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA10643; Mon, 4 Mar 85 16:03:04 pst
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 85 16:03:04 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8503050003.AA10643@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: Linguistics Lunchbag Colloquium--March 7
Cc: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
BERKELEY LINGUISTICS LUNCHBAG COLLOQUIUM
DAY: Thursday March 7, 1985
TIME: 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 200 Bldg. T-4
SPEAKER: Dr. Livia Polanyi, English Department, University of Amsterdam;
BBN Laboratories
TITLE: ``Modelling Discourse Syntactic and Semantic Structure''
ABSTRACT: The ultimate goal of the research to be discussed is to characterize
the structural and semantic relationships obtaining among individual clauses in
natural discourse. In this talk,a formal linguistic model of discourse structure
will be sketched which is designed to account for the ability of language users
to assign proper semantic interpretations to clauses in naturally occurring
interactively constructed talk despite the interruptions, resumptions, repairs,
and other disfluencies which characterize performance.
∂05-Mar-85 0243 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #7
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Mar 85 02:43:21 PST
Date: Monday, March 4, 1985 7:50PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #7
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Tuesday, 5 Mar 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 7
Today's Topics:
Announcement - Dr. Dobb's Journal & Talk,
Implementation - New Engine & nrev/2 & C-Prolog "Bug",
& Bounded Merge in CP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 07:34:37 PST
From: decvax!mcnc!BTS@Berkeley
Subject: Prolog in Dr. Dobb's Journal
Dr. Dobb's Journal for March is a "Special Prolog
Issue". Only three articles on Prolog, but there
are lots of ads about Prologs for small systems.
-- Bruce T. Smith
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1985 14:40:44-PST
From: (Karl Puder) Puder%Bach.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
Subject: Engine
If you really mean David H. D. Warren's SRI report 309
(An Abstract Prolog Instruction Set), the copying of
permanent variables before the deallocate is done by
having the compiler generate put←unsafe←value (and
unify←local←value) instructions where appropriate.
-- Karl.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Feb 1985 21:05-EST
From: Saumya Debray <Debray%SUNY-SB@CSNet-relay.arpa>
Subject: The Warren Prolog Engine and nrev/2
With regard to Clocksin's query about the WPE, we have
an implementation of it here at Stony Brook (with, I
should add, an enlarged instruction set that incorporates
some optimizations, arithmetic, cut &c.). The query
nrev(X,[1,2]) works, producing X = [2,1] as the answer.
It's true that permanent variables in an environment have
to be saved before that environment is deallocated.
Actually, only those permanent variables whose first
occurrence is neither in the head nor inside a structure
need to be so saved (variables occurring in the head have
to occur somewhere deeper in the stack, while variables
occurring in a structure are allocated on the heap). Such
variables are called "unsafe", and may have to be moved to
the heap before the activation record is deallocated. The
instruction that does this in the WPE is the
"put←unsafe←value".
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 07:16:10 PST
From: (Ran Ever-Hadani) RAAN%TECHUNIX.BITNET@SRI-Unix
Subject: A bug with general interest in C-Prolog 1.4a
Given is the following goal:
(*once←detract* is a detract that succeeds only once)
assert(a),a,once←detract(a),assert(a),fail.
Assuming an initially empty data base, the first *assert*
will add the clause *a.* to the data base, the *a* will
succeed, the *detract* will delete it, the second *assert*
will add a new one, the second attempt to *once←detract*
will fail, and finally control would try to match another
*a.*.
At this point there are two possibilities:
1) Since a new *a.* has been asserted, it would succeed.
2) After the first time *a* succeeds, it would be
marked somewhere that there are no more *a*'s and even
though another one was added in the meanwhile, the second
attempt will fail.
There are arguments for defining it either way. Unfortunately,
C-Prolog 1.4a takes the first alternative with debug on, and
the second with debug off, which caused me a hell of a headache
trying to figure out why my program does not behave the same
with debug on and off.
The solution that worked for me was to replace every such *a,*
in my program with *clause(a,true),* which takes the first way
with debug on and off.
If someone out there knows who maintains C-Prolog, I will
appreciate it if he passes my letter on.
-- Ran Ever-Hadani
Technion, Haifa, Israel
------------------------------
Date: Sat 2 Mar 85 09:46:14-PST
From: Pereira@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: C-Prolog
I wrote C-Prolog, but do not maintain it as such (the last
changes, to create version 1.5, were made over one year ago).
As to that problem, it is a ``feature'', not a bug. The
intended behavior is that provided by non-debug mode, but the
way the debugger is implemented makes it rather difficult to
make debug mode behave in the same way. To make the two modes
consistent would either require a completely new debugger or
make nondebug execution much less efficient. Sorry...
-- Fernando
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 85 12:55:33 -0200
From: Ehud Shapiro <UDI%Wisdom.Bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
Subject: Vijai Saraswat's Bounded merge in CP
Unfortunately, Vijay Saraswat's program for bounded
merge in Concurrent Prolog does not work. Before
explaining why, let me show several solutions that do
work.
Since the abtsract execution model of Concurrent Prolog
(and Flat Concurrent Prolog) does not imply clause
ordering, it seems that bounded merge cannot be specified
in it without extralogical facilities. One such facility
stability: a *stable* Concurrent Prolog machine always
picks the first clause for reduction, if several clauses
with an empty guard (or with a trivial guard, in FCP) are
applicable. On a stable machine, the following program
will merge two streams fairly:
merge([X|Xs],Ys,[X|Zs]) :- merge(Ys,Xs?,Zs).
merge(Xs,[Y|Ys],[Y|Zs]) :- merge(Ys?,Xs,Zs).
merge([],Ys,Ys).
Since it alternates the priorities of the two streams.
Another solution is to rely on the fairness of the
underlying Concurrent Prolog machine. Under any
reasonable definition of a fair Concurrent Prolog
machine, the naive merge,
merge([X|Xs],Ys,[X|Zs]) :- merge(Xs?,Ys,Zs).
merge(Xs,[Y|Ys],[Y|Zs]) :- merge(Xs,Ys?,Zs).
merge([],Ys,Ys).
merge(Xs,[],Xs).
would be fair. However, implementing a stable machine is
much easier then implementing a fair machine. And since
fairness can be achieved by higher-level software on top
of a stable machine, it seems to be the better implementation
direction (all implementations of Concurrent
Prolog and Flat Concurrent Prolog I know of are stable).
Another solution does not rely on stability or fairness, but
uses the meta-logical time-dependent predicate var(X), which
succeeds if X is an unbounded variable:
merge([X|Xs],[Y|Ys],[X,Y|Zs]) :- merge(Xs?,Ys?,Zs).
merge([X|Xs],Ys,[X|Zs]) :- var(Ys) | merge(Xs?,Ys,Zs).
merge(Xs,[Y|Ys],[Y|Zs]) :- var(Xs) | merge(Xs,Ys?,Zs).
merge([],Ys,Ys).
merge(Xs,[],Xs).
It is a matter of taste which extralogical feature to
rely on --- stability or meta-logical predicates ---
to ensure fairness. I prefer the former.
The following is Vijay's solution, recoded in Edinburgh
syntax:
merge(X?, [A|Y], [A|Z]):- merge(X?, Y?, Z).
merge([A|X], Y?, [A|Z]):- merge(X?, Y?, Z).
merge([A|X], [B|Y], [A,B|Z]):- merge(X?, Y?, Z).
merge([A|X], [B|Y], [B,A|Z]):- merge(X?, Y?, Z).
The program is similar in spirit to our third solution,
but attempts to use read-only references instead of the
var(X) predicate. This does not work, simply because the
unification of two read-only variables (or to be more
precise, two variables references as read-only) suspends
until both are instantiated to non-variable terms. Hence,
if merge is called with the first and second arguments
read-only, as it should, the first two clauses will never
unify.
By the way, when in doubt whether your proof of correctness
of a program is correct, run your program and see if it works.
Alternatively, you may try to prove that your proof of
correctness is correct. However, when in doubt whether your
proof of correctness of the proof of correctness is correct,
only God can help...
-- Ehud Shapiro
p.s. There is a Concurrent Prolog compiler in the
Prolog library, together with a debugger, for those
of us who prefer not relying on God's help for
matters as mundane as debugging.
p.p.s I am sure it contains some bugs too... but
since it is written in Prolog, you can use the
Prolog debugger to debug it.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 85 23:21:00 pst
From: Tony Kusalik <Kusalik%UBC@CSNet-elay.arpa>
Subject: Bounded merge in Concurrent Prolog
I found Vijay's solution to the "bounded-wait merge"
problem in CP very interesting and appealing. It uses
the idea of testing for "variable" (as I did in my
"Bounded-Wait Merge..." paper, New Generation Computing
V2, N2), but through read-only annotations instead of
introducing a new meta-predicate. Vijay's solution will
work given MODIFIED semantics of CP; it does NOT work
with the original semantics.
In Shapiro's "A Subset of Concurrent Prolog ...", the case
of unifying two read-only variables (in the specification
of unification) is not explicitly addressed. The Concurrent
Prolog interpreter in that paper actually treats the
following two cases identically:
unify( some←atom?, Var? )
unify( Some←Var?, Var? )
Both fail (and hence suspend within the context of the
Concurrent Prolog program being run). To see this,
recall the definition of the 'unify' predicate within
the interpreter:
unify( X, Y ) :- (var( X ); var( Y )), !, X=Y.
unify( X?, Y ) :- !,
nonvar( X ), unify( X, Y ).
unify( X, Y? ) :- !,
nonvar( Y ), unify( X, Y ).
unify( [X|Xs], [Y|Ys] ) :- !,
unify( X, Y ), unify( Xs, Ys ).
unify( [], [] ) :- !.
unify( X, Y ) :-
X =.. [F|Xs], Y =.. [F|Ys], unify( Xs, Ys ).
Also recall that the read-only annotation is defined
as a post-fix unary operator. Then the resolution of
unify( Some←Var?, Var? )
proceeds as follows (CProlog execution trace):
| ?- trace, unify( Some←Var?, Var? ).
(2) 1 Call: unify(←0?,←4?) ?
(3) 2 Call: var(←0?) ?
(3) 2 Fail: var(←0?)
(4) 2 Call: var(←4?) ?
(4) 2 Fail: var(←4?)
(2) 1 Back to: unify(←0?,←4?) ?
(5) 3 Call: nonvar(←0) ?
(5) 3 Fail: nonvar(←0)
no
Here is a demonstration of the execution of Vijay's new
merge under Shapiro's Concurrent Prolog interpreter
(including CP trace):
| ?- [user].
|
| merge( X?, [A|Y], [A|Z] ) :- merge( X?, Y?, Z ).
| merge( [A|X], Y?, [A|Z] ) :- merge( X?, Y?, Z ).
| merge( [A|X], [B|Y], [A,B|Z] ) :- merge( X?, Y?, Z ).
| merge( [A|X], [B|Y], [B,A|Z] ) :- merge( X?, Y?, Z ).
| user consulted 488 bytes 0.28334 sec.
yes
| ?- cptraceall, solve(merge([foo|Strm1]?,Strm2?, MrgStrm)).
solve(0): merge([foo|←0]?,←8?,←12)
call(0): merge([foo|←0]?,←8?,←12)
unify(0): merge([foo|←0]?,←8?,←12),merge(←149?,[←150|←151],[←150|←152])
unify(0): merge([foo|←0]?,←8?,←12),merge([←149|←150],←151?,[←149|←152])
unify(0): merge([foo|←0]?,←8?,←12),merge([←149|←150]
,[←151|←152],[←149,←151|←153])
unify(0): merge([foo|←0]?,←8?,←12),merge([←149|←150]
,[←151|←152],[←151,←149|←153])
suspension(0): merge([foo|←0]?,←8?,←12)
*** cycles: 1
*** Deadlock detected. Locked processes:
merge([foo|←0]?,←8?,←12)
no
Chikayama and Ueda's Concurrent Prolog-to-Prolog compiler
behaves similarly:
| ?- [-'cp←compiler.plg'].
Concurrent PROLOG Compiler System Vers. 1.13 1984-09-12
Takashi Chikayama, Revision by A. Takeuchi and K. Ueda
cp←compiler.plg consulted 34388 bytes 15.4167 sec.
yes
| ?- trace, unify( Some←Var?, Var? ).
(2) 1 Call: unify(←0?,←4?) ?
(3) 2 Call: nonvar(←0?) ?
(3) 2 Exit: nonvar(←0?)
(4) 2 Call: nonvar(←4?) ?
(4) 2 Exit: nonvar(←4?)
(5) 2 Call: unify←nv(←0?,←4?) ?
(6) 3 Call: nonvar(←4) ?
(6) 3 Fail: nonvar(←4)
no
Also, Jacob Levy in his paper "A Unification Algorithm for
Concurrent Prolog (given @ Second International Logic
Programming Conference, Uppsala, July 1984) specifies that
the unification (in Concurrent Prolog) of two read-only
variables suspends. This is given in Table 3 of that paper.
Further, Colin Mierowsky of the Weizmann Institute in his
thesis on Flat Concurrent Prolog ("Design and Implementation
of Flat Concurrent Prolog," CS84-21, December 1984) specifies
that in Flat Concurrent Prolog the unification of two
read-only variables suspends. This is indicated in the
table at the top of page 33 of said paper.
The semantics of Concurrent Prolog may have undergone
some changes in the past several months, possibly even
regarding unification of two read-only variables.
The following is the most recent specification of
unification in Flat Concurrent Prolog that I have
(from Jacob Levy, 5-Feb-85):
H E A D
|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
| | TERM | VAR | RO |
|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
| TERM | unify←terms( | trail(HD) | suspend(HD) |
G| | GL,HD) | HD := REF(GL) | |
|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
O| VAR | trail(GL) | trail(HD) | trail(HD) |
| | GL := REF(HD) | HD := REF(GL) | HD := REF(GL) |
A|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
| RO | suspend(GL) | trail(HD) | trail(HD) |
L| | | HD := RO(GL) | HD := RO(GL) |
|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
(The right bottom square is the one of interest.) If this
change carries over to Concurrent Prolog, then Vijay's merge
program works. Otherwise .....
(I have advocated such a change since Jan/84.)
On this note, a few changes to the semantics of
Concurrent Prolog have been considered:
1) multiple attempts to commit for a given goal
2) no notification of instantiation of non-read-only
variables passed into guards
The people at Weizmann Institute are the best to comment
on the current status of these changes.
-- Tony Kusalik
------------------------------
Date: Fri 1 Mar 85 09:50:42-PST
From: Gio <Wiederhold@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Talk
Tuesday, March 5, 1985
at 4:15 in Terman Auditorium
PROLOG, DATABASES, AND NATURAL LANGUAGE ACCESS
David H.D. Warren
Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Prolog is a general purpose programming language based on logic.
It can be viewed either as an extension of pure Lisp, or as an
extension of a relational database query language. It was first
conceived in 1972, by Alain Colmerauer at the University of
Marseille. Since then, it has been used in a wide variety of
applications, including natural language processing, algebraic
symbol manipulation, compiler writing,architectural design,
VLSI circuit design, and expert systems. Prolog was chosen as
the initial kernel language for Japan's Fifth Generation
Computer Systems project, and the project's prototype Prolog
machine, PSI, has recently been unveiled in Tokyo.
In this talk, I will give an overview of the language, and then
focus on one particular application, a domain-independent system
for natural language question answering, called "CHAT". I will
compare the way Chat plans and executes a query with the query
optimization strategies of relational database systems such as
SYSTEM-R. Finally I will discuss the future prospects for Prolog
in the light of Japan's Fifth Generation project.
[ Dave WARREN, of Quintus, is both an original implementor and
a reimplementor of an industrial strength version of Prolog, as
well as a consultant to the Japanese 5th generation project.
He will also present an application, CHAT, which processes
natural language queries against a database, and is of course
wholly written in Prolog.
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂05-Mar-85 1143 FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA Phil. Dept. Colloquium
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Mar 85 11:43:47 PST
Date: Tue 5 Mar 85 11:41:02-PST
From: Eckart Forster <FORSTER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Phil. Dept. Colloquium
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT COLLOQUIUM
Speaker: Michael Bratman (Stanford)
Title: Five Grades of Intentional Involvement: Demystifying Commitment
Time: Friday, March 8, 3:15
Place: Philosophy Seminar Room 90-92Q
-------
∂05-Mar-85 1753 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 12
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Mar 85 17:53:21 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.42)
id AA23531; Tue, 5 Mar 85 17:46:50 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA00272; Tue, 5 Mar 85 17:54:05 pst
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 85 17:54:05 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8503060154.AA00272@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 12
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Spring 1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
TIME: Tuesday, March 12, 11:00 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
(followed by)
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Ned Block, CSLI and MIT
TITLE: ``A Reductionist Semantics''
There are two quite different families of approaches to seman-
tics: REDUCTIONIST approaches attempt to characterize the
semantic in non-semantic terms NON-REDUCTIONIST approaches are
more concerned with relations among meaningS than with the
nature of meaning itself. The non-reductionist approaches are
the more familiar ones (eg, Montague, the model- theoretic
aspect of situation semantics, Davidson, Katz). The reduction-
ist approaches come in 4 major categories:
1. Theories that reduce meaning to the mental (This is what is
common to Grice and Searle). 2. Causal semantics--theories
that see semantic values as derived from causal chains leading
from the world to our words. (Field's combination of Kripke
and Tarski) 3. Indicator semantics--theories that see natural
and non-natural meaning as importantly similar. Their paradigm
of meaning is the way the rings on the tree stump represent the
age of the tree when cut down. (Dretske/Stampe) 4. Functional
role semantics--theories that see meaning in terms of the func-
tional role of linguistic expressions in thought, reasoning,
and planning, and in general in the way they mediate between
sensory inputs and behavioral outputs.
After sketching the difference between the reductionist and
non- reductionist approaches, I will focus on functional role
semantics, a view that has independently arisen in philosophy
(where its sources are Wittgenstein's idea of meaning as use,
and pragmatism) and cognitive science (where it is known as
procedural semantics).
Instead of devoting the talk to trying to answer certain well
known criticisms of functionalist views, I will concentrate on
what one particular version of the doctrine can DO (if the cri-
ticisms can be answered): viz., illuminate acquisition of and
knowledge of meaning, principles of charity, how meaning is
relevant to explanation of behavior, the intrinsic/observer-
relative distinction, the relation between meaning and the
brain, and the relativity of meaning to representational sys-
tem. The point is to give a sense of the fertility and power
of the view, and so to provide a rationale for working on solu-
tions to its problems. Finally, I will sketch some reasons to
prefer functional role semantics to the other reductionist
theories.
A copy of a paper which the talk draws on will be in the cogni-
tive science library.
---------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
March 19: Janet Fodor, CSLI
March 26: George Lakoff, Linguistics Department, UC Berkeley
April 2: Lucy Suchman, Xerox PARC
April 9: Jerry Fodor, Philosophy Department, UC Berkeley
April 16: Mark Johnson, Philosophy Dept, So Illinois University
April 23: David Dowty, Center for Advanced Study
April 30: Herbert H. Clark, Psychology Dept, Stanford University
---------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING ELSEWHERE ON CAMPUS
Andy diSessa (Computer Science Lab at MIT) will be speaking on
``Knowledge in Pieces: Intuitive Knowledge in Physics and
Other Things'' at 4pm on Friday, March 8, in the Beach Room,
third floor, Tolman Hall.
∂06-Mar-85 0813 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA mike gordon abstract
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Mar 85 08:13:13 PST
Return-Path: <WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Tue 5 Mar 85 17:37:29-PST
Date: Tue 5 Mar 85 17:35:57-PST
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: mike gordon abstract
To: frineds@SU-CSLI.ARPA, bboard@SRI-AI.ARPA,
AIC-Associates: ;, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: CSL: ;
ReSent-Date: Wed 6 Mar 85 08:10:01-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
title: hardware verification
abstract:
Examples will be described which show (it is claimed) that
higher-order logic is a practical formalism for specifying
the structure and behaviour of hardware and for proving it
correct.
that's 4:15 wednesday (tomorrow) in el381
(building e, sri). coffee in ek292 sometime before the talk.
el 381 is the smaller computer science lab conference room.
michael gordon is with the computer laboratory,
cambridge university.
-------
∂06-Mar-85 1355 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA SOCRATES: Techniques for Searching--Using Browse with the call number
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Mar 85 13:55:30 PST
Date: Wed 6 Mar 85 13:51:14-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: SOCRATES: Techniques for Searching--Using Browse with the call number
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
: ;
The BROWSE command can only be used in the COMMAND mode. Previously I had
discussed the use of the BROWSE command for searching single word titles and
words with less then three characters. One can also use the BROWSE command
with the call number index. When you go into the Command mode, type
BROWSE C Q335.#(for example, #--is the truncation symbol). This will give
you a shelf-list listing (the order in which the books are arranged on the
shelves) of all books beginning with Q335 as a call number. Q335 is the
artificial intelligence section of the library of congress classification
system.
You can also do a straight forward search under call number. For example,
FIN C Q335.#. HOWEVER BEFORE YOU DO SUCH A SEARCH YOU HAVE TO SELECT
A FILE SUCH AS BOOKS. YOU CAN NOT DO THIS IN THE HEADINGS FILE. In
addition the listings do not come our in call number order.
Harry Llull
-------
∂06-Mar-85 1406 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Do you need training in searching SOCRATES?
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Mar 85 14:06:34 PST
Date: Wed 6 Mar 85 13:58:32-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Do you need training in searching SOCRATES?
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I have been sending out messages concerning techniques one can use to do
efficient and effective searching with the online library catalog. Many
of my suggestions are prompted by questions from those of you who are
using SOCRATES from your offices. I would appreciate hearing from others
who are also using SOCRATES. Are you having problems and what kind of
problems are you having?
In regards to training for using SOCRATES, are my messages concerning
different techniques helpful? Are there users out there that would
like some formal training sessions set up? In the Math/CS Library? In
the Departments? Has anyone taken advantage of training sessions
being offered at ITS?
If you wish to respond to this message, please use SOCRATES--TRAINING
as the subject heading of your message. Any comments good and bad
will be appreciated.
Harry Llull
Math/CS Library
-------
∂06-Mar-85 1715 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Math/CS Library New Books
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Mar 85 17:15:02 PST
Date: Wed 6 Mar 85 16:51:57-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Math/CS Library New Books
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Fast Algorithms for Digital Signal Processing by Blahut TK5102.5.B535 1985 c.2
Human and Machine Vision by Beck, Hope, Rosenfeld BF241.H85 1983 c.2
The Untold Story of the Computer Revolution by Stine QA76.S833 1985
Computer Typesetting; a guide for authors, editors, and publishers by McSherry
Z253.3.M38 1984
Managing the Data-Base Environment by Martin QA76.9.D3M368 1983
Statistical Programs in Fortran by Schwartz and Basso QA276.4.S37 1983
H. Llull
-------
∂06-Mar-85 1744 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Senior Faculty meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Mar 85 17:44:37 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 6 Mar 85 16:23:29-PST
Date: 06 Mar 85 1622 PST
From: Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Senior Faculty meeting
To: Tenured-Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FFL@SU-AI.ARPA
There will be a Senior Faculty meeting at 2:30 p.m., Thursday, March 7, in
Room 252, Jacks Hall.
∂06-Mar-85 1745 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Mar. 7, No. 19
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Mar 85 17:45:13 PST
Date: Wed 6 Mar 85 17:14:21-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Mar. 7, No. 19
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
March 7, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 19
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, March 7, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall No TINLunch this week
Conference Room
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Objects, Chomeurs, and Careers in Clause Structure''
Room G-19 David Perlmutter,
Linguistics Department, UC San Diego
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``A Theory of Variables''
Room G-19 Kit Fine, University of Michigan
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, March 14, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``The Noun Incorporation Debate''
Conference Room Jerry Sadock, CASBS
(Abstract on page 2)
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Just a Matter of Convention''
Room G-19 Douglas Edwards, CSLI
Discussion led by Robert Moore, CSLI
(Abstract on page 2)
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall Title to be announced
Room G-19 Hubert Dreyfus, UC Berkeley
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter March 7, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
``The Noun Incorporation Debate''
Jerry Sadock
Center for the Advanced Study of the Behavioral Sciences
Seventy-five years ago, Edward Sapir took Alfred Kroeber to task
for suggesting that certain Native American languages displayed forms
that seemed to involve the incorporation of the direct-object of a
clause into the verb. Sapir argued that insofar as such a state of
affairs would involve a mixing of syntax and morphology, it was
impossible in principle; Sapir was thus the world's first lexicalist.
Recently, this debate has flared up again. In two recent articles
in ``Language'' it is argued that nominal stems inside of verbs
display none of the properties that we should expect of genuine bits
of syntax and that morphology can be kept free of any taint of syntax.
I will argue that despite these reaffirmations of lexicalism, it
does seem that there are languages, in particular Eskimo and Tiwa, in
which noun-incorporation of the Kroeberian sort appears. The
ramifications of their existence for linguistic theory are
far-reaching.
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Just a Matter of Convention''
Douglas Edwards, CSLI
Quine's critique of empiricist reductionism focuses on the
distinction between the analytic sentences used to set up the
reductive framework and the synthetic sentences which are reductively
related to observation sentences. Quine holds, contrary to the
reductionists, that the theoretical sentences of science cannot be
divided into two classes whose rational evaluation proceeds in sharply
different ways. All theoretical sentences, according to Quine, are
responsive both to observational evidence and to conventions
arbitrarily adopted, via the influence of other theoretical sentences.
Quine extends the reductionist view that analytic sentences are
adopted by convention to the view that all theoretical sentences have
an element of convention, since there is no unique theory implying a
given set of observation sentences. In ``Two Dogmas of Empiricism''
Quine points out that theory choice is governed by considerations of
simplicity and other rational virtues, but he strongly hints that even
these considerations will not determine a unique theory for a given
set of observation sentences, a position which becomes explicit in
Word and Object.
However, in expounding this conventionalist view Quine becomes
committed to the view that certain particular sentences used in
translation or theoretical reduction are conventional and are only in
an incomplete sense hypotheses. I point out that the status Quine
gives to these ``analytical hypotheses'' is strikingly similar to the
status of analytic sentences in reductionism. In particular, they are
effectively considered to be devoid of content. I argue that, while
the question is difficult and evidence one way or the other is scarce
at present, it is at least as plausible at present to regard choices
of analytical hypotheses as rationally determined in the same way that
decisions to accept other sentences are rationally determined. As in
the case of the analytic sentences of the reductionists, the
``convenience'' of using one set of analytical hypotheses rather than
another can be indispensable for rational thought in the long run.
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter March 7, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
LINGUISTICS COLLOQUIUM
``Linguistic Variation in Adolescent Social Categories:
What's Class to Kids?''
Penny Eckert, University of Michigan
Tuesday, March 12, 3:15 pm., History Corner, rm. 200-217
Most sociolinguistic work has sought the social motivations for the
spread of linguistic change in adult social categories, particularly
in class and network structure. However, the fact that preadolescents
and adolescents lead in linguistic change indicates that the
motivations for the spread of change are to be found in adolescent
social categories and social process. Linguistic and ethnographic
evidence from the Detroit suburban area will be presented to
illustrate the interaction between adolescent social identity and
sociolinguistic variation.
-------
∂07-Mar-85 0851 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:E1.I85@Lindy
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Mar 85 08:51:35 PST
Received: from Lindy by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 7 Mar 85 08:34:36-PST
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 85 08:32:46 PST
From: Voy Wiederhold <E1.I85@Forsythe>
To: FACULTY@SU-SCORE
Hi,
Gio and I would like to invite you to come by the MJH
patio to wish Manolis Katevenis best wishes as he goes off
to Greece for 2 years for his service duty and to wish
Ariadne a happy birthday on Friday, Mar. 22 at noon.
A light Chinese lunch will be served.
Please RSVP to VWiederhold@sumex
or E1.I85@forsythe
Voy
∂07-Mar-85 0859 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA CS300 Colloquium Tuesd. Mar.12, Hank KORTH, U.Texas on Non-normal Relations (dont take it personal).
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Mar 85 08:59:16 PST
Date: Thu 7 Mar 85 08:53:58-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: CS300 Colloquium Tuesd. Mar.12, Hank KORTH, U.Texas on Non-normal Relations (dont take it personal).
To: ALL-COLLOQ@SU-SCORE.ARPA, TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FACULTY@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
MILTON@SRI-AI.ARPA, MORGENSTERN@SRI-CSL.ARPA
cc: hfk%pop@UT-SALLY.ARPA
CS 300 -- Computer Science Department Colloquium -- Winter 1984-1985.
Our penultimate speaker will be
Tuesday, March 12, 1985
at 4:15 in Terman Auditorium
Hank KORTH
Department of Computer Sciences, the University of Texas at Austin
The Theory and Application of Non-First-Normal-Form Relations
Abstract: Until recently, almost all research in relational database
theory assumed relations to be in first-normal-form (1NF), that is,
all domains consist of atomic elements. This assumption served well
in database systems designed for applications derived from data-
processing problems. However, recent efforts to apply the relational
data model to user interfaces, operating systems, and decision support
have been impeded by the 1NF constraint.
In this talk, we present a formal model for the study of non-1NF
relational databases. A formal relational calculus is defined and this
calculus is proved equivalent to an extension of the standard
relational algebra. We define a new normal form for non-1NF relations
and define several new algebraic operators that preserve this normal
form.
In the ROSI (Relational Operating System Interface) project at the
University of Texas, we are using our model of non-1NF relations to
construct a relational user interface to an operating system
environment. The ROSI query languages currently being designed
include an extended version of SQL for non-1NF relations, and a
graphical query language based on an extension to universal-relation
languages. In this talk, we present a preliminary design of these
languages.
The talk will include sufficient introduction to the theory of
relational database to make the talk accessible to a general computer
science audience.
-------------------------------->
Cookies by Ginger and juice by Karen and the Pony, prior to the seminar
at 3:45 in the Margaret Jacks Hall Lounge.
---------------------------------------> see you there
-------
∂07-Mar-85 0948 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Mar 85 09:48:30 PST
Return-Path: <raugh@RIACS.ARPA>
Received: from riacs.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 7 Mar 85 09:16:40-PST
From: Michael Raugh <raugh@RIACS.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8503071717.AA20099@riacs.ARPA>
Received: by riacs.ARPA (4.22/4.01)
Thu, 7 Mar 85 09:17:00 pst
Date: 7 Mar 1985 0916-PST (Thursday)
To: golub@su-score.ARPA
Cc: raugh@RIACS.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Thu 7 Mar 85 09:46:45-PST
ReSent-From: Gene Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
ReSent-To: aflb.all: ;
--------
Announcing a joint RIACS and ECT Branch seminar
SPEAKER: Donald Allison
Computer Science Department
Virginia Polytechnic and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia
TOPIC: Fast Geometric Algorithms
DATE: Thursday, March 14, 1985 TIME: 2PM
PLACE: NASA/Ames Research Center, Bldg. N233, Room 172
HOST: Mike Raugh, RIACS (415) 694-6363
ABSTRACT: The emergence of computational geometry as a discipline has
been strongly motivated by the number of application areas such as computer
graphics image processing and remote sensing that require manipulation of
objects in a real time environment. Research in computational geometry may
be classified into four main categories: 1) minimization and maximization
problems, 2) inclusion problems, 3) intersection problems, and 4)
closest point problems. In this seminar several problems from category 1
will be discussed.
The prime example of a problem in category 1 is the determination of
the convex hull of a set of points. A fast algorithm for the solution of this
problem will be described along with alogorithms for the solution for several
related problems - the minimum encasing rectangle and the diameter of a set,
and the shortest tour that will visit each point once and return to the
starting point (the classical travelling salesman problem). One of the main
objectives of the work described is the development of very fast state of the
art algorithms, which perform well in terms of speed and ease of
implementation.
Finally, the adaptation of some of these geometric algorithms
to paralled machine architectures is discussed.
----------
----------
∂07-Mar-85 1130 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:hdavis@Shasta recent comp exam
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Mar 85 11:30:40 PST
Received: from Shasta by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 7 Mar 85 11:27:46-PST
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 85 11:28:29 pst
From: Helen Davis <hdavis@Shasta>
Subject: recent comp exam
To: faculty@score
Since there has been so much public discussion about the recent
comp exam evaluations, I think more facts should be known.
I don't normally flame or participate in public computer discussions
(this is my first), so I hope you won't mind that I mailed to all of you.
Since Jeff Ullman's recent note brought up most of the issues,
I'll comment on it...
"1. 'Minimum competence levels were set at the average score.'
This is nonsense..."
I thought that a couple of committee members told me that an ad hoc approach
of using the near average developed. Whatever the policy, it seems that
the cut-offs for AA, NA, and MTC were at average, while the systems areas
had cut-offs a few points below average. (It LOOKS like the two later
passes came from the HDW and SYS sections moving their cut-offs down a
few points from average.)
"2. 'Standards are being raised.'
...There was no conscious effort to raise standards,"
I believe the committee, as a group, made no conscious effort to raise
standards, yet it seems clear they did. The reasons I think the
standards were raised:
i) The passing percentage is lower than typical.
Winter Spring
year attempted passed % passed attempted passed % passed
78-79 16 6 38% 12 7 58%
79-80 23 12 52% 9 5 56%
80-81 22 9 41% 16 11 69%
81-82 13 6 46% 17 7 29%
82-83 17 12 71% 14 9 64%
83-84 18 13 72% 6 4 67%
84-85 25 11 44% (previously 9 passed, 36%)
Only 4 students (16%) who attempted the current exam are finished with
the written comprehensive requirement. The 21 other PhD students must
either make up a conditional or retake the entire exam. I suspect that
this rate isn't near typical rates. In the Winter 84 comp, there were
11 unconditional passes and 61% of the students who attempted the exam
were finished with the requirement.
ii) the exam scores are lower than in the past
In this comp only one student scored above 245 -- that was the average
for the winter 84 comp. In this comp the second highest score is 241.
15 students got higher than that number in the winter 83 comp, and
13 got higher than that in winter 84.
The current area averages are about 10 points lower than those of
one year ago (this time: 23, 26, 30, 30, 32, and 34; PhD averages
one year ago: 34, 36, 43, 46, 47, and 38).
iii) the area cut-offs are higher than in the past
I believe that traditionally area cut-offs have been 20-25 points.
This time cut-offs were typically higher (about 23,26,27,27,30,and 30).
Since the average scores were lower for this exam, these cut-offs are
relatively much higher.
I personally believe that the higher standard is a result of the personal
opinion of some committee members that recent exams were too easy
and also the lack of many masters students. Unfortunately, I think
this has resulted in a policy change, with out any explicit decision
to make one.
The impact of masters students in past groups may still not have
been fully appreciated. I think masters students used to make up
half, or more, of the exam population. This time there were only
5 masters students out of 30 exam takers. A year ago, masters students
lowered the average in each area 6 to 11 points, and the overall
average 46 points. Then the total score cut-off was above the whole
group average, but below the PhD average by 15 points (currently,
it is above average by 7). The current overall cut-off, at 46% above,
is closer to the cut-off of 39% that included masters, than to the
72% cut-off for PhD students a year ago.
"3. 'There wasn't a large gap between passes and fails.'"
The current gap is 2 points. There is a gap of 12 points, 3 students
and 6 points lower -- at the average score. I agree that the
noise in the system makes it impossible to distinguish the performance
of students whose scores differ by only a few points.
"4. 'The committee didn't use 20 as the minimum competence level.'
... a guideline... but there are no guarantees."
I agree that absolute values should just be considered as guidelines,
but I don't think guidelines should be ignored. Unfortunately, I am
beginning to think that the only way to have fair consistency is to make
committees objectively justify why guidelines were not appropriate when
they aren't followed.
"5. 'Some students would have passed if it were their last chance.'
... doesn't mean we should pass people with insufficient scores
without giving them the chance to improve them, because
I believe people who eventually achieve high comp scores
will benefit from having done so."
The comprehensive exam is an important element in our PhD program,
because it ensure that students have taken the time to study
several aspects of computer science. But there is alot more to the
program, and I think it is harmful to prevent students from getting
on to other things -- after they have made an honest effort to
study each comp area.
"If every time the passing percentage is below average
there is a hue and cry that more people should pass we are
going to destroy the system."
The original pass rate was not simply below average, it was more
than a standard deviation below the average for 78-84 -- and barely
half compared to the last two years.
Inconsistent, erratic evaluations are unfair, make the exams
meaningless, and destroy the system...
Helen Davis
PS
I have made many comparisons to the last winter exam, rather than
other exams, because it is the only exam I could obtain complete
information on. Since it is recent (it includes most of my classmates),
and is a similar group of students (large group size, many first years),
this seemed fair.
∂07-Mar-85 1159 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:reid@Glacier Re: recent comp exam
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Mar 85 11:59:25 PST
Received: from Glacier by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 7 Mar 85 11:56:27-PST
From: Brian Reid <reid@Glacier>
Date: 7 Mar 1985 1156-PST (Thursday)
To: faculty@score
Cc: Helen Davis <hdavis@Shasta>
Subject: Re: recent comp exam
In-Reply-To: Helen Davis <hdavis@Shasta> / Thu, 7 Mar 85 11:28:29 pst.
As one who thinks that Helen is right, and who is quite unhappy with
many of the recent Comps, let me add a short comment.
My objection to the Comp is that the hardware and software sections
were complete mickeymouse, while the other 4 sections were relatively
more difficult. I wasn't on the Comp committee; I don't know why the
systems sections were so mickeymouse.
One thing that is very clear to me from all this is that we (systems
faculty) must take a firm stand that our sections of the comp must be
as hard as the others.
∂07-Mar-85 1324 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Robotics Applicants
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Mar 85 13:23:49 PST
Date: Thu 7 Mar 85 13:20:58-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Robotics Applicants
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
The robotics search committee (Cannon, Reynolds, McCarthy, Binford,
Nilsson) is inviting some potential applicants for a robotics
faculty position to Stanford. Currently we have Mike Brady of
MIT scheduled to visit on Thursday, March 21; Marc Raibert of
CMU scheduled to visit on Thursday, March 28; and Steve Zucker
of McGill scheduled to visit on Tuesday April 23. Each will
give a talk at 4:15 (abstracts, talk location to follow). (Zucker
will give the CS colloquium on April 23.) The search committee
will, as a group, talk to these people from around 2:30 to just
before their talks (taking a break for cookies, etc. in the third
floor lounge just before the talk). I'll be hosting each of them
for lunch at the faculty club--faculty interested in joining us
for lunch should contact Fran Larsen (ffl@sail). Faculty interested
in talking with these people while they are here should also arrange
an appointment thru Fran Larsen. Betty Scott (and probably Fran
Larsen) will have copies of vitae. We also hope that the applicants
can meet with some student representatives. -Nils
-------
∂07-Mar-85 1524 BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Telephones
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Mar 85 15:23:55 PST
Date: Thu 7 Mar 85 15:11:28-PST
From: Lee Berman <BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New Telephones
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
The University is in the process of converting our present phone system
to a more modern one. It will be completely touchtone and will entail
re-cabling the entire campus. All present phones will be replaced.
We will be sending you information, via I.D. mail, regarding your
possible options. There are several styles of instruments as well as
a variety of features which are available. Please take the time to
look over the information packet. Betty or I will try to answer any
questions you may have or will find out what you want to know.
Please make your decision by March 13. Thanks for your cooperation.
Lee Berman
-------
∂07-Mar-85 1814 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:reid@Glacier Re: New Telephones
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Mar 85 18:13:45 PST
Received: from Glacier by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 7 Mar 85 17:46:17-PST
From: Brian Reid <reid@Glacier>
Date: 7 Mar 1985 1746-PST (Thursday)
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Cc: Lee Berman <BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: New Telephones
In-Reply-To: Lee Berman <BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA> / Thu 7 Mar 85 15:11:28-PST.
The telephones in the CIS building are of the new variety, and you are
welcome to come take a look and try them out. Although they are more
modern, I have not yet found them an improvement; for example, it is
now very much more difficult to have a secretary screen calls, and when
my secretary's phone rings she is unable to tell whether it is ringing
because somebody is calling her or because somebody is calling me.
My own solution to this is to unplug the telephone from the wall,
something that I have wanted to do for years but never felt was entirely
justified. Now that its usefulness to me is even further diminished by
these technological improvements, I have finally taken that step.
If you find that telephones are useful in your life, and that complex
telephone relationships involving secretaries, switchboards,
extensions, and intercoms play a part in your happiness, I strongly
recommend that you study the CIS phones carefully and try to figure out
some way to make this technology work for you. The intrinsic semantics
of the new phones are extremely different from the old, and it might
take you a while to reconstruct your way of life in terms of these new
contraptions.
Brian
∂08-Mar-85 0948 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Expert Systems: the International Journal of Knowledge Engineering--Received
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Mar 85 09:48:23 PST
Date: Fri 8 Mar 85 09:44:10-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Expert Systems: the International Journal of Knowledge Engineering--Received
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: gardner@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
The Math/CS Library has received vol 1 nos.1 and 2 of Expert Systems. We
will set it up as soon as possible. Please do not ask for it before next
week unless you urgently need an article from this journal. If you do
need to see it today, the issues will either be on my desk or ask Richard
Manuck. We will probably set the journal up in the office which means
next week people can ask for it at the desk as a library office journal.
Harry
-------
∂08-Mar-85 1224 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:pratt@Shasta comp. statistics
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Mar 85 12:24:11 PST
Received: from Shasta by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 8 Mar 85 12:21:04-PST
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 85 12:22:04 pst
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@Shasta>
Subject: comp. statistics
To: faculty@score, su-bboards@Shasta
When I was chairman of the Comp (he began in a quavery voice) 12 Ph.D.
students passed. This was, I gathered from the reaction at the time, an
occasion for great rejoicing, so much so that I felt obliged to put a
message on bboard to reassure everyone that we had not lowered our
standards one jot.
I gather only 11 Ph.D. students passed this time. I understand that this
is an occasion for renting of clothes, tearing of hair, wearing of
sackcloth, etc., etc. The problem as I understand it is that 8 more Ph.D.
students took the exam on this go around.
My conclusion from all this is that an amendment to the comp. is called for.
We badly need a section on statistics. People seem to have no practical
understanding of the concept of "statistically significant" for experiments
with sample sizes in the neighborhood of 20. I will claim (without even
bothering to check my statistics tables) that the variations we are seeing
are statistically insignificant indicators of exam-to-exam variations in the
quality of the comp.
Attempts, however well-intentioned, to establish such variations on the
basis of either limited sample sizes or casual remarks from comp.
committee members strike me as dubious in the extreme.
-v
∂08-Mar-85 1301 SCHAFFER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Talking with prospective students
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Mar 85 13:01:39 PST
Date: Fri 8 Mar 85 12:58:46-PST
From: Alejandro Schaffer <SCHAFFER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Talking with prospective students
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Dear Faculty Member,
This year the Computer Science Department is making a more concerted
effort to recruit the students who have been admitted. Among other
things, we will encourage them to visit within the next few weeks.
During their visits the recruiting committee will arrange lodging and
interviews with faculty in their areas of interest. With that in mind,
I should like to know during what days in the next 5-6 weeks you will
be out of town or otherwise unavailable to talk to visiting
prospective students.
Alejandro Schaffer (schaffer@score)
Member of the recruiting committee
-------
∂08-Mar-85 1505 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:TW@SU-AI.ARPA phones
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Mar 85 15:04:48 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 8 Mar 85 15:01:23-PST
Date: 08 Mar 85 1500 PST
From: Terry Winograd <TW@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: phones
To: berman@SU-SCORE.ARPA
CC: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Lee,
A quick scan of the documents you sent does not make it obvious to me
how to get the kind of phone service I want. I thought I could save
some trouble by telling you the basic points and getting your advice on
how to do it.
1) All calls coming in for my number should first ring in my secretary's
office. The call should be identified as such on her console, so
she can answer "Professor Winograd's office". If she is there and answers,
and I need to deal with the call there should be an easy way for her
to buzz my office and have a discussion with me while the person is on
hold, and then I can pick it up in my office if that is desired.
2) If my secretary does not answer after a few rings it should then
ring directly in my office.
3) Item 2 should happen without her having to do anything special
when she walks out of her office, since she will not stop to dial
special codes each time she steps out for "just a minute".
4) If after item 2, I do not answer in a few rings, it should go
to the front desk. Again it should be identified so the receptionist
can answer with my name.
This is essentially the service I have now, and it seems to work quite
well. I would appreciate it if you could let me know what combination
of equipment, for me and for my secretary, will make it the easiest
to implement.
Thank you. -t
∂08-Mar-85 1518 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:reid@Glacier Re: phones
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Mar 85 15:18:07 PST
Received: from Glacier by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 8 Mar 85 15:14:33-PST
From: Brian Reid <reid@Glacier>
Date: 8 Mar 1985 1514-PST (Friday)
To: Terry Winograd <TW@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, berman@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Subject: Re: phones
In-Reply-To: Terry Winograd <TW@SU-AI.ARPA> / 08 Mar 85 1500 PST.
Wow! if somebody can figure out how to make my telephone do wehat Terry
asks for I might even reconnect it. So far, though, no luck.
∂08-Mar-85 1540 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Cancellation of Michael Brady visit
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Mar 85 15:39:59 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 8 Mar 85 15:35:02-PST
Date: 08 Mar 85 1433 PST
From: Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Cancellation of Michael Brady visit
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FFL@SU-AI.ARPA, cannon@SU-SIERRA.ARPA,
reynolds@SU-SCORE.ARPA, bscott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In reference to the previous announcement about visiting Robotics candidates,
Michael Brady will not be coming on March 21. His visit has been postponed
to a yet to be determined date.
∂11-Mar-85 0607 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #8
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 85 06:07:14 PST
Date: Sunday, March 10, 1985 7:53PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #8
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Monday, 11 Mar 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 8
Today's Topics:
Implementaion - 'Numbersvar/3'Definition & Nrev & CP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5-Mar-85 10:52:26 PST
From: nbs-amrf!hopp
Subject: Definition of 'numbervars/3'
I recently obtained a listing of Dave Warren's WARPLAN
planner and put it up on our system, running C-Prolog
1.3. Everything went smoothly except for a predicate
"numbervars/3", which was evidently part of the prolog
he was using (DEC-10 Prolog?), but is not part of our
Prolog. I did find a description of it, which described
it something like this (this is off the top of my head):
numbervars(T,N,M)
Binds all variables in T to special terms such that
the variables print as consecutive integers from N to M.
I defined a numbervars and it seems to work, but I have
no idea if it is right. My definition is:
numbervars(T,N,N) :- atomic(T),!.
numbervars(T,N,M) :- var(T),!,M is N+1,T=M.
numbervars([H|T],N,M) :- !,numbervars(H,N,M1),numbervars(T,M1,M).
numbervars(T,N,M) :- T=..[←|Args],!,numbervars(Args,N,M).
That is, I bind each variable in T to an integer. Is
this, forpractical purposes, different that binding
to "special terms" that print as integers? In
particular, the goal:
numbervars(X,0,1),numbervars(Y,0,1),X=Y.
succeeds with my definition; does it with the built-in
numbervars on those Prologs that have it?
As a secondary question, if my definition is operationally
correct, is there a more efficient definition? WARPLAN
seems to spend a lot of time numbering variables, and it
would be nice if this were as efficient as possible.
-- Ted Hopp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 85 15:29:05 gmt
From: William Clocksin <WFC%Cl.Cam@ucl-cs.arpa>
Subject: Compilation of nrev using Warren Instructions
Several people have kindly replied to my earlier query
concerning the instruction set of Warren's SRI paper 309.
Yes, the deallocate instruction may stay as it has been
defined, provided the instructions for unsafe variables
are used appropriately. However, Warren's rules for
unsafe variables cause a further problem. Consider the
clause
nrev([X|L0],L) :- nrev(L0,L1), conc(L1,[X],L).
Look at the last goal. According to Warrens rules, only
L1 is considered unsafe. However, for this to work properly
(including "backwards"), L should also be considered unsafe
(if [deallocate] is not to be altered). But because L
appears first in the head, L is considered safe.
What gives? The absence of an example of nrev from
Warren's SRI-309 compounds my confusion. Should L
be considered unsafe? Or have I gone astray somewhere
else?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 85 18:25:13 -0200
From: Jacob Levy <Jaakov%Wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
Subject: Concurrent Prolog semantics
Hi!
My, aren't we stirring up a storm here! All this discussion of
the semantics of Concurrent Prolog certainly had to happen
sometime, but I didn't expect it to take on such dimensions
and heat (-:).
I am glad that finally there is a concencus that the current
state of things re the semantics of Concurrent Prolog cannot
continue. Thanks to Vijai Saraswat for pointing out some
ambiguities and to Tony Kusalik for raising some more points
to discuss. I have started to work on a definition of the
abstract semantics of Concurrent Prolog, and Ran Ever-hadani
(RAAN@TECHUNIX.BITNET) is also looking into this.
Here's the final word concerning unification of read-only vars
appearing in the head of a clause. The idea is that the read
only sign says that this clause is the producer of the
variable's final value, and thus no-one should be allowed to
write on it. It is desirable to disallow a variable becoming
read-only as a result of unification, as would occur if we
allowed
goal - g(X)
clause - g(Y?) <- some←other←computation.
to succeed - X would become read-only. Therefore, the unification of a
variable in the head of a clause that is annotated with a read-only
with any goal argument is defined to fail. This is in divergence with
the table shown by Tony - sorry. The reason we don't want to change
the semantics along the lines proposed by Tony is that we must plan
ahead for the days when we have a distributed Concurrent Prolog system
available - the possibility of a variable rooted on some processor
becoming read-only through unification must be avoided. Imagine what
complications will arise if a processor has a normal reference to a
variable, unifies it with some structure, then suddenly is informed
that the variable became read-only on some other processor... This is
possible if time and communication lag are taken into account. Thus we
want to avoid this issue from the start. The table should therefore be
H E A D
|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
| | TERM | VAR | RO |
|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
| TERM | unify←terms( | trail(HD) | fail |
G| | GL,HD) | HD := REF(GL) | |
|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
O| VAR | trail(GL) | trail(HD) | fail |
| | GL := REF(HD) | HD := REF(GL) | |
A|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
| RO | suspend(GL) | trail(HD) | fail |
L| | | HD := RO(GL) | |
|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
The reason for this controversy is that the semantics as proposed here
are impossible to enforce in an interpreter-based system. Only by com-
pilation can we ensure that this behaviour is adhered to. Therefore it
was necessary to approximate a reasonable behaviour in the interpreter
systems.
Another point raised by Tony - whether we should allow many
attempt to commit for a given goal. This is still not decided; on the
one hand, since in Flat Concurrent Prolog we effectively have this
feature, it would be desirable to have the same semantics of commit in
Concurrent Prolog also. On the other hand, the handling of distributed
commitment is complicated - many people have spent a lifetime solving
this problem in various forms, and so far no solution that is really
suitable for Concurrent Prolog has emerged. The initial inclination of
Udi was to avoid distributed commitment, but now we are rethinking the
issue.
I have debugged an interpreter for Concurrent Prolog, written
in C, that uses eager broadcasting to propagate values of variables to
guards. It is painfully slow, and currently I am analyzing the reasons
for this. Since we think that the overhead of propagating values into
guards may be the cause, we have started rethinking this issue also. A
system that allows multiple attempts to commit without using eager
broadcasting has provably weaker semantics than one that allows only a
single attempt to commit but uses eager broadcasting. The reason is
that with eager broadcasting failures of candidate clauses are always
detected before they reach commitment, so when a clause finally does
attempt to commit, this is guaranteed to succeed. So the real question
is whether the semantics provided by the multiple-commit-attempt and
no-eager-broadcasting system are still sufficiently expressive.
Cheers,
-- Jacob Levy
------------------------------
Date: Sun 10 Mar 85 21:38:41-EST
From: Vijay <Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Subject: The read-only annotation in CP.
Discovering how the read-only annotation behaves in CP is
an interesting exercise. The following is a discussion of
what it does, together with a discussion of its various
idiosyncracies. In brief, I think unrestricted '?' is
very powerful, and can easily give rise to all kinds of
obscure and probably undesirable behaviour.
In the following discussion, `X' and `Y' represent
variables and `T' and `Term' represent a compund term.
To understand the following discussion it is necessary to
bear in mind that in CP, processes are goals, and the
input and output channels for the process are represented
by the occurrences of variables in the atomic formula
representing the goal. The only action that can be taken
by a goal is to unify against the head of a clause. This
unification typically would lead to an instantiation of
various variables in the goal. However it is undesirable
that variables that are supposed to represent input
channels should be instantiated. Also, typically a goal
implements some kind of a (possibly multi-valued) function
from its input arguments to its output arguments and hence
it is unwise for process reduction to continue until
values for the input arguments are available. Both of
these objectives are sought to be achieved by the
introduction of a 'read-only annotation' (?) which can
decorate instances of a terms in goals and clause heads
and whose semantics is specified below. Thus ? has two
roles: ?-as-read-only-designator and ?-as-input-designator.
Semantics of ?.
---------------
1. unify(X?, Term) suspends until X gets a value (that
is, is instantiated to a non-variable term), after which
X is unified with Term.
2. unify(X?, Y) succeeds with Y becoming a
read-only version of X, in all its occurrences.
3. unify(X?, Y?) suspends until both X and Y are
instantiated, after which X and Y are recursively unified.
4. unify/2 is symmetric.
Note that as defined above, suspension in 1. is critical.
It allows a process to effectively do a CASE on various
combinations of conditions which depend upon the
availability of specific kinds of inputs on (possibly
multiple) channels. But this suspension is really only
justified in the very special case in which a guarded
occurrence of a variable in a goal matches different terms
in different clause heads for the given process and the
actual value of the variable is needed at run-time to
select some of all those paths.
This gives a `reasonable' meaning to `?' provided you
assume that:
Condition 1. AT RUNTIME, in every goal call, if even one
occurrence of a variable is read-only, then all instances
are read-only. (Hence that variable may legitimately be
considered a read-only variable to the call. This
corresponds to the normal restrictions in data-flow
languages that an input stream to a process cannot also be
an output stream. Note that calls such as fibonacci(1.X,
0.1.X, X) (where fib(X,Y,Z):- add(X,Y,Z).) do not need
any '?' annotations at all. )
Condition 2. In every clause-head if even one occurrence
of a variable is read-only, all occurrences of that
variable should be read only.
Condition 3. If a variable is read-only annotated at some
occurrence in a clause-head, then ensure that all goals
that would reduce via this clause have a variable
(possibly read-annotated... see section V.) at that
occurrence.
Condition 2 is symmetric to condition 1, but for
?-occurrences in goal-calls, a restriction corresponding
to condition 3 is not required; this is a fundamental
diffeence between the use of ? in goals and in
clause-heads in CP.
Now let us look at the problems associated with it. Let us
start with the simple ones.
I. What should happen with unify(X?, X) ? (Don't even
think of trying to answer this by running any
'implementation' of ?-unification, least of all the
unificationalgorithm in The Paper, unless you would enjoy
a tete-a-tete with an infinite list of '('s. Don't believe
me? Switch on your debugger and settle into your most
comfortable arm-chair.)
According to the definition given above for X?-Y, X should
now become a read-only version of X in ALL ITS OCCURRENCES
throughout the world so that there will be no more
producers for X left! Somehow that doesn't sound very
appealing so lets make a special case of this and say that
X?-X should succeed and do nothing.
(It is easy to see that if Conditions 1 and 2 are
satisfied, such a call to unify can never arise because
variables in the head of a clause are `standardised apart'
before unification against a goal. Otherwise, consider
the case "?-foo(X?,X), X=2." where the clause is
"foo(Y,Y)." If X? unifies with Y as given above, then
unifying the second arguments to foo will lead to X being
unified with X?, i.e. X becoming a read-only version of X.
When the clause commits, the X in X=2 will become X?=2,
leading to deadlock, which seems "wrong".)
II. What happens with unify(X?, X?) ? According to the
above definition, this unification should suspend until X
gets a binding, when it would be checked against itself!
On the other hand, the interpretation of '?-as-read-only'
would be consistent with just succeeding and doing nothing
else because even potentially X can hardly get a 'new'
binding from X. (?-as-input-designator interpretation does
not seem applicable.) (In a private communication, Ehud
agrees that perhaps X?-X? should be allowed to succeed.)
III. Unification is now order-dependent.
Typically to unify a term (T1) against another (T2),
you check the functors are the same (i.e. they have the
same name and the same no. of arguments) and then you
unify the corresponding arguments inthe two terms IN ANY
ORDER. This no longer works. e.g. unify(foo(X?, X),
foo(a,a)) suspends if you match the first arguments before
the second but succeeds if you match the second before the
first. (Apparently this behaviour is well-known.) This
implies that we must now introduce some bias in the
unification: either specifying an order in which
unification will be done or else saying that
(conceptually) all possible orders will be tried and if
anyone leads to sucess (without suspension) then that will
be chosen. The first alternative seems unpalatable, and
the second probably complicates the unification algorithm.
If the second alternative is chosen, we will call it
`desperate unification' because it implies that unify is
desperate to avoid a suspension.
Again, if Conditions 1 & 2 are satisfied, then this
order-dependence goes away.
IV. The view ?-as-input-designator is useful ONLY for ?
occurrences in goals (i.e. in bodies of clauses) NOT in
heads of clauses. This has the following consequences:
1. If X? occurs in the head of a clause at argument i, and
there is a constant (or an instantiated term) at argument
i in the goal call, then SUSPENDING till X gets a value is
in general meaningless because the only way you can get a
binding for X is by executing some goal in the body of the
clause which generates a value for X. BUT YOU CANT DO
THAT IF YOU SUSPEND. Catch-22.
The only way you can avoid this certain permanant
blocking is if there is some other occurrence of X in the
head of the clause which is not read-protected and its
corresponding argument in the call gets instantiated at
some time in the future and unify is desperate.
2. The same is true if an X? occurrence in the clause
head matches a Y? occurrence in the goal call. SUSPENSION
is SUICIDAL.
3. The only use then for X? in a clause head, it would
seem, is to check if its corresponding argument in the
goal call is a variable (Y). If it is, Y becomes a
read-only copy of X in all its occurences as soon as the
clause guard commits, if it commits. For this to happen
it must be the case that Y is a variable when the call is
unified with the clause head and can still unify with X?
without suspending when the clause guard commits. This is
such a strong condition that only very very limted uses of
`?' in clause-heads are feasible.
For example, see `Implementing Parallel Algorithms in
Concurrent Prolog: The MAXFLOW experience' by Hellerstein
and Shapiro, ISLP, 1984 and the bounded-merge solution in
this Digest for another way of using a X?-Y match which
avoids this deadlock. Hellerstein and Shapiro use the ?
embedded in a term, as in [X|Y?],in the head of a clause.
If it can be guaranteed that this term is always matched
by a variable in a goal call,and the variable remains
uninstantiated through the hiatus between Or-guard
initiation and commitment, then such a use is always safe.
Thus it is almost impossible to put '?' in clause heads.
IV. If X?-Y succeeds with the variable Y becoming a
read-only copy of X in all its instances, then two kinds
of undesirable behaviours are possible:
1. At run time, read-only copies of variables can be
created through very long-chains of X?-Y followed by Y-Z
kinds of unification so that a seemingly innocuous goal
such as foo(R, S) would suspend because R got bound at
run-time to X?. A static analysis of the clauses for a
process is not enough to describe its behaviour; in
addition all the calls to the procedure must be examined,
and then all the goals in the clause in which the call
occurs which share variables with this call, and their
clauses, ad infintum. This makes writing modular code and
proving properties of programs very diffcult.
2. If a process has a writeable access to a channel X, it
can cause that channel to become a read-only copy of some
other channel thereby effectively blocking all other
processes which might be writing to the channel. Maybe
the solution is to have an explicit producer annotation in
CP alongwith a read-only annotation, with some priorities
between the two.
V. There is really no a priori justification for causing
unification of X?-Y? to suspend until both X and Y get
values and then to recursively unify them. It makes sense
to suspend only if suspension would lead to more
information being available at some time in the future
(e.g. in the form of X's bindings in a X?-Term
unification) which could lead to the selection of a few of
possibly many clauses. But if, for example, a X?-Y?
unification were to occur with an X? occurrence in a goal
and a Y? occurrence in a clause-head, it is not possible
EVER for a binding of Y to be produced, in most
circumstances, so X?-Y? definition serves no purpose at
all; it may as well have been defined to FAIL always, at
least that way it wouldn't cause deadlock.
The other possibility is that X? and Y? both occur in
the goal call (e.g. ?-foo(X?,Y?), producer(X),
producer(Y).), and the clauses head 'equivalences' them
by, for example, unifying them both against Z (Clause:
foo(Z,Z).). In such cases, it certainly makes sense to
succeed with X and Y unified (that is, identified). This
is becaue if in the future X and Y do not both produce the
same value, they will anyway be doomed to failure. In
case foo(Z,Z) was only one of many clauses and it is
possible that some other clause might succeed if X? and Y?
produce different values, then it certainly makes more
sense to have a clause foo(A.Z, A.Z) instead of foo(Z,Z).
The same holds if the goal was ?-foo(Z,Z) and the clause
head was foo(X?,Y?):- producer(X), producer(Y).
Therefore, a certainly useful alternative semantics for
the X?-Y? case would be to treat it like X-Y. Succeed
immediately and unify X with Y. Essentially the two ?
cancel themselves out.
Such a change would also cause suspension to happen iff
there was a read-only violation of the form X?-Term. This
allows the use of X? in the head of a clause to check for
whether the corresponding argument in the goal call is
instantiated or not, something that has been done till now
with the another extra-logical primitive var/1. This was
the philosophy on which my original solution to the
bounded merge problem (see previous issue) was based.
Another possible use of channels also becomes evident. If
a goal contains an occurrence of X? and is unified against
a clause head which contains a Y? in that argument
position, then the result is as if the process becomes a
producer for the channel, even though it was earlier
passed just a read-only reference at run-time. Thus if a
process always wants write-access to a channel, it can do
that by placing a X? at the argument position in the
clause-head where it expects the channel to be supplied.
In this fashion,a process has to make fewer assumptions
about the behaviour of its environment at run-time.
Note that the treatment of X? in clause heads as the
export of a stream called X is still troublesome because
the clause may be invoked with the corresponding argument
in the call instantiated. Clearly suspension is not
needed here. What has happened is that some process which
was to have read-only rights to the channel has already
read something off which has yet to be written. This
should probably be signalled as a run-time error and
computation aborted. It indicates that the process which
wrote something on the channel should not have had the
right to do that; it should have been called with the
channel protected.
To sum up, then, I would argue that the intuitive
interpretation of '?' makes sense in only some of the many
possible ways in which it can be used. Maybe the language
should then provide syntactic restrictions which encourage
such use. Conditions 1-3 are a step in that direction.
On the other hand, a suitable choice of definitions can
expand the generality of the '?' primitive, providing
concurrent programming facilities which Cp doesn't at this
time provide, but can lead to complicated implementations
and semantics.
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂11-Mar-85 0908 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Kant Lectures in Philosophy
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 85 09:06:07 PST
Date: Mon 11 Mar 85 09:01:38-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Kant Lectures in Philosophy
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: bboard@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
KANT LECTURES IN PHILOSOPHY
This Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 4:15 in Redwood Hall, rm. G-19.
Monday: "Verum Organum: An Interrogative Model in Inquiry; The Curious
Case of Deductive Reasoning," by Jaakko Hintikka. Followed by a
reception at Ventura Hall.
Wednesday: "Verum Organum: An Interrogative Model in Inquiry;
Formalizing Sherlock Holmes," by Jaakko Hintikka.
Friday: "Verum Organum: An Interrogative Model in Inquiry; The Logic
of Science as a Model-Oriented Logic," by Jaakko Hintikka.
Further inquiries should be addressed to the Philosophy Department.
-------
∂11-Mar-85 0926 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FFL@SU-AI.ARPA Faculty Lunch
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 85 09:26:38 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 11 Mar 85 09:24:32-PST
Date: 11 Mar 85 0922 PST
From: Fran Larson <FFL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty Lunch
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, bureaucrats@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FFL@SU-AI.ARPA
Reminder of regular Faculty Lunch, Tuesday, March 12, 12:15 p.m.
146 Jacks Hall. There will be a discussion of What Equipment a
First-Class CS Department Should Have.
∂11-Mar-85 1209 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk by sten-ake tarnlund
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 85 12:09:43 PST
Return-Path: <WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Fri 8 Mar 85 16:23:17-PST
Date: Fri 8 Mar 85 16:04:53-PST
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: talk by sten-ake tarnlund
To: bboard@SRI-AI.ARPA, bboard@SU-AI.ARPA,
AIC-Associates: ;
cc: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA,
CSL: ;
ReSent-Date: Mon 11 Mar 85 11:57:53-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
this will be an informal discussion on work done
on transforming logic programs into other
logic programs that achieve optimal efficiency.
examples will be taken from the sorting domain.
time: tuesday, march 12, 4:15
place: ek242
tarnlund is currently visiting ibm yorktown heights
there will be coffee at 3:45 in my office (ek292)
-------
∂11-Mar-85 1734 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: MARCH 15, 1985
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 85 17:34:37 PST
Date: Mon 11 Mar 85 17:04:08-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: MARCH 15, 1985
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Folks,
Here is the abstract for this Friday's Siglunch:
RIPLUNCH
DATE: Friday, March 15, 1985
LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Douglas R. Smith, Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
ABSTRACT: KNOWLEDGE-BASED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AT KESTREL INSTITUTE
Kestrel Institute is a non-profit organization with a two-fold
purpose:
Research and graduate education in computer science.
Its main research goal is the formalization and incremental
automation of software development.
Towards this goal, we carry out research in such areas as machine
intelligence, very-high-level languages, algorithm design,
transformation and synthesis, software project management, and
knowledge-base programming environments.
I'll present an overview of current and planned research at Kestrel
Institute and describe our experience with the DSE system, a
knowledge-base programming environment in routine use. The bulk of
the talk will examine two research themes at Kestrel:
Knowledge compilation and,
The use of schemes in program synthesis.
Knowledge compilation involves transforming declarative knowledge plus
directions for its useage into efficient procedural form. The uses of
program schemes and strategies for instantiating them include
knowledge compilation and the design of algorithms from
specifications.
thanx,
Paula
-------
∂11-Mar-85 1806 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Next AFLB talk(s)
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 85 18:06:15 PST
Date: Mon 11 Mar 85 17:24:33-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Next AFLB talk(s)
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA
This talk might interest AI and systems people as well. - Andrei
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3/14/85 - Yoram Moses(Stanford)
Cheating Husbands and Other Stories:
A Case Study of Knowledge, Action, and Communication
We present variants of the cheating husbands puzzle in order to illustrate
the subtle relationship between knowledge and action in a distributed
environment. We examine the state of knowledge of a message that
a group of wives achieves as a function of how the message is communicated.
We analyze how the states of knowledge arising in the different circumstances
may affect the wives' ability to act and the success of their actions in
achieving their stated goals.
This will be a recreational AFLB. This work is joint with Danny Dolev of
the Hebrew University and Joe Halpern of IBM San Jose.
***** Time and place: March 14, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂12-Mar-85 1132 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Colloquium update
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Mar 85 11:32:42 PST
Date: Tue 12 Mar 85 11:26:53-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Colloquium update
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
The following is the abstract for this week's colloquium that did not
appear in the last newsletter.
CSLI COLLOQUIUM
Speaker: Hubert Dreyfus
University of California, Berkeley
Title: From Socrates to Expert Systems: The Limits of Calculative
Rationality.
Time and Place: March 14, 1985, 4:15, Redwood Hall, rm. G-19
Abstract: An examination of the general epistemological assumptions of
artificial intelligence with special reference to recent work in the
development of expert systems. I will argue that expert systems are
limited because of a failure to recognize the real character of expert
intuitive understanding. Expertise is acquired in a five-step
process; only the first of which uses representations involving
objective features and strict rules. A review of the successes and
failures of various specific expert systems confirms this analysis.
-------
∂12-Mar-85 1208 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:cheriton@Pescadero Re: recent comp exam
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Mar 85 12:08:29 PST
Received: from Pescadero by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 12 Mar 85 12:06:01-PST
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 85 12:05:14 pst
From: David Cheriton <cheriton@Pescadero>
Subject: Re: recent comp exam
To: faculty@SU-Score, reid@Glacier
Cc: <hdavis@Shasta>, Davis@Glacier, Helen@Glacier
I would like to propose (concurring I believe with Brian) that the
faculty in the different areas be responsible for volunteering someone
to handle their portion of the comp., just as is done with the qualifying
exams. Thus, the dept. chairman would appoint someone to chair the comp
and that person would simply solicit the annointed people from each area,
rather than the dept. chairman appointing all. It might also help to have
a staff person with significant involvemnet in the adminstration of the
comp. to provide greater continuity to the exam.
∂12-Mar-85 1642 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:yao.pa@Xerox.ARPA Bats Announcement
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Mar 85 16:41:51 PST
Received: from Xerox.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 12 Mar 85 16:32:54-PST
Received: from Cabernet.MS by ArpaGateway.ms ; 12 MAR 85 15:54:36 PST
Date: 12 Mar 85 15:53:13 PST
From: yao.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Bats Announcement
To: theory-b@UCBERNIE.ARPA, aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Cc: yao.pa@XEROX.ARPA
The next BATS will take place on Friday, March 15 at Xerox PARC (in the
auditorium). The talks and abstracts are as follows. I will give
directions for coming to PARC in a separate message. -- Frances
-----------------------
SCHEDULE
10 a.m. Ronald Graham (AT&T Bell Lab): Remarks on The Finite Radon
Transform
11 a.m. Frances Yao (Xerox PARC): A General Approach to d-Dimensional
Geometric Queries
~~Lunch ~~
1 p.m. Andrew Yao (Stanford): Separating the Polynomial-Time
Hierarchy by Oracles
2 p.m. Joe Halpern (IBM): What Does It Mean for Rewrite Rules to be
"Correct"?
3 p.m. Andrei Broder (DEC): Vote Early and Vote Often
--------------------
Remarks on The Finite Radon Transform
Ronald Graham
AT&T Bell Lab
ABSTRACT There are many situations in which the only information about
a function defined on some finite set is available in some aggregated or
averaged form. This can happen, for example, in statistical databases
which retrict the kinds of queries allowed.
The Radon transform of a function f is a way of replacing f by a
"smeared-out" version of f. Recent statistical averaging techniques,
for example, use this type of transformation in conjunction with a
natural underlying group structure. A fundamental question which arises
in connection with the Radon transform is whether or not it is possible
to invert it, i.e., whether one can recover the function from its
transform.
In this talk we discuss this problem in detail for several special
classes of groups, including the group of binary n-tuples under modulo-2
addition.
--------------------
A General Approach to d-Dimensional Geometric Queries
Frances Yao
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
ABSTRACT Research results in the area of computational geometry have
been largely limited to problems concerning simple relations between
objects in the plane. In this talk, we shall define what we call a
"generic query" in d-space, and present a uniform solution to it. As
examples of application, the nearest-neighbor query in d-space can be
solved in linear space and sublinear time; the pairwise intersection
problem for polytopes and the construction of minimum spanning trees in
d-space can be solved in linear space and subquadratic time.
--------------------
Separating the Polynomial-Time Hierarchy by Oracles
Andrew Yao
Stanford University
ABSTRACT We present exponential lower bounds on the size of depth-k
Boolean circuits for computing certain functions. These results imply
that there exists an oracle A such that, relative to A, all the levels
in the polynomial-time hierarchy are distinct, i.e., Sigma(k) is
properly contained in Sigma(k+1) for all k.
-------------------
What does it mean for rewrite rules to be "correct"?
Joe Halpern
IBM San Jose Research Center
ABSTRACT We consider an operational definition for FP via rewrite
rules. What would it mean for such a definition to be correct? We
certainly want the rewrite rules to capture correctly our intuitions
regarding the meaning of the primitive functions. We also want there to
be enough rewrite rules to compute the correct meaning of all
expressions, but not too many, thus making equivalent two expressions
that should be different. And what does it mean for there to be
"enough" rules?
We give a formal criterion for deciding whether there are enough rewrite
rules and show that our rewrite rules meet that criterion. We develop
powerful techniques to prove these results, that
involve imposing a notion of types on the untyped language FP, and then
using techniques of typed lambda-calculus theory. (Note: This talk is
completely self-contained. No previous knowledge of FP or lambda
calcuclus will be assumed.)
-------------------
"Vote early and vote often" (Old and new results about the distributed
lottery problem)
Andrei Broder
DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto
ABSTRACT A distributed lottery agreement (DLA) in a network of n
processors is
defined as agreement on an unbiased 0-1 value, despite the fact that t
of
the processors might behave in a malicious and collusive manner. Rabin
showed that a constant number of DLA's are enough to achieve Byzantine
agreement in constant expected time, and recently it was shown that DLA
can
be used to achieve Byzantine agreement in logarithmic time, both
synchronously (Bracha) and asynchronously (Ben-Or). However, so far no
``perfect'' algorithm is known for the DLA problem. The algorithm that
are
known, and which I shall survey in this talk, are provably secure and
constructible, but exponential in the size the network (Yao, Awerbuch &
al.), provably secure and and polynomial, but not constructible (Yao),
and
polynomial, constructible, but not provably secure (Broder & Dolev). I
shall also present a new provably-secure, fully-polynomial approximation
scheme to achieve DLA in 4t+5 message exchange rounds. In other words,
if
the bias of the coin is allowed to be epsilon, the length of the
messages
required by this scheme is polynomial in n and 1/epsilon, and it can be
shown that breaking the cryptographic devices used by this scheme is
equivalent to a ``hard'' number theoretic problem.
---------------------
∂12-Mar-85 1718 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Baby girl.
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Mar 85 17:18:15 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 12 Mar 85 17:16:11-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 12 Mar 85 19:06:03 cst
Received: from csnet-relay.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 12 Mar 85 09:22:44 cst
Received: from ucb-vax.arpa by csnet-relay.arpa id a007285; 12 Mar 85 10:13 EST
Received: from ucbjade.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (ucbjade.ARPA) by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.42)
id AA14911; Tue, 12 Mar 85 07:02:43 pst
Received: from taurus.BitNet
by ucbjade.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (4.19/4.34.1)
id AA02575; Tue, 12 Mar 85 07:08:34 pst
Received: by taurus.UUCP (4.12/4.7)
id AA12461; Tue, 12 Mar 85 17:00:07+0200
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 85 17:00:07+0200
From: Uzi Vishkin <vishkin%taurus.BITNET@ucb-vax.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8503121500.AA12461@taurus.UUCP>
To: theory@WISC-RSCH.ARPA
Subject: Baby girl.
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
We are delighted to announce the birth of Ofira on March 4 in
Tel Aviv, Israel.
Baby and parents are doing well.
Immanuela and Uzi Vishkin
(network address: vishkin.taurus on csnet or bitnet)
∂13-Mar-85 0953 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Rankings of Graduate Departments in the Gourman Report: Recent Article Questions the Methodology and Data
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 85 09:53:11 PST
Date: Wed 13 Mar 85 09:49:31-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Rankings of Graduate Departments in the Gourman Report: Recent Article Questions the Methodology and Data
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
: ;
As some of you may know, we have a copy of the 1980 Gourman Report: a rating of
Graduate and Professional Programs in American and International Universities.
I have advised those of you who have looked at the report that I felt their
were some major problems with the information and conclusions. It is impossible
to tell from the report how Dr. Gourman carried out his study.
I have found an article that appeared in Change (a publication connected to the
American Association for Higher Education) titled "Who is Jack Gourman and Why
is he saying all those things about my College?" It appeared in the November/
December 1984 issue of Change beginning on page 14. It is a very detailed
article by David S. Webster who is assistant progessor of higher education in
the graduate school of education in the University of Pennsylvania . His
doctoral study investigated educational rankings and the methods involved
in producting them. Webster's article is rather detailed to describe in this
message, but if you want to see it I have a copy. I will quote one line
from the concluding paragraph of the article: "It is clear from this study
that Jack Gourman is not a responsible arbiter of educational quality." (page55)
If you have had your colleagues from other institutions cite the Gourman Report
to you in connection to rankings and quality of both graudate and undergraduate
programs, you will want to read this article. For the future, I will keep
a copy of the article shelved with the report (L900.G68 c.2) in the reference
area.
Harry Llull
-------
∂13-Mar-85 1100 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Rankings of Graduate Departments in the Gourman Report: Recent Article Questions the Methodology and Data
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 85 10:57:38 PST
Date: Wed 13 Mar 85 09:49:31-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Rankings of Graduate Departments in the Gourman Report: Recent Article Questions the Methodology and Data
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
: ;
As some of you may know, we have a copy of the 1980 Gourman Report: a rating of
Graduate and Professional Programs in American and International Universities.
I have advised those of you who have looked at the report that I felt their
were some major problems with the information and conclusions. It is impossible
to tell from the report how Dr. Gourman carried out his study.
I have found an article that appeared in Change (a publication connected to the
American Association for Higher Education) titled "Who is Jack Gourman and Why
is he saying all those things about my College?" It appeared in the November/
December 1984 issue of Change beginning on page 14. It is a very detailed
article by David S. Webster who is assistant progessor of higher education in
the graduate school of education in the University of Pennsylvania . His
doctoral study investigated educational rankings and the methods involved
in producting them. Webster's article is rather detailed to describe in this
message, but if you want to see it I have a copy. I will quote one line
from the concluding paragraph of the article: "It is clear from this study
that Jack Gourman is not a responsible arbiter of educational quality." (page55)
If you have had your colleagues from other institutions cite the Gourman Report
to you in connection to rankings and quality of both graudate and undergraduate
programs, you will want to read this article. For the future, I will keep
a copy of the article shelved with the report (L900.G68 c.2) in the reference
area.
Harry Llull
-------
∂13-Mar-85 1344 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Gourman Report: Ranked Stanford CS Dept. 10th: Read Message for first 9
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 85 13:44:28 PST
Date: Wed 13 Mar 85 13:41:48-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Gourman Report: Ranked Stanford CS Dept. 10th: Read Message for first 9
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
: ;
MIT
Illinois
Berkeley
Minnesota
Wisconsin
UCLA
Columbia
Harvard
Pennsylvania
STANFORD
All areas of Stanford were ranked 10th including--Curriculum, Faculty
Instruction, Faculty Research and Library Resources.
Stanfd CS Department was ranked 1st by the National Academy of Sciences
survey.
Harry
-------
∂13-Mar-85 1356 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA American University Programs in Computer Science--New Book in the Math/CS Library
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 85 13:56:00 PST
Date: Wed 13 Mar 85 13:52:42-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: American University Programs in Computer Science--New Book in the Math/CS Library
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
William W. Lau has compiled information on computer science programs at univer-
sities across the country. The title of the book is American University
Programs in Computer Science: Their Resources, Facilities, and Course Offering.
It is arranged by state. It appears to be a compilation of the material one
would find in college catalogs and does include name of faculty and research
interests.
Harry
-------
∂13-Mar-85 1519 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:yao.pa@Xerox.ARPA Directions to BATS at Xerox PARC
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 85 15:19:39 PST
Received: from Xerox.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 13 Mar 85 15:10:49-PST
Received: from Chardonnay.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 13 MAR 85 15:08:18 PST
Date: 13 Mar 85 15:07:48 PST
From: yao.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Directions to BATS at Xerox PARC
To: theory-b@UCBERNIE.ARPA, aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Cc: yao.pa@XEROX.ARPA
To get to Xerox PARC from Highway 280, take the Page Mill exit towards
Palo Alto. Go past the first stop light (Deer Creek) and take the next
right on Coyote Hill Road. Xerox PARC is the only building on your left
on Coyote Hill Road.
To get to Xerox PARC from Highway 101, take the Oregon Expressway
towards Palo Alto. Oregon Expressway becomes Page Mill Road. Take Page
Mill Road all the way through Palo Alto, past Alma, El Camino, and
Foothill Expressway. Take the first left street after Foothill
Expressway, which is Coyote Hill Road. Xerox PARC is the only building
on your left on Coyote Hill Road.
If the parking lots at Xerox PARC are full, you can park at the Xerox
facility on the other side of Coyote Hill Road. Once you have parked,
please go to the upper entrance at 3333 Coyote Hill. Instead of going
in at the main entrance, please continue to your left and enter directly
at the Auditorium. There will be a security guard at the door of the
Auditorium who will ask you to sign in and wear a red badge.
∂13-Mar-85 1602 BERGMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA housing availability
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 85 16:02:34 PST
Date: Wed 13 Mar 85 15:55:47-PST
From: Sharon Bergman <BERGMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: housing availability
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
-------
∂13-Mar-85 1617 TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA housing availability
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 85 16:17:09 PST
Date: Wed 13 Mar 85 16:12:47-PST
From: Kimberly Tuley <TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: housing availability
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
This is to let you know of the availability for rent of a
fully furnished 3-bedroom, two bath house in the College Terrace
neighborhood kof Palo Alto during the 1985-86 academic year, which
may be of interest to visiting faculty in the dept.
The house will be available from June 1, l985 until March 31, l986
(end of Winter Quarter). People are willing to consider rentals
beginning as late as Sept. 1, l985.
The house was built two years ago, and therefore has all
new appliances. It is relatively large (1500 sq. ft.) and includes
a carport and deck. All furnishings, accessories, dishes, and linens
will be left in place.
The rent is $1550 per month. Will consider lower rents if a tenant
seems particularly suitable. No objection to housebroken dogs!
The house is available for inspection at your convenience.
Ph: (home) 415-494-6151
(work) Mark Chandler 7-4523 or 327-0100; Christina Kenrick 415-853-5329.
-------
∂13-Mar-85 1724 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA friday's bats
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 85 17:24:05 PST
Date: Wed 13 Mar 85 17:19:49-PST
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: friday's bats
To: aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: yao.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Francis has not asked me to give her a count of people who plan to go to
BATS this friday; so I guess that you can all just show up. I have not
made any special car pool arrangements, but if you need a ride and don't
know whom to ask, let me know.
Joan
-------
∂13-Mar-85 1812 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa wedding announcement
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 85 18:11:57 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 13 Mar 85 18:10:06-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Wed, 13 Mar 85 19:17:56 cst
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by wisc-rsch.arpa; Wed, 13 Mar 85 00:34:16 cst
Received: from ucbernie.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.42)
id AA18262; Tue, 12 Mar 85 22:28:09 pst
Received: by ucbernie.ARPA (4.24/4.41)
id AA02548; Tue, 12 Mar 85 22:33:54 pst
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 85 22:33:54 pst
From: brassard%ucbernie@Berkeley
Message-Id: <8503130633.AA02548@ucbernie.ARPA>
To: theory@wisc-rsch
Subject: wedding announcement
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
I am happy to announce my wedding with Isabelle Duchesnay,
which took place in Muir Woods (Bay Area) earlier this afternoon.
I was honoured to have Manuel Blum as best man.
- Gilles Brassard
∂14-Mar-85 0928 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Today
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 85 09:28:31 PST
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 09:23:42-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Today
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
Following is the schedule for today's activities. The newsletter
should be out by noon.
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``The Noun Incorporation Debate''
Conference Room Jerry Sadock, CASBS
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Just a Matter of Convention''
Room G-19 Douglas Edwards, CSLI
Discussion led by Robert Moore, CSLI
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``From Socrates to Expert Systems: The Limits
Room G-19 of Calculating Rationality''
Hubert Dreyfus, UC Berkeley
-Emma Pease
-------
∂14-Mar-85 0944 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA Ranking Research: Gourman vs National Academy of Sciences
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 85 09:44:29 PST
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 09:41:33-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Ranking Research: Gourman vs National Academy of Sciences
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: : ;
If you are serious about looking at rankings of universities and departments,
you should probably check the Cubberley Education Library. Cubberley would
have a longer run and more variety in ranking publications and research.
In Math/CS, I do not attempt to cover the field but do purchase those
rankings that are related to our departments and for which I have had
or expect to have questions and requests.
I have had a question concerning the National Academy of Sciences ranking.
I have their publication titled An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs
in the United States: Mathematical and Physical Sciences. It is in the
reference section Q183.3A1A8 1982. It includes Chemistry, Physics, Computer
Science, Statistics, and Geoscience. This report is much more difficult
to use compared to the Gourman report but does explain its methodology.
The reason it is difficult to use is that it was not meant to list the
departments by a 1st, 2nd ranking. In fact it is an alphabetical list
with the scores for various criteria listed for each institution. However
if one spent the time, a person could calculate who is 1st, 2nd etc.
There was an article based on data from this report that listed the
Stanford Computer Sciences and Statistics Departments 1st overall.
This differes a great deal from the Gourman report which only lists
by ranking without explanation of methodology. Gourman evaluated 51
programs while the National Academy of Sciences evaluated 58 programs.
Harry Llull
-------
∂14-Mar-85 1057 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: housing availability
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 85 10:57:34 PST
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 14 Mar 85 10:47:10-PST
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 10:11:56-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: housing availability
To: TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Kimberly Tuley <TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>" of Wed 13 Mar 85 16:13:12-PST
I would prefer not using the faculty list for bulletin board type messages.
If that happens many of us will stop reading mail altogether. Gio
-------
∂14-Mar-85 1136 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ZM@SU-AI.ARPA Admissions
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 85 11:36:06 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 14 Mar 85 11:15:03-PST
Date: 14 Mar 85 1114 PST
From: Zohar Manna <ZM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Admissions
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
The nightmare called PhD admissions is over. This message summarizes the
results.
We had 11 members in the admissions committee:
Eric Berglund David Cheriton Barbara Grosz(CSLI) John Herriot
Don Knuth Zohar Manna Ernst mayr Christos Papadimitriou
Vaughan Pratt Stan Rosenschein(CSLI) Stuart Russell
Invaluable help was provided by Victoria Cheadle and Stuart Reges.
We had 534 applicants and admitted 41 of them. Many of the candidates are
outstanding and the final trimming process was quite painful. Comparing
with previous years:
Year Applied Admitted Accepted
--------------------------------------------------------
1982-83 315 27 21
1983-84 420 39 21
1984-85 440 45 29
1985-86 534 41 ??
Here are some statistics about the 41 admitted students:
Gender: male 35, female 6
Interests choice #1 #2 Country Undergrad Major
---------------------------------- ----------------- ---------------
Analysis of Algorithms 4 3 USA 22 CS 15
Applications of Computers 2 Canada 5 CS/Math 8
Artificial Intelligence 18 4 India 5 Math 4
Combinatorial Mathematics 2 Israel 2 Comp Engr 2
Computer Graphics 3 Australia 1 EE 2
Database Systems 1 Belgium 1 Engr 2
Hardware 3 England 1 Math/Phil 2
Math Theory of Comp 5 8 Greece 1 Appl Math 1
Networks/Distributed Sys 2 2 Korea 1 CS/Acct 1
Numerical Analysis 1 New Zealand 1 CS/Engr 1
Operating Systems 2 2 Poland 1 Linguistics 1
Programming Sys/Languages 5 3 Math/Engr 1
Robotics 4 Math/Physics 1
VLSI Systems 1
*Undecided* 2 5
Winning undergraduate Schools
-----------------------------
IIT(India) 4 MIT 3 Columbia 2 Stanford 2 Toronto 2 Berkeley 2 Yale 2
Six students currently in (or graduated from) MS/CS programs:
Stanford 3, Hebrew U. 1, MIT 1, U. of Auckland 1
We have admitted a pair of twin brothers !
Here are some statistics for the 534 applicants:
Interests #1 #2 Country (most common) Gender
---------------------------------- -------------------- -------------
USA 311
Analysis of Algorithms 30 24 India 26 male 478
Applications of Computers 13 21 Taiwan 25 female 56
Artificial Intelligence 231 68 Canada 18
Combinatorial Mathematics 3 8 Israel 16
Computational Linguistics 9 29 China 15
Computer Graphics 10 30 Korea 13
Database Systems 16 20 Japan 12
Design Automation 7 8 Greece 10
Hardware 16 16 Australia 7
Math Theory of Comp 26 37 Singapore 7
Networks/Distributed Sys 33 26 England 6
Numerical Analysis 10 6 France 6
Operating Systems 22 35 Mexico 5
Operations Research 1 6 Belgium 4
Programming Sys/Languages 47 57 Hong Kong 4
Robotics 11 43 Chile 3
VLSI Systems 9 15 Poland 3
*Undecided* 40 85 Iran 3
-------
The admit list is in Victoria's office. We will distribute a list
in mid-April after we get the acceptance letters.
Zohar - for the admissions committee
∂14-Mar-85 1214 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Congrats to Adm. Comm.
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 85 12:14:38 PST
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 11:50:46-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Congrats to Adm. Comm.
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Let's all say "thanks!" to the Adm. Comm. and Victoria and everyone
else who worked so hard to deal with the deluge of people who want
to be a part of us next year. I looked at some of the folders and
look forward to meeting the people we have accepted.
Some of the "admittees" will be visiting us during the next few weeks
to "look us over." Many will want to talk to some faculty members, and
I hope that a few minutes with these bright students can be worked
into our busy schedules.
Thanks, again, Zohar and friends. -Nils
-------
∂14-Mar-85 1223 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: housing availability
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 85 12:23:02 PST
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 12:03:04-PST
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: housing availability
To: WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>" of Thu 14 Mar 85 10:48:08-PST
Sorry, Gio. The fault is mine. I asked Kim to send it to the faculty, since
the listing had been sent directly to me (hard copy), and I thought perhaps
a faculty member might be interested in housing for visitors next year.
My apologies,
Betty
-------
∂14-Mar-85 1540 BRAD@SU-CSLI.ARPA LEAF broken
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 85 15:39:02 PST
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 15:29:11-PST
From: Brad Horak <BRAD@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: LEAF broken
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
With the upgrade to Version 6 software on Turing, we have temporarily lost
the use of the leaf server. The current leaf server encryts passwords
according to a Stanford-based protocol, and was compatible with Version 5.
Version 6 has reverted to a DEC-based protocol, and is not compatible with
the Stanford-based protocol.
What does this mean? Anytime you try to access files or directories on
Turing from a Dandelion, your password will be invalid.
What is the workaround? Do (SETQ NONLEAFHOSTS '(CSLI)) to force the
file transfer system to use FTP rather than LEAF.
Let me know if you experience any problems with this temporary fix.
CHAT does not use LEAF, so you shouldn't experience problems logging into
Turing via CHAT.
--Brad
-------
∂14-Mar-85 1651 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:TW@SU-AI.ARPA Phone query
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 85 16:50:46 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 14 Mar 85 15:39:17-PST
Date: 14 Mar 85 1438 PST
From: Terry Winograd <TW@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Phone query
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
CC: berman@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Those who are interested in the followup on my phone inquiry to
Lee Berman (of which you received copies a week or so ago)
can read the entire correspondence in {SCORE}<WINOGRAD>PHONES or
{SAIL}PHONES[1,TW]. The bottom line is that it seems relatively
straightforward to do it (or so Lee believes). --t
∂14-Mar-85 1709 SKIPELLIS@SU-SCORE.ARPA PARC Open House - April 10, Wednesday
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 85 17:09:04 PST
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 15:38:30-PST
From: Skip Ellis <SKIPELLIS@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: PARC Open House - April 10, Wednesday
To: CSD@SU-SCORE.ARPA, CSL-Students@SU-SIERRA.ARPA, CSL-Faculty@SU-SIERRA.ARPA,
SU-Bboard@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: SkipEllis@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Xerox Corporation would like to invite the faculty and graduate students
in computer science and systems at Stanford to an open house to be held
at the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) on Wednesday, April 10, from 9:00 am
to 5:00 pm. All aspects of computer science research at PARC will be
represented at the open house. PARC is located at 3333 Coyote Hill Road in
Palo Alto. We hope that the staff at PARC and the computer science community
at Stanford both will take advantage of this opportunity to get to know
each other better. The general program for this day at PARC is as follows:
1. Morning (9:00 - 12:00)
Introduction to the computer related labs at PARC: the Systems Concepts Lab,
the Intelligent Systems Lab, the Integrated Circuits Lab, and the Computer
Sciences Lab.
2. Afternoon sessions (1:00 - 5:00)
Technical discussions and demos. There will be approximately 12 sessions
arranged within 4 or 5 time slots (40 minute to an hour apiece) throughout
the afternoon, presented by PARC researchers.
In order to do planning, we need to know how many people to expect and
their interests, so please sign up as soon as possible at the Stanford
Computer Science Department front desk (second floor of Jacks Hall) or
at the Computer Systems Lab office (ERL 448). We hope to accomodate
everyone who signs up, but if the number overflows our auditorium, then
we will restrict attendance according to seniority and/or according to
signup date. When you sign up you will need to provide your name, major
and degree working toward, some way to contact you (phone number or net
address), year of graduate study, and a prioritized list of four preferred
afternoon sessions. Your choice of afternoon sessions taken from the list
below will help to determine how we schedule sessions; we will try to
schedule so as to make it possible for most people to attend all four of
their top choices. We may add, duplicate, or delete sessions depending
on interest. A final schedule will be available at least by March 29,
and we hope to post it at Stanford before then.
Questions? Then contact one of the open house coordinators (Skip Ellis:
SkipEllis@Score, 7-9684 or Bob Hagmann: Hagmann@Xerox.ARPA, 494-4403).
The afternoon sessions that we propose are:
A. Cedar - Carl Hauser will demo the Cedar programming environment.
B. Interlisp - Richard Burton will demo the Interlisp-D programming
environment.
C. Smalltalk - Glenn Krasner will demo the Smalltalk-80 programming
environment.
D. Integrated Circuits Lab - Bill Meuli will conduct a tour of the
integrated circuit fabrication facility.
E. Algorithms Research - Frances Yao will discuss work on computational
geometry and data compression.
F. Notecards - Frank Halasz will demo a system for structuring and
managing formal and informal ideas.
G. Color Graphics - Maureen Stone will demo and discuss the graphics
packages being built under Cedar.
H. Cross Machine Program Development - Laurie Horton will discuss a cross
machine, cross language program development system.
I. Dragon - Ed McCreight will discuss a new computer being designed at
PARC.
J. Pride - Sanjay Mittal will demo a knowledge based assistant for design
of paper handling systems.
K. Voice Project - Dan Swinehart will demo a prototype ethernet based voice
communications system.
L. Workday Applications - Frank Zdybel will demo integrated workday
applications in the Smalltalk-80 environment.
-------
∂14-Mar-85 1731 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Mar. 14, No. 20
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 85 17:30:55 PST
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 16:42:26-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Mar. 14, No. 20
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
March 14, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 20
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, March 14, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``The Noun Incorporation Debate''
Conference Room Jerry Sadock, CASBS
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Just a Matter of Convention''
Room G-19 Douglas Edwards, CSLI
Discussion led by Robert Moore, CSLI
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``From Socrates to Expert Systems: The Limits of
Room G-19 Calculative Rationality''
Hubert Dreyfus, UC Berkeley
(Abstract on page 2)
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, March 21, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall To be announced
Conference Room
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall No TINlunch scheduled
Room G-19
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``The COMP Analysis of Free Relatives and Phrase
Room G-19 Structure Grammar''
Pauline Jacobson, Brown University
(Abstract on page 2)
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ANNOUNCEMENT
There will be no CSLI activities on Thursday, March 28. Activities
will resume on April 4.
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter March 14, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF THIS WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
An examination of the general epistemological assumptions of
artificial intelligence with special reference to recent work in the
development of expert systems. I will argue that expert systems are
limited because of a failure to recognize the real character of expert
intuitive understanding. Expertise is acquired in a five-step
process; only the first of which uses representations involving
objective features and strict rules. A review of the successes and
failures of various specific expert systems confirms this analysis.
--Hubert Dreyfus
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
This paper argues that in certain cases the granddaughter of some
constituent can function as its head, which suggests the need for
phrase structure rules admitting chunks of trees rather than only
rules admitting a node and its daughters. This conclusion is based on
an examination of Free Relatives (FRs) in English. I give several new
arguments for the ``Comp analysis'' of FRs, according to which the
capitalized constituent in (1) is a daughter of S' (and hence a grand-
daughter of the NP FR):
1. I like WHATEVER you like.
Yet it is well known that this constituent functions as the Head of
the FR (cf., Bresnan and Grimshaw, 1979), as the category of the
entire FR must (in English) match that of the wh-constituent. I will
consider the implications of such ``granddaughter'' rules for a phrase
structure framework. --Pauline Jacobson
←←←←←←←←
COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT
``Typology of Grammatical Systems''
William Croft and Joseph H. Greenberg
9-11:50 am, Mondays, Education (Cubberley) 207
Linguistics 209, 4 units
This course will be a survey of the typology of various grammatical
categories and constructions. It is intended to be a descriptive
course to acquaint the student with the expected and the unexpected in
natural language systems; theoretical discussion will be minimized
(though not excluded) in order to make this course useful for
linguists of all theoretical persuasions. Topics to be covered: word
order; syntactic categories; grammatical relations, verbal semantics,
voice and valency-changing morphosyntax; numerals, classifiers and
count/mass; tense/aspect/modality, quantification and specification;
and coordination and relative clauses. Prerequisites: none. Course
requirements: a paper consisting of a cross-linguistic analysis of
some grammatical category or syntactic construction. The paper should
cover at least 20 languages; a large number of good grammars and
surveys will be placed on reserve at Green library. Required reading:
Lingua Descriptive Series Questionnaire (80pp.). Croft will lecture
on all topics except numerals, classifiers and count/mass. Class will
meet a total of eight times, beginning on April 8 (May 27 is a
holiday).
!
Page 3 CSLI Newsletter March 14, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT
Graduate Seminar - Philosophy
``Nonexistent Objects and the Semantics of Fiction''
Edward N. Zalta, CSLI
The problem of how it is we can think about and tell stories about
what does not exist is one of the foremost problems in the study of
intentionality. We'll begin by asking what an analysis of fiction,
and stories in general, ought to do, and then quickly review the
problems facing the semantic analysis of sentences about nonexistent
objects developed by Meinong, Russell, Quine, and the free logicians.
We then turn to a careful presentation of both Terence Parsons'
neo-Meinongian views (developed in his book: Nonexistent Objects) and
my own, which has a Meinongian flavor. There will be a comparison of
how the language and logic of these theories represent the meaning of
English sentences about nonexistents. Then we shall ask whether these
theories provide a better representation, and do a better job of
analyzing fiction in general, than some current alternatives, some of
which do without nonexistents (Plantinga, Searle, Fine, Lewis) and
some of which appeal to some sort of abstract objects (Kripke, van
Inwagen, Wolterstorff). We'll conclude the course with a brief
examination of how these axiomatized theories fit into a larger
picture of the semantics of language and intensionality.
The first meeting of this seminar will be held in the Venture Hall
trailers conference room, Tuesday April 2, at 1:15.
←←←←←←←←←←←
NEW CSLI REPORT
A new CSLI Report by Kokichi Futatsugi, Joseph Goguen, Jean-Pierre
Jouannaud, and Jose Meseguer, ``Principles of OBJ2'' (Report No.
CSLI-85-22), has been published. To obtain a copy of this report
write to David Brown, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305 or send net
mail to Brown at SU-CSLI.
-------
∂14-Mar-85 1734 BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Telephones
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 85 17:34:32 PST
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 16:51:37-PST
From: Lee Berman <BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New Telephones
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
A representative from ITS has offered to make a special presentation
regarding the new system complete with sample phones. If you are
interested, please contact me by Wednesday, March 20. He will do the
demo here in this office. He can answer any questions you may have
and will be available late in the afternoon for 30-45 minutes.
Thanks,
Lee
-------
∂15-Mar-85 0959 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH TODAY
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Mar 85 09:59:16 PST
Date: Fri 15 Mar 85 09:51:48-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH TODAY
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Folks,
I just noticed that the Siglunch announcement that I sent out on Tuesday was
entitled RIPLUNCH. That was an oversight on my part, Sorry! It IS a SIGLUNCH
today, so everyone is welcome to attend. I apologize if there was any con-
fusion. Thanx,
Paula
-------
∂15-Mar-85 1049 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Visit of Dr. Lu
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Mar 85 10:49:54 PST
Date: Fri 15 Mar 85 10:47:35-PST
From: Karen Hedges <HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Visit of Dr. Lu
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: Hedges@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Dr. Ruigan Lu, who is a participant in the National Academy of
Science willbe visiting Stanford from March 16 - April 3. Dr. Lu
is head of the Computer Science Department, Institute of Mathematics,
Chinese Academy of Science.
For the first week of his stay, Dr. Lu will be in MJH, Room 228,
phone 7-1272. The second week, he will be at HPP - Bldg. C, 701
Welch Road, phone 7-4878. If you would like to spend time with him,
either contact him directly or leave a message at 7-4878.
His visit in the U.S. will also include stays at UC Irvine, ISI,
Ohio State, CMU, MIT and U Mass.
-------
∂15-Mar-85 1232 WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA Final CS300 colloquium, Tuesday March 19, Rob Kling from Irvine on Social Effects of Computing.
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Mar 85 12:30:48 PST
Date: Fri 15 Mar 85 12:23:04-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Final CS300 colloquium, Tuesday March 19, Rob Kling from Irvine on Social Effects of Computing.
To: ALL-COLLOQ@SU-SCORE.ARPA, TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA, FACULTY@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
MILTON@SRI-AI.ARPA, MORGENSTERN@SRI-CSL.ARPA
CS 300 -- Computer Science Department Colloquium -- Winter 1984-1985.
Our final presentation will be on
Tuesday, March 19, 1985
at 4:15 in Terman Auditorium
Rob Kling
Department of Information and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine
THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF COMPUTERS, COMPUTING, AND COMPUTERIZATION
Research on the social impacts of computing indicates few
"deterministic" consequences of introducing computer-based systems
into social settings such as organizations. Jobs may become more or
less skilled; decisions may be "better" or more confused; power may
shift to or from central administrators. Much depends upon the kinds
of systems introduced, who controls them, and the particular practices
and procedures that people develop to use the computer systems and the
services that they support. The social consequences of computer use
are often very "context sensitive." Moreover, computer-based systems
which can be perfectable under static laboratory conditions and when
supported by a rich array of resources may be very problematic when
introduced into dynamic social settings, settings rife with social
conflict, or settings where support resources are limited.
This talk will examine some organizing ideas to help understand
the context-sensitive character of computerization. One cluster
of ideas is embodied in web models and these will be explained in
the talk.
-------------------------------->
Cookies by Ginger and juice by Karen and the Pony, prior to the seminar
at 3:45 in the Margaret Jacks Hall Lounge.
---------------------------------------> see you there
-------
∂15-Mar-85 1310 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Circulation re new Senior Research Associate
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Mar 85 13:10:40 PST
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Fri 15 Mar 85 13:07:37-PST
Date: Fri 15 Mar 85 13:07:01-PST
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Circulation re new Senior Research Associate
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
[The information in this memo is confidential and for Stanford Faculty use
only. The "hiring" discussions are at a sensitive and critical stage]
The HPP, now a part of the Knowledge Systems Laboratory, is seeking
faculty approval of the appointment of Dr. Robert S. Engelmore to a
position as Senior Research Associate. In a sense, this is a
reappointment because Bob was a Research Associate with the HPP for many
years before joining Teknowledge in late 1981. From 1979 to 1981, he
served DARPA as Program Manager for Artificial Intelligence, under the
university/government "loan" procedure. At Teknowledge he has been a
senior member of the technical staff and a technical manager. For
the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), he is the
Editor of its publication, AI MAGAZINE.
His new role for the HPP will be part research, part administrative.
He will lead and/or supervise some research efforts. And he will play
a major administrative role in our dealings with sponsors, industrial
affiliates, and the university system. His activities will in part
replace those of Tom Rindfleisch, who has reassumed his job as SUMEX
Director (incidentally, the SUMEX group has been renamed to be
Symbolic Systems Resources Group). Bob's title within the HPP will be
"Executive Director".
Bob's previous employee file is available for inspection from the
departmental administrative offices. Please send comments to me or
Nils, if you have some, by March 22. As in the past with such
circulations, no comment will be read as assent.
-------
∂15-Mar-85 1500 BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Telephone System
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Mar 85 15:00:33 PST
Date: Fri 15 Mar 85 14:57:20-PST
From: Lee Berman <BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New Telephone System
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I have arranged for a telephone analyst to speak at our next faculty
meeting and answer any questions you may have regarding the new phone
r
-------
∂15-Mar-85 1505 BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Phone System
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Mar 85 15:05:40 PST
Date: Fri 15 Mar 85 15:04:08-PST
From: Lee Berman <BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New Phone System
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I have arranged for a telephone analyst to speak at our next faculty
meeting and answer any questions you may have regarding the new phone
system. 12:00 noon, March 19. (Sorry about the previous messed up
message). Thanks.
Lee
-------
∂15-Mar-85 1611 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Mar 85 16:11:28 PST
Date: Fri 15 Mar 85 15:56:27-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New Books in the Math/CS Library
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, faculty@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
Computer Science and Multiple-Valued Logic; Theory and Applications edited
by David Rine QA268.5.C65 1984
The Ada Programming Language: A Tutorial by Saib and Fritz QA76.73.A16.A33
1983
Simulation In Strongly Typed Languages: Ada, Pascal, Simula... ed. by
Bryant and Unger QA76.9.C65C66
Interconnection Networks for Parallel and Distributed Processing: Tutorial
by Wu and Feng TK5105.5 T885 1984
Formal Verification of an Operating System Security Kernel by Kemmerer
QA76.6K45 1982
Digital Image Processing of Remotely Sensed Data by Hord TA1632.H67 1982 c.2
Algorithmic Program Debugging by Shapiro QA76.6.S49 1983
Man-Machine Interaction: Proceedings of the Joint IBM/University
of Newcastle upon Tyne Seminar September 1983 edited by Elphick
8512948
Picture Engineering edited by Fu and Kunii TA1632.P525 1982 c.2
Probability, Statistical Optics, and Data Testing; a problem
solving approach by Frieden QA273.F89 1983 c. 2
Leben und Werk von John von Neumann. Legendi and Szentivanyi
(8507048)
The UNIX Environment by Walker QA76.6W327 1984
Advanced BASIC Step by Step by McDermott and Fisher QA76.73.B3M393 1984
If you would like to sign up to see one of these books, send us a message
at Library@SCORE. After a week, they will be off of display and we will
send you a message that the book is being held for you in the Math/CS
Library. If you do request a book, please use the complete title and
call number. Include both your electronic address and physical address
including department.
Harry Llull
-------
∂15-Mar-85 1618 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 19
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Mar 85 16:18:24 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.42)
id AA01856; Fri, 15 Mar 85 15:23:57 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA00530; Fri, 15 Mar 85 15:27:07 pst
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 85 15:27:07 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8503152327.AA00530@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 19
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
TIME: Tuesday, March 19, 11:00 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
(followed by)
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Janet Dean Fodor, University of Connecticut and
CSLI
TITLE: ``A Formal Theory of Innate Linguistic
Knowledge''
An infant must be innately provided with some sort of
representational medium in which to record what he observes
about his target language. It has occasionally been suggested
that the formal properties of this mental metalanguage could be
the source of universal properties of natural languages. This
is quite different from the standard (= substantive) approach,
which assumes that children are born with certain statements of
the metalanguage innately tagged as true.
I propose to take the formal approach seriously. That way
to do so seems to be to try for a theory which accounts for ALL
universals in the same way, i.e., solely on the basis of what
can and cannot be expressed in the metalanguage. The attempt
is very informative, regardless of whether it ultimately
succeeds or fails.
Success is by no means guaranteed, for the formal theory
overthrows many familiar assumptions. For example, it can be
shown to be incompatible (on standard assumptions about chil-
dren and their linguistic input) with the existence of any con-
straints on rule application or on derivational representa-
tions. All the work of distinguishing well-formed from ill-
formed sentences must be done by rules only. Constraints can
determine the shape of the rules, but cannot tidy up after them
if they overgenerate.
It is easiest to see how to set about formulating grammars
of this kind within the framework of GPSG, and it is encourag-
ing to find that a number of universals do fall out as conse-
quences of the GPSG formalism. But there are problems too.
Syntactic features, in particular, create headaches for learna-
bility.
-------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
March 26: George Lakoff, Linguistics Department, UC Berke-
ley
April 2: Lucy Suchman, Xerox PARC
April 9: Jerry Fodor, Philosophy Department, UC Berkeley
April 16: Mark Johnson, Philosophy Department, Southern
Illinois University
April 23: David Dowty, Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences
April 30: Herbert H. Clark, Psychology Department, Stanford
University
----------------------------------
∂15-Mar-85 1624 JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA May BATS at Stanford
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Mar 85 16:24:16 PST
Date: Fri 15 Mar 85 15:59:17-PST
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: May BATS at Stanford
To: ragde%ucbernie@UCB-VAX.ARPA, traub%ucbernie@UCB-VAX.ARPA,
amiram%ucbernie@UCB-VAX.ARPA, propp%ucbbrahms@UCB-VAX.ARPA,
yao.pa@XEROX.ARPA, ramshaw@DECWRL.ARPA, broder@DECWRL.ARPA,
klawe.ibm-sj@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, allen.ucsc@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,
aflb.su@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I intended to make this announcement after Andrei's talk this afternoon
at Xerox, but the talk has been postponed. The next BATS will be
Friday, May 17 at Stanford.
This is approximately 1-1/2 weeks after STOC.
Before anyone asks: the reason that I didn't schedule BATS at Stanford for
April is that at the time I had to reserve the room, it wasn't clear that
the Xerox BATS was going to be in March and not April. Sorry if many people
will still be travelling after STOC.
More announcements between now and then.
Joan
-------
∂15-Mar-85 1806 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA SU-CSD Programming Team Wins!
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Mar 85 18:06:11 PST
Date: Fri 15 Mar 85 17:48:42-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: SU-CSD Programming Team Wins!
To: csd@SU-SCORE.ARPA
I just heard from Manolis Katevenis that the Stanford CSD Team
won first place in the ACM programming contest in New Orleans.
They finished all problems with time to spare! Congratulations!
-Nils
-------
∂16-Mar-85 1711 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:pratt@Navajo Getting Macsyma at Stanford
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Mar 85 17:11:06 PST
Received: from Navajo ([36.8.0.48].#Internet) by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sat 16 Mar 85 17:08:47-PST
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 85 17:08:44 pst
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@Navajo>
Subject: Getting Macsyma at Stanford
To: faculty@score
I propose to send the following (more or less self-explanatory) message
to Joel Moses on Wednesday. Suggestions for changes in anything
(contents, sender, recipient, timing, etc.) would be appreciated.
Dear Joel,
As you probably are aware, some of us doing theory at Stanford,
whether in O.R., C.S., Math, etc., find Macsyma most useful.
I'd appreciate your input on some questions relating to
how Stanford might go about acquiring Macsyma to run on its various
machines.
1. Through what channels may Macsyma be properly acquired? I understand
Symbolics provides one such channel.
2. On which machines, operating systems, or Lisps is Macsyma
available? Needless to say we do not have ITS. We do have TOPS-20 on
20/60's, 4.2BSD on Vaxen and Suns, Zetalisp on Symbolics 3600's,
Interlisp on Dolphins, and many other machines that may or may not
be relevant.
3. What control if any does MIT exercise over non-MIT channels for
Macsyma distribution?
4. Should we expect to be able to acquire Macsyma globally for Stanford,
or by department, or by machine?
It would be particularly convenient if Macsyma were a keystroke away
rather than a continent.
Yours sincerely
Vaughan Pratt
Professor
of Computer Science
∂16-Mar-85 1822 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:RPG@SU-AI.ARPA MACSYMA
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Mar 85 18:22:38 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sat 16 Mar 85 18:20:37-PST
Date: 16 Mar 85 1820 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: MACSYMA
To: pratt@SU-NAVAJO.ARPA
CC: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Vaughan, before you send that message to Moses, you should log onto
SCORE and say `MACSYMA<cr>'. I'm not sure whether it is also on SIERRA and
SUMEX, but I presume that that is easily arranged.
-rpg-
∂16-Mar-85 1926 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:pratt@Navajo macsyma on score
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Mar 85 19:26:41 PST
Received: from Navajo ([36.8.0.48].#Internet) by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sat 16 Mar 85 19:25:08-PST
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 85 19:25:06 pst
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@Navajo>
Subject: macsyma on score
To: faculty@score
Well, as several people were quick to point out to me, Macsyma is on
Score already. How it got there without my finding out is beyond me, I
had assumed that the local Macsyma users were logging into MIT-MC for
their fix. I could have saved myself a lot of hassle over the past 12
months, logging in to MC and other remote sites to get to it, if I'd
only known!
If someone can provide me with a list, even partial, of the third-party
software packages installed on Stanford machines I'd be most grateful.
Len Bosack recommended that I send the letter anyway, on the ground that
it would be nice to have Macsyma more widely available on campus. I'll
think about it.
Sorry to bother you all.
-v
∂17-Mar-85 1100 NEALE@SU-CSLI.ARPA Visit by Martin Davies
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 85 11:00:34 PST
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1985 10:56 PST
Message-ID: <NEALE.12095793287.BABYL@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
From: NEALE@SU-CSLI.ARPA
To: Folks@csli
subject: Visit by Martin Davies
Folks, Martin Davies, philosopher of language from the University of
London, will be arriving here this week. We have tentative plans
for him to give a colloquium and a couple of more informal
presentations.
Davies has published a variety of papers on Grices's programme,
Quantification Theory, Tacit Knowledge, Formal Semantics, and the
Modularity Thesis. He is currently engaged in research on the
semantics/pragmatics distinction and its relation to the distinction
in the philosophy of mind between beliefs and subdoxastic states
(genuine PA's versus tacit or implicit knowledge) and the distinction
made in cognitive pschology (by e.g. Fodor) between input systems and
central systems.
You can leave messages for Davies with me until we get his account
set up. (By the way, if anyone needs a house-sitter from 25th March
onwards for a week or two, or has a guest room they wouldn't mind
letting out, we could certainly use it.)
Stephen.
∂18-Mar-85 0253 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #9
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 85 02:53:09 PST
Date: Sunday, March 17, 1985 7:40AM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #9
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Monday, 18 Mar 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 9
Today's Topics:
Query - XEROX & Denotatinal Semantics,
Implementation - Warren Engine & Unsafe Var's & Numbervars,
& Bounded Merge & CP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 85 20:14:28 gmt
From: William Clocksin <WFC%CL.Cam@ucl-cs.arpa>
Subject: Implementation?
Has anyone got a Prolog implementation running on
Xerox workstations under XDE (it would have to be
written in Mesa)? Alternatively, does anyone want
one badly enough for me to write one (at cost)?
------------------------------
Date: 11 Feb 85 10:24 PST
From: Kahn.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: is there Prolog on Xerox 1100's/Interlisp?
Unfortunately I'm not at liberty to say much about
Prolog on Xerox 1100's. All I've been authorized
to say is that Xerox is exploring several avenues
and that something will be announced during the
summer, we think.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 85 13:22:41 pst
From: (Carl Ponder) Ponder%ucbernie@Berkeley
Subject: "Prolog inquiry"
I am attempting to do a dissertation in which I
develop a model of denotational semantics for describing
different Prologs (conventional Prolog, Dado Prolog,
Concurrent Prolog, etc.) and using it to show where they
might contain or exclude each other, and showing logical
consistency or inconsistency.
I have found very few articles dealing with formal Prolog
semantics; just Pereira & Monteiro on operational
semantics of concurrency, Jones & Mycroft on denotational
semantics of conventional Prolog, and a large number of
articles on pure logic programming (Apt & Van Emden, Wise,
Kowalski, etc.).
Do you know of any references dealing with the formal
semantics of how Prolog actually works (i.e. formalizing
the procedural, not the declarative semantics)? Also, do
you know of any discussing the discrepancies (formally or
in terms of programming techniques) between the declarative
& procedural interpretations (i.e. where the logic works
but the interpreter fails due to the search ordering), or
any discussing the discrepancies between Prolog and
any of the proposed parallel variations?
Thanks,
-- Carl Ponder
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 11 Mar 1985 13:00:31-PST
From: (Karl Puder) Puder%Bach.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
Subject: unsafe variables in SRI-309
According to Warren's rules, in the clause:
nrev([X|L0], L) :- nrev(L0, L1), conc(L1, [X], L).
the variable L is safe because it appears in the head.
Since L appears in the head, some other clause must have
allocated storage for it in order to pass it in. There
is no need to keep yet another copyof L once it has been
put into an A register to hand it to conc.
If this still doesn't work, recheck your implementation
of the put instructions against the PROLOG code in the
paper, and/or read Warren's paper "An Improved Prolog
Implementation which Optimizes Tail Recursion" for a
better explanation of what is going on. (This paper
describes TRO for a structure-sharing system, but the
basic principle is the same).
-- Karl
------------------------------
Date: 13 Mar 1985 09:59-EST
From: David Scott Warren <Warren%suny-sbcs@csnet-relay>
Subject: WPE and unsafe variables again
To continue the discussion of unsafe variables in the
(D.H.D.) Warren Prolog Engine (WPE), and the example
raised by Clocksin:
nrev([X|L0],L) :- nrev(L0,L1), conc(L1,[X],L).
The final occurrence of L is not unsafe. A variable is
unsafe if its final occurrence might dereference to a
(free) variable STORED IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT. This
cannot be the case with L. When dereferencing the final
occurrence of L, it might well dereference to a free
variable, but not to a free variable stored in this
environment. The unification on entry to this clause
will point the local variable L to whatever is passed
in as the second argument, maybe a free variable, but
it will be a free variable in an environment deeper in
the stack (or in the heap). The problem would be if
when Register 2 is loaded with the value of L, it pointed
into the current environment. This can't happen with L
occurring in the head; it will point into an environment
deeper in the stack (or already on the heap).
Another related point that caused me some difficulty
concerns what D.H.D. Warren calls a temporary variable,
in the circumstance that the first occurrence of the
variable appears at the top level in the final literal of
the clause, and is thus translated to a `put←temp←var'
instruction. I find this situation to be better understood
as an unsafe variable situation. It is a `permanent'
variable which on its first use is definitely known to be
unsafe and so must be moved to the heap.
(Note also that it wasn't needed before this point and so
needn't be allocated space in the current environment at
all; thus is `temp'.)
Anyway, I found the name `temp' confusing at first.
I might mention that in a graduate compiler course that I
taught last winter, I had the students write a Prolog
compiler and we used (a minor variant of) the WPE as the
intermediate code language. I wrote some rough notes
explaining the operation of the WPE for the students. It
explains a number of these issues. I'll be happy to send a
copy to anyone who is interested.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 85 20:11:07 gmt
From: William Clocksin <wfc%cl.cam@ucl-cs.arpa>
Subject: numbervars/3
A definition of numbervars/3, requested by
nbs-amrf!hopp in Digest 3(8), follows:
numbervars('←'(M),M,N) :- !, succ(M,N).
numbervars(A,M,M) :- atomic(A), !.
numbervars(T,M,N) :- functor(T,←,A), numbervars(0,A,T,M,N).
numbervars(A,A,←,N,N) :- !.
numbervars(Am,Ar,T,M,N) :-
succ(Am,An),
arg(An,T,A),
numbervars(A,M,K),
!,
numbervars(An,Ar,T,K,N).
The variables are labelled (UK spelling) with compound
term ←/1. It is not a good idea to write programs that
rely on a particular labelling scheme. Oh yes:
succ(X,Y) gives an X and Y such that Y is 1 more than X.
'numbervars'/3 is often used by programs that need their
own theory of substitution. It is possible to dispense
with this by programming the theory explicitly (define a
predicate called, say, 'match'). The latter can often
be more efficient, I suspect.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 85 21:44:36 pst
From: Allen VanGelder <AVG@Diablo>
Subject: numbervars reply
There were some questions about numbervars. I
tried to send to the author, but the mail was
returned. Maybe you can figure out what address
is needed, or put it in the Digest.
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 85 13:28:37 pst
From: Allen VanGelder <avg@diablo>
Subject: numbervars
To: hopp@nbs-amrf.arpa
numbervars should not produce terms that are likely
to occur "by accident". See last paragraph.
Here is a photo of what C-Prolog does:
C-Prolog version 1.4e.edai
| ?- numbervars([X,Y],0,2), numbervars(g(U,V),0,2), X=U, Y=V.
V = B
U = A
Y = B
X = A ;
no
In other words, it succeeds exactly once.
Needless to say "A" and "B" are not variables. When you go
over 26, it continues "A1, B1, ...". The advantage of this
over integers is that a written term can be human-readable
as far as variables go, and still has variables in the
right places if re-read. For your purposes, I guess this is
immaterial. Incidentally, numbervars fails if you give it
too small a range.
Finally, in spite of the above evidence,
numbervars SUPPOSEDLY gives you '$VAR'(0),
'$VAR'(1), ... This costs you little in
implementation terms and is probably necessary
for correctness. You do NOT want this to succeed:
Y=0, numbervars(g(X),0,1), numbervars(g(Y),0,1), g(X)=g(Y)
because a primary purpose of numbervars is to distinguish
between logically different, but unifiable, terms.
Variants SHOULD be equal after numbervars, so if Y=0 is
omitted above, the rest succeeds, because g(X) and g(Y)
are the same up to renaming variables.
Hope this helps.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 11 Mar 85 11:44:19-EST
From: Vijay <Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Subject: Bounded Merge revisited
[ This is in response to Kuslik's and Shaprio's
notes in V3(8) responsing to Vijay's bounded
merge program in CP in the issue before that.
My apologies for the confusion -ed]
Thanks to Ehud Shapiro and Tony Kusalik (private
communication) for pointing out why the bounded
merge program proposed in the previous Digest
would not work. I now believe that `bounded
merge' isn't a robust concept. (When in doubt
change the topic!) The problem is that it isn't
compositional. If I have a bounded merge process
and I place it in a context where two streams are
being independently generated and then merged by
the given b-merge, there can be no guarantee that
two successive elements coming from the same stream
will occur always within a fixed number of elements
of each other in the output stream. This is because
the scheduler could be AND-unfair. Consider:
system(Z):- cycle(a, 0, R), cycle(b, 0, S), b-merge(R?,S?, Z).
cycle(Tag, N, element(Tag, N).R):- N1 is N+1, cycle(Tag, N1?, R).
b-merge is your favourite bounded merge.
Now unless I assume some kind of AND-fair shceduler,
I cannot guarantee that if element(a,1) is the 1st
element in Z then element(a,2) will be the Nth element
for some arbitrary but fixed N. This is because it
could very well be the case that the scheduler does
not schedule cycle(a, 2, R) for execution but keeps
on scheduling cycle(b,N,S) and then merge will faithfully
keep on producing element(b,X) in the output stream.
The point is that having a so-called bounded merge
does not help produce a system which preserves that
property unless we asssume some form of AND-fairness
of the scheduler of the kind that if two independent
AND-goals are ready to execute, they will be executed
in a bounded amount of time, perhaps bounded by the
number of such processes at that time or maybe even
the total number of AND-processes at that time.
For example, a breadth first AND-scheduler would be
some such scheduler.
Note that AND-fairness is very different from OR-fairness
which would actually be quite difficult to define. Suffice
to say that under a reasonable assumption of what an
OR-fair scheduler would be the normal merge would be a
bounded merge.
[Note also that in their 1984 ISL paper, Shapiro and
Mierowsky assume a property similar to what we call
AND-fairness (which they call fairness, and which is
not to be confused with the fair as in fair merge,
which isn't what everyone calls fair anyway. I think
its fair to say that all this can be fairly confusing.)]
If we are going to assume AND-fairness anyway, we may
as well assume it to get a `bounded' merge. Here is a
version which uses only `?' and `|':
X=X.
copy(A.X, A.X, A.X).
merge(X, Y, Z):- copy(X?, NewX1, NewX2),
copy(Y?, NewY1, NewY2),
merge(NewX1?, NewY1?, NewX2, NewY2, Z).
I. merge(R, I.Y, S?, ←, I.Z):- R=S | merge(R, Y, Z).
II. merge(I.X, R, ←, S?, I.Z):- R=S | merge(X, R, Z).
III. merge(I.X, I1.Y, ←, ←, I.I1.Z):- merge(X, Y, Z).
IV. merge(I.X, I1.Y, ←, ←, I1.I.Z):- merge(X, Y, Z).
V. merge(nil, I1.Y, ←, ←, I1.Y).
VI. merge(I1.X, nil, ←,←, I1.X).
VII. merge(nil, Y, ←, ←, Y).
VIII.merge(X, nil, ←, ←, X).
This works exactly as before.
I. can fire ONLY IF there is input in the second stream
to be merged and none in the first stream.
Similarly for II.
III and IV can fire only if there is input in both streams,
and then the order in which the two input elements are output
depends upon the guard which commits.
V-VIII take care of termination conditions.
Consider I. (Ignore the calls to copy/3 for the time
being.) There is only one occurence of S in the clause
head and this is read-protected. Therefore it can only
match a variable, otherwise it will suspend forever. The
only other read-only annotation to bother about is that
of the call's 2d argument, which will be satisfied if it
is instantiated when called. Similarly for all the other
clauses. Effectively, by keeping two copies of X and Y
in each call, one read-protected and the other not, we
have avoided the X?-X? clash that occurred earlier.
Now where's the catch? According to the definition
of a S?-X match, X becomes a read-only variable, i.e.
ALL INSTANCES OF X ARE NOW READ-ONLY. Hence as soon
as the first clause commits its bindings X globally
becomes S? and of course there is no producer for S,
so everything hangs again. This points out the
confusion of concepts involved in making X?-Y result
in Y being a read-only copy of X in all its instances.
Whereas the '?' used to be a purely local annotation,
affecting only the place it occurs in, suddenly it has
become a global annotation. The problem now is that
instances of variables which had not explicitly been
declared read-only (and hence declared explicitly NOT
-Read-Only, there being no way in CP to declare something
explictly not-read-only, that being the default case)
suddenly become read-only leading to immediate dead-lock.
Enter copy/3. Given an input stream, copy/3 produces two
copies of the stream (and is also suspended if there is no
input in the input stream). Now when S? unfiies with NewX2
in I, NewX2 becomes S?, i.e. a read-only copy of S. But
the guard declares S to be the same as R, which is NewX1?.
Hence NewX2 becomes NewX1??, i.e. NewX1?. But now the goal
copy(X?, NewX1, NewX1?) can STILL execute successfully
because when X is instantiated, say to B.Q the second
arguments will unify leading to NewX1? becoming B.Q? which
will unify with the third argument in the clause-head of
copy/3.
The price we pay for this is that in addition we now have
to assume AND-fairness in order to show that if a value
arrives at the original X stream, then it will be output in
a finite amount of time. All the goals of the form copy(X?,
NewX1, NewX1?), copy(NewX1?, NewX11, NewX11?), .... that
have been built up (effectively forming a linear pipeline
N long if N is the number of Y elements output since the
last X element was output) are independent of the goals
copy(Y?, NewY1, NewY2), copy(NewY1?, NewY11, NewY12) and
the system must not discriminate against them. For
example, under breadth-first scheduling one can show that
if N elements of Y are output before an element arrives at
the X input, then at most N more elements from Y will be
output before the element that arrived at X is output
(assuming that Y supplies elements as fast as they are
consumed.)
Now for some light hearted asides. Gimme a break!
Since when did we start writing and studying programs
in order to RUN them? Quote from the Bible p.8:
"... In our approach we shall try to redress the
balance,and we shall do so by regarding the fact that
our algorithms could actually be carried out by a
computer as a lucky accidental circumstance that need
not occupy a central position in our considerations..."
Thanks to Udi again for giving another exposition of
"stability" , a concept with which I totally disagree.
The whole exercise involving bounded merge was carried
out with the purpose of determining how powerful a
language CP is. Stability is a very strong assumption
indeed and the aim here is to see how far can you go
with as little as possible. The attempt here, in brief,
was to get the '?' to do the work of var. Look, ma,
no hands.
And, to reiterate, I DON'T CARE (as contrasted
with DON'T KNOW; pardon this terrible humour)
if all known implementations of CP are stable.
We are talking of the model of computation here,
and how much mileage can be obtained from the
minimum of extra-logical assumptions. Do you
want the CP model to specify that all its
implementations must be stable or fair? As Tony
Hoare said long ago (CSP) paper, one would NOT
like to do that in order to prove one's programs
correct, but here (Sigh!) some such property seems
necessary. My deence is that you would need it
anyway if you were to prove some boundedness
property for a system.
And lastly, as I am sure Ehud would agree, the
only real touchstone for answering questions like
this (the appropriate behaviour for ?-?) is a formal,
well-justified, abstract semantics, (which takes the
place of God in these circumstances) not whether
something works or doesn't work on a (possibly buggy...
no offence meant!) interpreter.
Cheers.
-- Vijay.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 12 Mar 85 15:23:38-EST
From: Vijay <Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Subject: Bounded merge once again.
In his message to the Digest, Jacob Levy proposed
an alternate definition of the read-only annotation
in CP. Briefly, this proposal suggests that unification
of a read-only variable in a clause head with anything
in the goal should be defined to fail. Without commenting
here on the merits or otherwise of this proposal, here
is ANOTHER b-merge which works for this new-definition.
test(A.X, A.X, test(done)).
merge(X,Y,Z):-
test(X?, NewX, TestX),
test(Y?, NewY, TestY),
merge(NewX?, TestX, NewY?, TestY, Z).
I. merge(X, test(Test?), A.Y, ←, A.Z):- Test=done | merge(X, Y, Z).
II. merge(A.X, ←, Y, test(Test?), A.Z):- Test=done | merge(X, Y, Z).
III.merge(A.X, ←, B.Y, ←, A.B.Z):- merge(X,Y,Z).
IV. merge(A.X, ←, B.Y, ←, B.A.Z):- merge(X,Y,Z).
V. merge(nil, ←, Y, ←, Y).
VI. merge(X, ←, nil, ←, X).
This works just as it did before, with clause I firing
ONLY IF there is no input on the X channel and some on the
Y channel. Clause II handles the symmetric case and III
and IV the case in which there is input on both channels.
V and VI handle the termination conditions.
Note that you only need the fairness assumption with
respect to test/3, merge/3 and merge/5 goal. When input
arrives on a channel, it will be output a fixed but
arbitrary number of elements from the other stream have
been output. This number is bounded above by the number
of consecutive elements from the other channel that have
been output before the arrival of this element.
The input can be assumed to arrive asynchronously from
externally scheduled producers. A variant of this program
is needed for a k-fair (k > 0) scheduler, though.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 85 11:20:01 -0200
From: Ehud Shapiro <Udi%Wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
Unfortunately, Vijay's 5-argument upgrade to his
3-argument fair merge is still not correct. In
contrast with his merge/3, which does not work on
any example, the new merge/5 works for some examples
--- for goals merge(Xs,Ys,Zs), in which both Xs and
Ys are fully instantiated streams (i.e. lists).
However, when called with two streams which are produced
lazyly --- slower then the pace in which merge/5 can
consume them --- Vijay's program deadlocks. The reason
is that his method for checking that a stream is
uninstantiated, while succeeding in the check, also binds
that stream to a read-only variable, which causes further
attempts of the producer of the stream to suspend.
Vijay's merge/7 upgrade to the merge/5 upgrade to the
merge/3 suffers from the same problem.
On the other hand, Vijay proposes in his third note to the
Digest to change the behavior of unification in Concurrent
Prolog, namely that unify(X?,Y?), where X and Y are
variables, to suceed, binding X to Y. An interesting
change, I must admit. Under this change, Vijay's original
merge/3 program will work correctly, and, with some additional
effort by the producers of the streams, will also allow
his merge/5 and merge/7 to work. In addition to this
proposal, to which we will give serious consideration in
our forthcoming implementation discussions, Vijay raises
several other points concerning unification of read-only
variables. Similar points have been made by Toni Kusalik,
and by Kazunori Ueda, in unpublsihed notes. I will try and
respond to some of them (although I can't promise to keep
up with Vijay's pace in the future) in light of some
implementation decisions made in our new compiler for
Flat Concurrent Prolog.
-- Concerning unify(X?,X), and unify(X?,X?):
Unification of a term with itself always succeeds,
irrespective... The problem in the Concurrent Prolog
interpreter written in Prolog is caused by X? being
represented as the term '?'(X), the lack of occur-check in
reasonable Prolog implementations, and the fact that
no-one cared for this bug before.
-- Concerning order dependence of unification:
Unification is performed from left to right, so it is not
"desparate". This order dependence is a bug or a feature,
depending on whether you are selling or buying (actually
there are some neet FCP programming tricks/techniques
that rely on this, including implementing deterministic
constraint systems, and probing a shared blackboard).
--- Concerning read-only's in the head of a clause:
When originally defining Concurrent Prolog, I noticed
that the definition allows read-only's in clause heads,
but didn't know what one ould use them for. A use for
them was discovered independently almost a year later, by
Lisa Hellerstein, when trying to implement a complex
parallel algorithm in Concurrent Prolog, and by Steve
Gregory, when trying to implement PARLOG in Concurrent
Prolog. Since then the technique is known as 'exporting
protected data-structures', which is just what it says:
it allows a process to create an incomplete data-structure,
and fill in the parts later, without worrying that some
other process will step on the incomplete parts
malliciously or by mistake.
--- It is true that there is no use suspending on a
variable that is local to a clause, since no-one can
wake-up such a suspended process. Fortunately, it is
easy to detect this case at runtime, and fail instead.
This should be viewed as an optimization that does not
change the semantics of Concurrent Prolog.
A last comment concerning fairness. Fairness of a
computation specified by a logic program is a property
which goes outside of the program's model theoretic
semantics. Hence I find it completely appropriate that
extralogical features should be used to specify it. For
that matter, read-only annotation is an extra-logical
control facility. Certainly, for reasons of elegance,
it is preferable to be able to specify fair Concurrent
Prolog programs using this construct alone, without
introducing other extra-logical facilities such as the
fairness or stability of the underlying machine. It
seems that following Vijay's proposed modification to the
semantics of Concurrent Prolog, it is possible to specify
fair merge using read-only variables alone, without relying
on the fairness of the underlying machine. This should be
taken as a point in favor of this proposal.
Happy Purim,
-- Ehud Shapiro
------------------------------
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 07:37:58-EST
From: Vijay <Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Subject: An alternative to '?' in CP.
As an alternative to CP's complicated definition of the
read-only annotation, let me propose another annotation.
The '!' annotation can only decorate instances of terms in
the head of a clause. If a Term (variable OR constant OR
compound term) T! occurs in the head of a clause, then
unification will suspend if an attempt is made to unify a
variable against the term and will remain suspended until
the variable has been instantiated (to a constant or a
possibly non-ground compound term), after which the two
terms will be recursively unified. (wait/1 in CP seems to
achieve the suspension part of '!' but cannot be used to
simulate it in CP-without-? without a control primtive to
sequence goals... and pleeaase don't use '?' for
sequencing!.) Like the `?', the `!' is
not inherited by embedded terms, that is, it applies only
to the functor or variable instance textually indicated in
the program.
Note that under these rules, unification is still
order-dependent, but there is a linear algorithm. Also
unify(Y!, X!) can never occur. unify(Y, Y!) can, and
suspends till Y is instantiated. Note that there is no
'inheritance' of '!' via X!-Y unifications like there is
for X?-Y. Indeed the !-annotation can never occur 'in'
any goal call at run-time.
Here each CLAUSE decides what is to be INPUT to it.
Previously each CALL decided what would be input to that
call. If all the clauses have the same pattern of input
specifications, then that could be considered a
mode-specification for the predicate.
Examples:
merge([A|X]!, Y, [A|Z]):- merge(X, Y, Z).
merge(X, [A|Y]!, [A|Z]):- merge(X, Y, Z).
plus(X!, Y!, Z):- Z is X+Y.
plus(X!, Y, Z!):- Y is Z-X.
plus(X, Y!, Z!):- X is Z-Y.
'!' is less powerful than '?' because it cannot be used to
simulate 'var' and hence write a b-merge like program,
even assuming strict-AND fairnes of the scheduler.
Nor can it be used to export 'protected' variables. But
the whole thesis here is that clauses should be forced to
specify what their input is and hence the 'embedded
channel' problem in Hellerstein and Shapiro, ISLP, 1984
can be taken care of by !-protecting at the consume site
instead of ?-protecting at the produce site.
'!' seems to cover the vast majority of uncontroversial
uses of the `?' and is far simpler semantically. For
example, it can be shown that once a goal previously
blocked on '!' becomes unblocked, it remains unblocked
through commit time. With even the new proposal for '?'
that is not the case, unless restriction 1 in my note on
the read-only annotation in the previous Digest is
enforced.
(By the way, most of what I said in 'The read-only
annotation in CP' continues to be valid even under the
new proposal for '?' given by Levy in the last Digest.)
------------------------------
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 10:20:02-EST
From: vijay <Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Subject: Levy's version of '?'.
Levy's version of '?' in CP as presented in the
last issue of the Digest is inconsistent, as the
following example explains.
Goal: ?- foo(X?, Z).
Clause: foo(Y, Y).
Suppose the first arguments are unified first. Then
Y becomes X?, and hence unifying the second arguments
leads to unifying X? in the head with Z in the clause
which will fail.
Suppose the second arguments arre unified first. Then Y
becomes Z and now of course unifying the first arguments
succeeds with Z becoming X?.
This is different from the example I had given
earlier to point out the order-dependence of
unification. There the choice was between
suspension and success, here it is between
failure and success. Does Levy mean to imply some
fixed ordering to his unification algorithm? (e.g.
unify the arguments of a compund term from left to
right) That's a strong condition!
Note that Condition 1 (all occurrences of a variable
in a goal should be either read-only protected or
none should be read-only protected) is met by the goal
?-foo(X?,Z). So that condition is not suficient to
handle this inconsistency. It is also not sufficient
to ensure that once a goal becomes unblocked it will
remain unblocked through commit time, for the same reason
(unlike what I had thought in the previous message 'An
alternative to CPs ?' in this issue of the Digest).
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂18-Mar-85 0813 BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA Faculty Meeting Agenda
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 85 08:13:06 PST
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 08:10:53-PST
From: Lee Berman <BERMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty Meeting Agenda
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Just want you all to know that scheduling a phone analyst for the
meeting tomorrow was my idea. I neglected to check with Nils because
he was out of the office and I wanted to save the time when everyone
would be together and the analyst was free. Please attend if you have
questions about the new phone system. Hope you aren't feel "phone
over-kill." Thanks.
Lee
-------
∂18-Mar-85 0841 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 85 08:41:38 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 18 Mar 85 08:40:28-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 18 Mar 85 10:29:42 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 18 Mar 85 07:08:02 cst
Message-Id: <8503181307.AA09612@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from COLUMBIA-20.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Mon, 18 Mar 85 07:07:55 cst
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 08:07:34-EST
From: Zvi Galil <GALIL@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
To: theory@WISC-CRYS.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
Dear SIGACT member,
I am happy to report to you that SIGACT already has 6 institutional
sponsors. The money that we received will be spent in helping students
who attend STOC. This STOC
1.We will return to the students part of their registration fees.
2.We will either give students one free lunch or sell them
substantially discounted banquet tickets.
The level of support will depend on the number of institutional
sponsors (with luck we may have new sponsors), and on the number
of students attending the conference. Late in April we will
decide on the specific details of 1 and 2 above. Therefore, it is
important that all those who plan to attend register as soon as
possible.
You are going to receive the brochure with the program for STOC85 any
day. If you plan to attend the conference, I urge you to register
right away. Students who do not register before the April 22
deadline may not be able to get 1 and 2 above. (This is a kind
of student late registration fee..) Nonstudents are asked to
register soon because there are upper bounds on the capacities
of the lunch room and the banquet room.
In the business meeting we will discuss the possible ways to spend the
(institutional sponsors') money in the future.
One suggestion is to have a best
student paper award. Another is to have stipends for partial
reimbursement of travel costs. This option will become possible only if
we have several new sponsors. If you have other ideas, please let me
know. Also, I'd appreciate suggestions for new sponsors.
See you in Providence, Zvi Galil
PS. Please spread the word about this message to those that do not
have an access to theory-net.
-------
∂18-Mar-85 0853 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Reminder
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 85 08:53:17 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 18 Mar 85 08:43:24-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 18 Mar 85 10:31:01 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 18 Mar 85 07:07:13 cst
Message-Id: <8503181307.AA09607@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from COLUMBIA-20.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Mon, 18 Mar 85 07:07:07 cst
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 08:06:44-EST
From: Zvi Galil <GALIL@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
Subject: Reminder
To: theory@WISC-CRYS.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
THE SIXTH THEORY DAY
at Columbia University
Sponsored by the Department of Computer Science
Friday, March 22, 1985
10:00 PROFESSOR MICHAEL J. FISCHER
Yale University
"Robust and Verifiable Cryptographically Secure
Elections"
11:00 DR. JEFFREY C. LAGARIAS
AT&T Bell Laboratories
"Finding Short Vectors in Lattices and Their
Applications"
2:00 PROFESSOR VIJAY V. VAZIRANI
Cornell University
"NP is as Easy as Detecting Unique Solutions"
3:00 DR. MICHAEL E. SAKS
Bell Communications Research
"Recent Developments in Linear Programming"
Coffee will be available at 9:30 a.m.
All Lectures will be in the Kellogg Conference Center on the
Fifteenth Floor of the International Affairs Building, 118th
Street and Amsterdam Avenue.
The Lectures are Free and Open to the Public.
Call (212) 280-2736 for more information.
-------
-------
∂18-Mar-85 1039 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 85 10:39:44 PST
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 10:15:24-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New Books in the Math/CS Library
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, faculty@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
Supercomputers: Design and Applications: Tutorial by Hwang QA76.5.T87 1984
VAX Pascal by Hume and Holt QA76.73.P2H86 1984
Parallel and Large-Scale Computers: Performance, Architecture, Applications
edited by Ruschitzka, Christensen, Ames, and Vichnevetsky
QA76.5.I414 1982
How to Write a Computer Manual: a Handbook of Software Documentation by Price
QA76.9.D6P75 1984
If you wish to sign up for one of these books while they are on display
in the Mathematical and Computer Sciences Library, send a message to
Library@SCORE before March 22 with your name, electronic mail address,
physical mail address, and title/call number of book you would like
to see. After the book comes off of display, you will be notified
that the book is on hold for you in the Math/CS Library. Books
with more then one request will be circulated for two weeks to
each person according to order of requests.
Harry Llull
-------
∂18-Mar-85 1108 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:E1.I85@Lindy
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 85 11:08:03 PST
Received: from Lindy by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 18 Mar 85 09:41:10-PST
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 85 09:39:20 PST
From: Voy Wiederhold <E1.I85@Forsythe>
To: FACULTY@SCORE
Hello again,
Just a note to reconfirm the party for Minolis Katevenis
and Ariadne Johnson is for this Friday, Mar. 22 at noon
at the MJH patio. If you haven't RSVPed, please do so especially
if you plan to come. No need to respond again if you have
already let me know.
Many thanks... Voy
∂18-Mar-85 1229 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1985
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 85 12:26:56 PST
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 12:19:29-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1985
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Folks,
Here is the abstract for this Friday's SIGLUNCH:
SIGLUNCH
DATE: Friday, March 22, 1985
LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Dr. Ru-qian Lu, Professor and Head of Department of
Computer Science, Institute of Mathematics, Academy of Science,
Beijing, China
ABSTRACT: This will be a combination of two talks:
1. DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERT SYSTEMS IN CHINA (SELF EXPLANATORY)
2. TUILI - A GENERAL PURPOSE TOOL FOR DESCRIBING
EXPERT SYSTEMS (ABSTRACT BELOW)
Since the seventies, more and more people are involved in developing
expert systems. But most of them are special-purpose systems,
containing only knowledge and experiences of a special field, even of
a special person (such as an experienced doctor of traditional Chinese
Medicine). Despite the advances in the field of knowledge
representation, general-purpose tools for describing expert systems
are still rare and in the early stage of their development. In many
cases, they are only new versions of existing special-purpose tools
with minor extensions.
Tuili (Tool for Universal Interactive Logical Inference) takes the
generality as one of its important design goals. The main mechanism
of its knowledge representation are production rules, but other
mechanisms can be simulated as well. Here are the main
characteristics of Tuili:
1. Not only predicates, but also predicate procedures are allowed
in production rules.
2. The parameters of predicates and predicate procedures are
pattern elements of different data types.
3. A new principle of semantic pattern matching is proposed. Users
are allowed to define their own pattern matching rules.
4. Users can define their own probability functions, attribute
functions and their propagation rules during the course of
inference.
5. Rule bases and data bases are modular structured.
6. The control structure is represented as production rules, they
form the meta-structure, which can be organized hirarhically to
form a multi-level control structure.
7. The system provides a rich set of built-in control strategies to
be chosen from by users. They can define their own strategies,
too.
At present, Tuili is being used to write an expert system for brain
diseases and one for teaching traditional Chinese Medicine.
Thanx,
Paula
-------
∂18-Mar-85 1308 @SU-CSLI.ARPA:PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA tomorrow's meeting
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 85 13:07:56 PST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Mon 18 Mar 85 13:03:10-PST
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 13:03:08-PST
From: Phil Cohen <PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: tomorrow's meeting
To: NL4: ;
Tues, the 19th, at 12:45, in the Ventura Seminar Room, Dietmar
Zaefferer will continue his discussion of interrogatives and
questions.
Phil
-------
∂18-Mar-85 1545 KIPARSKY@SU-CSLI.ARPA P-2 meeting
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 85 15:44:48 PST
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 15:37:45-PST
From: Paul Kiparsky <KIPARSKY@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: P-2 meeting
To: Pinterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA, NLinterest@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: Fischer@SU-CSLI.ARPA, Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA
The next P-2 meeting will be on Wednesday, April 3 (not March 27 as
previously announced) at 4.30 in the Ventura reading room. Susan
Fischer will speak on "Showing Cause in ASL: An Autosegmental Approach
to Syntax".
-------
∂18-Mar-85 1554 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:DEK@SU-AI.ARPA new catalog copy
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 85 15:54:01 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 18 Mar 85 15:27:42-PST
Date: 18 Mar 85 1522 PST
From: Don Knuth <DEK@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: new catalog copy
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Since we've changed the numbers of so many courses, next year's
Courses and Degrees will be vastly different from this year's.
Hence there is a great chance for errors. I tried my best, but
my editorial work probably contains as many bugs as my computer programs do.
Please check the online file <CS.PUBLIC>BULLETIN.MSS at SCORE,
in whatever sections you have special knowledge, and report to me
any deviations from the truth. [That file is in SCRIBE format,
but you probably don't need to make yourself a hardcopy of the whole
things; just browsing with an editor should suffice.]
Kathy Berg has done an excellent job of typing all this material
into an online file. We still have a couple weeks to fix anything
that's out of kilter, but I fear that April will be too late.
∂18-Mar-85 1633 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA [AI.LENAT@MCC.ARPA: Returning from Leave of Absence]
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 85 16:32:53 PST
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 16:26:33-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [AI.LENAT@MCC.ARPA: Returning from Leave of Absence]
To: senior-faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
FYI.
---------------
Return-Path: <AI.LENAT@MCC.ARPA>
Received: from MCC.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Wed 13 Mar 85 13:45:55-PST
Date: Wed 13 Mar 85 15:45:27-CST
From: AI.LENAT@MCC.ARPA
Subject: Returning from Leave of Absence
To: nilsson@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: bscott@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, lenat@MCC.ARPA, golub@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Dear Nils,
Thank you for your recent letter. As I told Gene last Summer,
I will not be returning to Stanford as an assistant professor
next year (1985-86) under any circumstances. I appreciate the
work that the department has done on my behalf, in making my
tenure case to the dean, and hope that you will communicate this
message back to the senior faculty.
Regards,
Doug
-------
-------
∂19-Mar-85 0811 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA talk on parallel stuff
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 85 08:11:05 PST
Return-Path: <WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Mon 18 Mar 85 17:23:31-PST
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 17:10:05-PST
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: talk on parallel stuff
To: AIC-Associates: ;,
CSL: ;, bboard@SRI-AI.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA, friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
cc: bxj@SU-AI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Tue 19 Mar 85 08:06:40-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
the speaker: Bengt Jonsson (Uppsala and Stanford)
time: wednesday (mar 20), 4:15pm
coffee: 3:45pm in waldinger office
place: el381 (small csl conference room)
title and abstract:
A WAY TO MODEL AND SPECIFY ASYNCHRONOUSLY COMMUNICATING PROCESSES
Bengt Jonsson, Stanford University
The talk presents a concise semantic model for asynchronous networks which
is compositional, and a technique to specify and verify their safety and
liveness properties.
An asynchronous network is regarded as a set of processes, connected by
unidirectional channels over which messages can be sent. A process can
always send a message without cooperation by the receiving process (e.g.
by assuming buffering of inputs). Communication events are regarded as
atomic and should coincide with the event when the message is sent. A
sequence of observable events up to some point in time during an execution
is called a trace. The sequence of events observed during an entire
execution is called a quiescent trace, which can be infinite or finite.
In the latter case the network has reached a ``stable'' state, and no more
events will be observed unless more input messages are supplied. Infinite
quiescent traces describe nonterminating computations.
The above suggests that a concise way to describe the behavior of a
network or a process is to give the set of its quiescent traces; all other
traces can be obtained as prefixes thereof. The set of quiescent traces
also characterizes the liveness properties of a network, since a trace
that is not quiescent will always be followed by more communication
events. Composition of processes to a network is simple; the quiescent
traces of a network are those that match the quiescent traces of each
process.
This model can be used for specifying processes and networks. A logic
predicate can express constraints on the quiescent traces. The rules for
composing processes into networks are relatively simple, and proofs often
become short. However, the model is denotational in nature, and it may
sometimes not be easy to find the quiescent traces of a process given some
operational description of it.
-------
-------
∂19-Mar-85 1246 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa PODS program
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 85 12:46:35 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 19 Mar 85 12:21:37-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 19 Mar 85 14:06:36 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 19 Mar 85 13:52:08 cst
Message-Id: <8503191951.AA05059@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from su-aimvax.arpa by wisc-crys.arpa; Tue, 19 Mar 85 13:51:27 cst
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 85 10:20:54 pst
From: Jeff Ullman <ullman@diablo>
Subject: PODS program
To: theory@wisconsin
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
PROGRAM FOR 4TH PODS
MONDAY MARCH 24, 1985
Session 1, 9AM-12:30PM, Richard Hull, Univ. of Southern Calif., Chairman
Concurrency and Linear Hashing, Carla Schlatter Ellis,
University of Rochester
Semantically-based Concurrency Control for Search Structures,
Dennis Shasha, New York University, and Nathan Goodman,
Sequoia Systems
The Interpolation-Based Grid File, Mohamed Ouksel,
Arizona State University
Concurrent Operations on B*-Trees with Overtaking, Yehoshua Sagiv,
Hebrew University
On Optimizing Summary-Table-By-Example Queries, Gultekin Ozsoyoglu
and V. Matos, Case Western Reserve University
A Query Language for a Homogenous Temporal Database, Shashi K. Gadia
and Jay H. Vaishnav, Texas Tech University
Session 2, 2PM-3:30PM, Victor Vianu, Univ. of Calif., San Diego, Chairman
Querying Logical Databases, Moshe Vardi, Stanford University
Updating a Relational Database through a Universal Schema Interface,
V. Brosda and G. Vossen, Technical University of Aachen
Relaxing the Universal Scheme Assumption, Jacob Stein and
David Maier, Oregon Graduate Center
Session 3, 4PM-5:30PM, Ronald Fagin, IBM, San Jose, Chairman
A Semantic Approach to Correctness of Concurrent Transaction Executions,
Paul G. Spirakis and Alexander Tuzhilin, New York University
Some Algorithmic Aspects of Multiversion Concurrency Control,
Thanasis Hadzilacos, National Technical University, Athens, and
Christos H. Papadimitriou, Stanford University.
Deadlock-Freedom (and Safety) of Transactions in a Distributed Database,
Ouri Wolfson, and Mihalis Yannakakis, AT&T Bell Labs
TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 1985
Session 4, 9AM-10:30AM, Moshe Vardi, Stanford University, Chairman
An Experimental Evaluation of Crash Recovery Mechanism,
Hector Garcia-Molina and Jack Kent, Princeton University
On the Correctness of a Local Recovery Subsystem, Marco A. Casanova,
Arnaldo V. Moura, and Luiz Tucherman, IBM do Brasil
Distributed Data Management in Local Area Networks, Thomas W. Page Jr.,
and Gerald J. Popek, University of California at Los Angeles
Session 5, 11AM-12:30PM, David Maier, Oregon Graduate Center, Chairman
Equivalence of Views by Query Capacity, Tim Connors,
University of Southern California
Algebraic Versus Probabilistic Independence in Data Bases, F. Bancilhon,
and M. Spyratos, INRIA
Algorithms for Translating View Updates to Database Updates for Views
Involving Selections, Projections, and Joins, Arthur M. Keller,
Stanford University
Session 6, 2PM-5:30PM, Patrick Fischer, Vanderbilt University, Chairman
Chordality Properties on Graphs and Minimal Conceptual Connections in
Semantic Data Models, G. Ausiello and A. D'Atri,
Universita' ``La Sapienza''
On Computing Restricted Projections of Representative Instances
Yehoshua Sagiv, Hebrew University
Efficient Query Answering in the Representative Instance Approach,
Paolo Atzeni and Edward P. F. Chan, University of Toronto
An Improved Algorithm for Finding a Key of a Relation, Sukhamay Kundu,
Louisiana State University
Transactions and Integrity Constraints, Serge Abiteboul, INRIA, and
Victor Vianu, University of California at San Diego
Embedded Join Dependencies as a Tool for Decomposing Full Join Dependencies,
Marc Gyssens, University of Antwerp
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1985
Session 7, 9AM-10:30AM, Seymour Ginsburg, Univ. of Southern Calif., Chairman
An Efficient Fault-Tolerant Algorithm for Replicated Data Management,
Dr. Dale Skeen and Flaviu Cristian, IBM Research Laboratory, and
Amr El Abbadi, Cornell University
The Complexity of Reliable Concurrency Control, Mihalis Yannakakis
AT&T Bell Laboratories
and Christos H. Papadimitriou, Stanford University
On the Complexity of Commit Protocols, K.V.S. Ramarao,
University of Pittsburgh
Session 8, 11AM-12:30PM, Jeffrey Ullman, Stanford University, Chairman
Small Armstrong Relations for Database Design, Heikki Mannila,
University of Helsinki, and Kari-Jouko Raiha, Cornell University
A Normal Form for Nested Relations, Z. Meral Ozsoyoglu and
Li-Yan Yuan, Case Western Reserve University
Partition Semantics for Relations, Stavros S. Cosmadakis and
Paris C. Kanellakis, MIT, and Nicolas Spyratos, Universite de Paris Sud
∂19-Mar-85 1407 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA parallel stuff is at SRI
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 85 14:07:40 PST
Return-Path: <WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Tue 19 Mar 85 09:28:58-PST
Date: Tue 19 Mar 85 09:29:03-PST
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: parallel stuff is at SRI
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: waldinger@SRI-AI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Tue 19 Mar 85 13:59:37-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
the message about bengt jonsson's talk tomorrow (wednesday, 3/20)
should have mentioned that the talk is at SRI.
people from outside sri should come to the building e reception
desk (on ravenswood avenue opposite pine street). coffee at 3:45,
talk at 4:15.
-------
∂19-Mar-85 1658 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Complexity Symposium - April 17-19
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 85 16:58:16 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 19 Mar 85 16:54:25-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 19 Mar 85 18:36:41 cst
Received: from wisc-crys.arpa by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 19 Mar 85 13:24:43 cst
Message-Id: <8503191924.AA04365@wisc-crys.arpa>
Received: from COLUMBIA-20.ARPA by wisc-crys.arpa; Tue, 19 Mar 85 13:24:28 cst
Date: Tue 19 Mar 85 14:21:35-EST
From: Delores Ng <NG@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
Subject: Complexity Symposium - April 17-19
To: theory@WISC-CRYS.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
SYMPOSIUM ON
COMPLEXITY OF APPROXIMATELY SOLVED PROBLEMS
April 17-19, 1985
Computer Science Department
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027
SUPPORT: This symposium is supported by a grant from the System Development
Foundation.
LOCATION: The symposium will be held in the Kellogg Conference Center on the
fifteenth floor of the International Affairs Building, 118th Street
and Amsterdam Avenue. Registration will start at 9:00 a.m. There
is no registration charge.
INFORMATION: Contact the Computer Science Department, Columbia University, or
call (212) 280-2736.
PUBLICATION: Invited papers will appear as the first two issues of the new
"Journal of Complexity", published by Academic Press.
PROGRAM
All invited lecturers are in room 1501. In case of multiple authors, the
speaker is indicated by an asterisk(*).
APRIL 17
9:00-10:00 Coffee and Registration
Invited Session
10:00-10:30 J.F. Traub, Columbia University
"Complexity of Approximately Solved Problems"
10:30-11:15 M. Rabin, Harvard and Hebrew Universities
"Removing Singularities Through Randomization"
11:15-11:30 Coffee
11:30-12:00 J.Y. Halpern*, IBM, San Jose
N. Megiddo, IBM, San Jose
A.A. Munshi, IBM, San Jose
"Optimal Precision in the Presence of Uncertainty"
12:00-12:30 S. Kirkpatrick, IBM
"Statistical Characterizations of the Classic Optimization
Problems"
12:30-1:45 Lunch
Invited Session
1:45-2:30 H. Wozniakowski, Columbia University and University of Warsaw
"Information-Based Complexity"
2:30-3:15 H.T. Kung, Carnegie-Mellon University
"Some Interesting Complexity Issues in the Design of
Computers"
3:15-3:30 Coffee
Contributed Sessions
3:30 - 5:00
Invited Session
5:00-5:30 K. Sikorski, Columbia University
"Optimal Solution of Nonlinear Eqations"
5:30-6:00 J. Pearl, UCLA
"Fusion, Propagation, and Structuring in Bayesian Networks"
6:00-7:00 Open Bar, Kellogg Lounge
APRIL 18
8:30-9:00 Coffee
Invited Session
9:00-9:45 S. Smale, University of California at Berkeley
"On the Efficiency of Algorithms of Numerical Analysis"
9:45-10:15 G.W. Wasilkowski, Columbia University and University of Warsaw
"Average Case Optimality"
10:15-10:30 Coffee
Contributed Sessions
10:30 - 12:15
12:15-1:30 Lunch
Invited Session
1:30-2:15 L. Hurwicz*, University of Minnesota
T. Marschak, University of California at Berkeley
"Approximate Equalibria for Decentralized Systems with
Discrete Spaces"
2:15-2:45 K. Mount, Northwestern University
S. Reiter*, Northwestern University
"Approximation and Complexity in a Continuous Model of
Computing"
2:45-3:15 D. Lee, Columbia University
"Optimal Algorithms for Image Understanding: Current Status
and Future Plans"
3:15-3:30 Coffee
3:30-4:00 L. Blum*, Mills College
M. Shub, CUNY Graduate Center
"Loss of Precision and Models of Computational Complexity on
the Reals"
4:00-4:30 A. Werschulz, Fordham University
"Complexity of Differential and Integral Equations"
4:30-5:00 C. Papadimitriou*, Stanford University
J. Tsitsiklis, MIT
"Intractable Problems in Control Theory"
5:00-7:00 Reception, Kellogg Lounge
APRIL 19
8:30-9:00 Coffee
Invited Session
9:00-9:45 R.M. Karp*, University of California at Berkeley
M. Luby, University of Toronto
"A Monte Carlo Algorithm for the Multiterminal Reliability
Problem"
9:45-10:15 J. Kadane, Carnegie-Mellon University
"Parallel and Sequential Computation: A Statistician's View"
10:15-10:30 Coffee
Contributed Sessions
10:30 - 11:30
Invited Session
11:30-12:00 M. Milanese*, Politecnico di Torino
R. Tempo, Politecnico di Torino
A. Vincino, Politecnico di Torino
"Strongly Optimal Algorithms and Optimal Information in
Estimation Problems"
12:00-12:30 K. Ko, University of Houston
"Continuous Optimization Problems and a Polynomial Hierarchy
of Real Functions"
12:30-1:45 Lunch
Invited Session
1:45-2:15 M. Garey, AT&T Bell Laboratories
D.S. Johnson*, AT&T Bell Laboratories
"Bin Packing as a Paradigm for Combinatorial Approximation"
2:15-3:00 A. Schonhage, Universitat Tubingen
"Quasi-GCD Computations"
3:00 to infinity Coffee and Discussion
-------
∂20-Mar-85 0535 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #10
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Mar 85 05:35:01 PST
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 1985 5:39AM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #10
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Wednesday, 20 Mar 1985 Volume 3 : Issue
Today's Topics:
Puzzles - Oliver's Confusion
Implementation - Tablog & Testing & Bounded Merge
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 27 Feb 85 0913 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Oliver problem
Companion to Concrete Mathematics, Z. A. Melzak, Wiley 1971.
sqrt(lambda x.x**2-2) = lambda x.[((x+sqrt(x**2-4))/2)**sqrt(2)
+ ((x-sqrt(x**2-4))/2)**sqrt(2). See p.54, example d.
------------------------------
Date: 8 Mar 1985 17:38-EST
From: Michael Restivo <MSR%SUNY-SBCS@CSNet-Relay>
Subject: Oliver's Puzzle
Q: "Can a computer solve the query:
"If f(f(x)) = x↑2 - 2, what is f(x)?
If so, how?"
There is a closed form solution to a related problem.
That is, the forward problem:"if f(x) = x↑2 - 2, what
is f(f(x))?"
Envision the following structure of composed functions.
x ----- f(x) ----- f(f(x)) ----- - - -
| | |
f0(x) f1(x) f2(x)
The solution involves the notion of conjugate functions
in order to arrive at the closed form solution from which
any such fi may be derived.
fn(x) = ((x + (x↑2 - 4)↑(1/2))/2)↑(2↑n) +
((x - (x↑2 - 4)↑(1/2))/2)↑(2↑n)
Moving forward then,
f2(x) = (15x↑4 - 96x↑2 + 272 - 256x↑(-2))/8
Attaining a closed form solution is hard in general for the
forward problem. The backward problem is "given fj(x), what
is f1(x)?" This is Oliver's question. Can anyone suggest
a reference?
Z. A. Melzak, Companion to Concrete Mathematics: Mathematical
Techniques and Various Applications, J. Wiley & Sons, 1973.
Z. A. Melzak, Mathematical Ideas, Modeling & Applications:
Volume II of Companion to Concrete Mathematics, J. Wiley &
Sons, 1976.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 23:00:49-PST
From: Byrd@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Testing for renamable-Horn sets
(Actually, this is Richard A. O'Keefe, using
Lawrence Byrd's account.)
Testing whether a set of clauses is renamable-Horn is indeed
a linear-time process. In hand-waving terms, the reason for
that is the set of renamable-Horn sentences is a very very
small fraction of the set of all sentences. But it is a
large fraction of the sets we are interested in. Note that
all renaming does is to replace P(args) by NOT P(args)
***uniformly***, and of course conversely. It turns out that
the key to doing this is to find a model for a certain set of
propositional clauses, each with precisely two literals, and
because of this very peculiar property (2 literals) it is
equivalent to finding a topological ordering on a certain
graph. Toplogical ordering is linear, the graph is at worst
quadratic in the number of predicate symbols, and the input
sentence dominates that. It is a similarly trivial exercise
to show that finding a model of a set of propositional Horn
clauses is linear in the size of the input sentence. This
does not, for obvious reasons, generalise to non-Horn sets.
I was suggesting searching for a renaming as a preliminary
filter; as a way of locating predicates that need a fuller
treatment. The Alpine Club example itself shows that you
will generally NOT find a renaming for the original sentence,
but that you may be able to find a renaming for a useful
chunk of it and use that as a way of handling "trivial"
negations.
One thing bothers me about an earlier proposed solution to
the Alpine Club problem, and that was the use of
likes(Person, not(Thing))
to mean that Person doesn't like Thing. A problem with
likes(john, not(sharks))
is that it doesn't match the question
?- likes(john, penguins)
and I really do not see how to interpret it at all.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 5 Mar 85 08:09:53-EST
From: Vijay <Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Subject: Negation,TABLOG etc.
Why can Prolog solve some problems using negation
in a reasonably natural fashion and not some others?
Well, I would claim that really Horn logic isn't the
right vehicle for having to deal with such problems;
if you can get by using the very weak negation as
failure rule, you should consider yourself lucky.
In these special cases (the Alpine Club problems)
where there are no function symbols, so that the
Herbrand domain is finite, trivially the greatest
fixedpoint of the usual transformation associated
with the program can be obtained by a finite number
of iterations; gfp(Tp)-T←w (where T←w represents is
ttyese for T-downarrow-omega) is empty, and hence
negation-as-failure is complete with respect to
negation in the IFF-completion of the theory. In
general, however it can be highly incomplete; refer
to Howars Blair's paper in Info and Control, v.54,
1982, pp 25-47.
As far as Richard O'Keefe's solution is concerned,
I contend that he cheats significantly, as far as
representing the equivalence between what Tony likes
and Mike dislikes is concerned. He must, in addition,
add the axioms:
likes(Tony, X, yes):- likes(Mike, X, no).
likes(Tony, X, no):- likes(Mike, X, yes).
thus causing the SLD-refutsation tree for the given
query to become infinite. Now whether Prolog finds
the finite successful path depends crucially on the
ordering of clauses. (Ofcourse using nonskier instead
of skier itself involves a tremendous bias in using
those rules!)
I would claim that if you did not know that Mike was
an answer (the only answer) to the alpine club problem
beforehand, it would be quite hard to get your axioms
looking just right for Prolog to find the answer the
first time around.
I have already indicated why it would be not possible
to cleanly formulate the revised Alpine Club problem
in Prolog: there does not exist a single individual
who is a witness in ALL MODELS for the given query.
Consequently, there can be no sequence of substitutions
on variables in the initial query which can give you
the answer. Consequently, the initial query must be
ground. But by the structure of the problem you know
that means it must have an embedded disjunction in it.
So what the hell are we doing in Horn logic anyway?
Which brings me to Tablog and related first order
language. I am not at all surprised that this
problem can be nicely formulated in it. What you
gain in expressive power by going to full first order
logic, you lose in the simplicity of your semantics.
Given any full first order logic logic programming
language it is difficult to give an answer to the
simplest question of them all: what is your model?
If your interpretation mechanism is a sound and
complete refutation procedure you are computing
exactly the first order logical consequences of the
given axioms. But that still does not help identify
the extensions of predicates in some fixed canonical
model, THE model of interest. That is what initial
models, which may not exist in the general case, allow
you to do in the Horn case. It is indeed quite beautiful
that the least fixed point interpretation of recursive
predicate definitions coincides with validity in all
models for a set of Horn axioms.
And then, of course, there is the problem that the
search space branches much more rapidly in the full first
order logic case, and so you have to introduce even more
control in order to write programs efficiently. The art
of designing a logic programming language is basically
concerned with finding that delicate balance between
expressibility and control which allows you to frame
your problems elegantly in a formalism so that the solution
space does not contain too many garden paths and giving
that information (i.e. of the useless paths to avoid) to
the execution mechanism does not obscure the logical
content of the program.
I will be really impressed by TABLOG when it contains a
useful and general means for the progammer to control
deduction at some level after he has written his axioms
and observed its behaviour on the inputs of interest.
Another simple observation: how does a programmer in
Tablog know that his 100,000 line program is logically
consistent? (In Horn logic he need not bother).
I think I still believe that if the knowledge at hand
is expressible in Horn terms, then a Horn logic programming
language is anyday superior to a more general purpose logic
progamming language. One of the reasons why Horn logic
programming has lasted so long, I think, is that it
captures exactly the kind of information that is generally
used for writing real-life programs: positive, definite
information.
Cheers.
-- Vijay.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 07:15:58-EST
From: Vijay <Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Subject: Shapiro's response to merge/5 and merge/7
Thanks to unpredictable time lags between inputs
from the Weizmann Instt. and from CMu to the Prolog
Digest, Shapiro's remarks on merge/5 and merge/7
not working with respect to original CP semantics
referes to a version of merge/5 and merge/7 which
was pulled from the Digest over two weeks ago
immediately after I realised this mistake. As
should be abundantly clear to anyone who has been
following this discussion, my note which appears in
the Digest just before Shapiros actually discusses
the possibility of merge/5 causing an input stream
to become a protected exported stream and shows
how to get around it by using copy/3 and equating
the two input channels.
To my knowledge the versions of merge/5 which
appear in the Prolog Digest are still correct,
given the different semantics of CP's ? they
deal with.
For my part, I would still prefer the ! annotation
as against the two or three versions of CP's ? that
have been discussed in the Prolog Digest.
-- Vijay.
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂20-Mar-85 1344 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Long Message
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Mar 85 13:43:48 PST
Date: Wed 20 Mar 85 13:40:57-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Long Message
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
This is a long msg. You might want to print it and read at your leisure.
I expect it will generate some discussion. Hope everyone has a chance
to see it well before April 2.
------
When I agreed to become the CSD chairman, I mentioned some goals that
I wanted to work toward. One of these was to begin thinking about the
proper location for the CSD--Humanities & Sciences, Engineering, or
perhaps a school of its own. Previous discussion of this matter among
members of the Department had shown substantial support for one of the
latter two options. Although creating a new CS "School" might have
some advantages, it didn't seem to me that such a move could gain the
necessary support of the provost and interested deans. A move to the
Engineering School, on the other hand, seemed a practical possibility.
Also moving to Engineering, in my opinion, would allow the CSD to
exploit some new opportunities and solve some old problems .
In this memo I want to explain some of the reasons why I think a move
to Engineering is appropriate, summarize the discussions I have had
about this subject with Dean Gibbons and Professor White, and list
some proposed points of agreement that would govern the move. The
purpose of doing this is to solicit opinions from the CSD faculty
about this subject prior to any formal action that might be taken. I
want to say at the outset that the proposed move is not in any way
occasioned by dissatisfaction with the School of Humanities and
Sciences. Deans Wessels and Bower have been most helpful to the
Department and to me personally as I have been learning my new job.
H&S has nurtured the Department for many years, and I am convinced
that the CSD could continue to thrive there. Nevertheless, I think
that computer science at Stanford generally would prosper better if
the CSD moved to Engineering.
First, let me briefly state what I think the major opportunities are
for CSD if it does move to Engineering.
1. Relationships between CSD and EE through the Computer Systems Lab
(CSL) would be materially improved. One reason for this is that the
two entities would be governed by the same dean. Computer science
interacts with many other disciplines. Some of these interactions
(e.g. with medicine, civil engineering) involve the use of computer
techniques in the other discipline. Some (e.g. electrical
engineering, mathematics) involve shared subject matter. In the
important area of "computer systems," our subject-matter coupling with
EE is so close that close organizational affiliation seems warranted.
One area where close cooperation is particularly important is in
working out a shared curriculum with EE. We cross-list many of each
others' courses and give some with overlapping content.
Another area where closer cooperation is needed is in recruiting new
faculty. I am told that many prospective systems candidates regard
the Stanford systems effort as disjointed--a poor place to start one's
career.
2. Much of computer science teaching and research is done with an
"engineering style." For example, we often need expensive
laboratories, large projects, and close affiliation with industry.
Although H&S has been sympathetic to our needs, the Engineering School
is more attuned to departments with needs similar to ours.
3. Salary scales in Engineering, especially for younger faculty, are
more competitive with other similar departments and with industry.
4. Much of the fund-raising we need for chairs, buildings, and
equipment is more likely to come from sources who might find it
appropriate to give to an Engineering School.
5. If the CSD were in the Engineering School, it would be easier for
Stanford to offer appropriate undergraduate programs in computers.
6. Although the present CSD already covers many of the important
areas in computer science, we could more easily strengthen our
offerings in graphics, large-scale scientific computing, applications
of AI to a broad range of engineering problems, and robotics if we
moved to Engineering. Such a move would make us more of a
"broad-spectrum" department.
Also, I am very concerned about what might happen to us if we do not
move to Engineering. Specifically, I see a distinct possibility of
there being two computer science departments at Stanford. There is no
way that the Stanford School of Engineering will not make "computer
engineering," or something like it, an important part of its
undergraduate and graduate program. Top-ranked engineering schools
must do this, and Stanford is not going to lose its high ranking in
engineering by overlooking something as important to its future as
computer science. Experiences of other schools (e.g. Berkeley) should
convince us that we do not want two competing computer science
entities. Whereas the Stanford CSD might manage for a while under
such an arrangement, it would not be good for Stanford University as a
whole. I think we can help Stanford without hurting ourselves by
moving.
Although I think the CSD will retain its characteristic interest in
important scientific issues regardless of its administrative location,
it must be acknowledged that many of our faculty have serious concerns
about a move from Humanities and Sciences into Engineering. The CSD
was founded by people whose affiliations were with mathematics, and
many of us still have strong ties with several departments in
H&S--notably mathematics, statistics, linguistics, philosophy,
psychology, art, and music. Some who resisted the idea of moving have
been able to support it only after a rather difficult process of
subordinating deeply held personal views in favor of what they have
come to believe would benefit computer science at Stanford generally.
I have talked about these matters in some detail with Jim Gibbons, Bob
White, and John Hennessy (Director of CSL). I have also talked quite
a bit with our own faculty, notably Don Knuth and Jeff Ullman. All of
us agree in principle with most of what I have said so far and want
CSD to move to Engineering. Several practical matters arise in such a
move, and we must make sure that the complicated process of
negotiation leaves all parties with the same expectations. I have
abstracted the following major points of concern to the CSD about
which I think we have general agreement. (I emphasize that the
following is my view of what I think the others would agree to.)
Proposal to Move the Computer Science Department into the School of
Engineering
Major Points of Agreement:
0. It is agreed that points not specifically covered below will be
left to be worked out in good faith after the move.
[We all feel that issues will arise after the move that we cannot
foresee now, and that these issues will be resolved best if there is a
general spirit of compromise and good faith among all parties.
Maintaining the proper cooperative spirit is made more difficult if
the parties become unduly concerned about "worst-case" scenarios and
hair-splitting legalisms.]
1. CSL will be a joint lab between CS and EE. John Hennessy will be
its Director. The CSL Director and the chairs of CS and EE will act
as a "governing board." The laboratory would be initially created by
the merger of current CSL faculty and interested and willing CSD
faculty. Each faculty member would have the choice of retaining
his/her current appointment, becoming joint with EE and CS or changing
departments. Naturally, a change of appointment would require the
approval of the new department.
[CSL embodies the important overlap area between CS and EE. It is
natural to expect that some people in this overlap area will want
joint appointments and that both departments would be pleased to grant
them.]
2. CSL will act as a "standing committee" with regard to systems
curriculum, promotion, and appointment matters. CS (EE) curriculum,
promotion and appointments proposed by CSL to be submitted to CS (EE)
faculty for approval.
[The CSL faculty would act much as the other discipline areas now act
in the CSD with regard to curriculum. Because of CSL's overlap with
EE, and partly because EE has standing committees composed of their
other labs, it seems like a good idea to involve the entire CSL
faculty in appointments and promotions. Note, however, that (just as
with any other appointment or promotion committee) the entire CS
senior faculty must approve of any CSL recommended promotion or
appointment of CS faculty.]
3. CS will retain its present system of graduate admissions, comps
and quals, but the effects of the move on the comps and quals of both
EE and CS will be discussed further after the move.
4. CS, EE and the School of Engineering will undertake to design and
staff undergraduate majors in the general area of computers. The CSD
can design and offer a major in "Computer Science." EE can offer an
EE degree with a specialization in computers. There will also be an
interdepartmental major in "Computer Systems Engineering" through the
School of Engineering. This latter major will concentrate on the
interface between CS and EE but will not require as many EE courses as
an EE degree nor as many CS courses as a CS degree. It will be
designed and managed by a joint CS/EE committee. These majors will
require additional billets in the CSD and in the CSL interface area of
CS and EE. It is understood that the scope and size of these majors
can grow no faster than the billets available for them. Since it is
difficult to estimate now what the demand for each of these majors
might be, apportioning resources among them must take into account
their needs as they develop.
5. Systems courses recommended by CSL and approved by CS will be CS
courses if their content is primarily software (EE should say "enroll
in CSx" for these if it wants to); those recommended by CSL and
approved by EE will be EE courses if their content is primarily
hardware (CS should say "enroll in EEx" for these if it wants to); and
they will be cross-listed if they are approved by both departments and
are an inseparable mixture of hardware and software. (All of this
regardless of the departmental affiliation of the instructor.)
[We need a guiding principle to decide how to list courses. The one
recommended here follows the commonly accepted definition of "computer
science." The "line" between "hardware" and "software" is not very
sharp; it is instead a broad region that should cause neither CS nor
EE any difficulties if its breadth is recognized.]
5. Current and promised CSD billets, space, and budgets will not be
diminished by the move.
6. CS junior faculty have the right to seven years before tenure
review.
[It would be unfair to junior faculty to change the "tenure clock"
they have been working on.]
Many of us have spent quite a bit of time and energy bringing this
matter as far along as it has already come. I am quite convinced that
the move recommended here is in the best interests of the Department,
the Engineering School, and of Stanford generally. We can probably
all think of additional concerns that ought to be discussed as we make
this move. As one example, many of us feel that the CSD's library
needs are best served by the current arrangement with Math. Thus, I
think it is understood by all (even though it is not mentioned
specifically above) that the CS/Math Library will stay as is.
Although Jim Rosse has not yet indicated whether or not he supports
the specific points in this memo, I suspect that he would agree to
something along these lines. I think that if the CSD and EE faculties
and their respective deans endorsed the move described here, Jim Rosse
would "make it happen." I would appreciate very much having your
thoughtful comments about this matter. I would like to bring it up
for discussion and approval at the next regular (April 2) general
faculty meeting.
-Nils
-------
∂20-Mar-85 1619 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Mar. 21, No. 21
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Mar 85 16:19:41 PST
Date: Wed 20 Mar 85 15:57:07-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Mar. 21, No. 21
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
March 21, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 21
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, March 21, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall No TINlunch scheduled
Conference Room
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall No Seminar scheduled
Room G-19
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``The COMP Analysis of Free Relatives and Phrase
Room G-19 Structure Grammar''
Pauline Jacobson, Brown University
←←←←←←←←←←←←
ANNOUNCEMENT
There will be no CSLI activities on Thursday, March 28. Activities
will resume on April 4.
-------
∂21-Mar-85 1040 INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA Lift to APA
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Mar 85 10:39:58 PST
Date: Thu 21 Mar 85 10:32:55-PST
From: Ingrid Deiwiks - 497-3084 <INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Lift to APA
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Jeffrey King, who is visiting CSLI for two days, needs a lift to the
APA this afternoon. If there is anyone who could take him, would that
person please let me know by 1 pm today? Thank you very much.
Ingrid
-------
∂21-Mar-85 1227 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:vardi@diablo Chicago Workshop on Computational Complexity
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Mar 85 12:27:16 PST
Received: from diablo.ARPA (SU-AIMVAX.ARPA.#Internet) by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 21 Mar 85 12:25:54-PST
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 85 12:25:53 pst
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@diablo>
Subject: Chicago Workshop on Computational Complexity
To: aflb.all@score
I'm looking for someone who is going to that workshop who is willing to
share a room with me.
Moshe Vardi
∂21-Mar-85 1629 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Workshop on TMS 320 Digital Signal Processor Applications
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Mar 85 16:29:12 PST
Date: Thu 21 Mar 85 16:27:19-PST
From: Karen Hedges <HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Workshop on TMS 320 Digital Signal Processor Applications
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: Hedges@SU-SCORE.ARPA
A Technical Design Workshop on TMS 320 Digital Signal Processor Applications
sponosred by Texas Instruments is being held on March 26, 27, 28, from
8:30 am to 5:00 pm each day.
Due to a cancellation, they have an opening for 1 (one) member of our
department to attend at no charge. If you are interested in attending,
please call Lynn Miller of Texas Instruments @ 408 748-2223 and she will
give you further information.
------------
-------
∂21-Mar-85 1646 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 26
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Mar 85 16:46:35 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.42)
id AA21730; Thu, 21 Mar 85 16:38:07 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA17341; Thu, 21 Mar 85 16:40:56 pst
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 85 16:40:56 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8503220040.AA17341@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--March 26
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
TIME: Tuesday, March 26, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
(followed by)
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: George Lakoff, Department of Linguistics, UC
Berkeley
TITLE: ``Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: A Guided
Tour''
I'll be presenting an overview of what's in my new book:
WOMEN, FIRE AND DANGEROUS THINGS: WHAT CATEGORIES REVEAL ABOUT
THE MIND. Here's some of what the tour will cover:
- Prototype effects are surface phenomena that have sources in
cognitive models of four types: scalar, propositional, meto-
nymic, and radial.
- Why prototype and basic-level effects are inconsistent with
classical theories of meaning, including all theories in which
symbols (that is words, and mental representations) are taken
as being given meaning by virtue of their relation to external
reality. These include model-theoretic semantics, internal-
representations-of-external-reality, Fodor's `semantically
evaluable' representations, etc.
- The logical inconsistency of model-theoretic semantics and
all theories in which meaning is based on truth and reference.
- How cognitive model theory gets around these problems.
- Whorf and Relativism: Why there are hundreds of positions on
linguistic relativity which are not totally relativistic, and
why at least one such position is probably true.
- Why categorization phenomena are inconsistent with a view in
which (a) thought is merely a matter of symbol manipulation and
(b) the mind is independent of the body. They are, however,
consistent with information processing approaches in which the
mind is not separate from and independent of the body.
-------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
April 2: Lucy Suchman, Xerox PARC
April 9: Jerry Fodor, Philosophy Department, UC Berke-
ley
April 16: Mark Johnson, Philosophy Department, Southern
Illinois University
April 23: David Dowty, Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences
April 30: Herbert H. Clark, Psychology Department,
Stanford University
-------------------------------------------------------------
∂22-Mar-85 0053 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #11
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 85 00:53:46 PST
Date: Thursday, March 21, 1985 7:40PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #11
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Friday, 22 Mar 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 11
Today's Topics:
Puzzles - Oliver's Confusion,
Implementations - Denotational semantics & RF-Maple & CP & Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 85 09:48:24 PST
From: "David G. Cantor" <DGC@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
Subject: If f(f(x)) = x↑2 - 2, what is f(x)?
Q: "Can a computer solve the query:
"If f(f(x)) = x↑2 - 2, what is f(x)?
If so, how?"
The solution is essentially contained in the
article by Michael Restivo in the March 20
issue of Prolog Digest.
The nth Tchebycheff Polynomial may be defined
as
n n
T (x) = u + v ,
n
where u = (x + d)/2, v = (x - d)/2, with
d = sqrt(x * x - 4).
It is easy to check that, when n is an integer,
the powers of d cancel and hence that the above
functions are really are polynomials. These
polynomials satisify numerous identities. The
pertinent one here is that
T (T (x)) = T (x) .
m n m * n
This can be verified by elementary algebra (note
that u * v = 1). It holds certainly for all complex
numbers m and n, subject to choosing appropriate
branches of the mth and nth power as well as the
square root, in the complex plane.
The function
f(x) = T (x)
sqrt(2)
then satisfies
f(f(x)) = T (T (x))
sqrt(2) sqrt(2)
= T (x)
sqrt(2) * sqrt(2)
= T (x)
2
= x * x - 2,
and hence solves the original problem.
As to how a computer could solve this:
It need only search the mathematical literature
to find a paper by Michael Fried giving all
solutions to the functional equation (due to
Issai Schur):
F (F (x)) = F (x) .
m n m * n
Fried shows that, under very general conditions,
the solutions are either
n
F (x) = x or F (x) = T (x) ,
n n n
as given above. The computer then need only recognize
that the given function
f(x) = T (x) .
2
Alternatively it could recognize the latter first,
and be led to study identities of the Tchebycheff
polynomials.
-- David G. Cantor
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 85 11:05 CST
From: Bill Wood <Woodw@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject: Semantics Inquiry (v3-9)
The article "Formal Vienna-Definition-Method
models of Prolog", by J.F.Nilsson, is the first
article in chap.4 of *Implementations of Prolog*,
J.A.Campbell (ed.), Ellis Horwood Series in
Artificial Intelligence, Ellis Horwood Limited,
Halstead Press (a division of John Wiley and Sons),
1984. It is available in paperback. The article
develops denotational-semantics models of Prolog,
starting from an abstract model of unification and
variable renaming, through an applicative model of
the procedural interpretation of Prolog and a couple
of storage structure models, and ending in a discussion
of imperative models suitable for implementation in
for example Pascal.
-- Bill Wood
------------------------------
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 13:54:37-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-REDDY@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Denotational semantics
The conventional van Emden-Kowalski style semantics
for Horn clauses is given in the domain called Herbrand
Base, which is essentially the domain of functions
B1 = ground-tuples -> 2-bool
where 2-bool is {bottom, true}.
To talk about failure, we need to use the domain
B2 = ground-tuples -> 3-bool
where 3-bool is {bottom, true, fail}. Here "fail"
denotes inferrable undefined-ness whereas "bottom"
denotes nontermination. One can specify sequential
"and" and sequential "or" operations in 3-bool thereby
formalizing the sequential operational semantics of
Prolog. But, when sequential "or" operation is used,
":-" cannot anymore be interpreted as implication.
See Mycroft, Logic programs and many-valued logic,
1st STACS, Springer-Verlag, 1984 for more details.
But, to really talk about Prolog's operational semantics,
we need more involved domains:
N1 = non-ground-tuples -> substitutions -> 2-bool
N2 = non-ground-tuples -> substitutions -> 3-bool
We can inject B1/B2 to N1/N2 by an injection h
h p n s = p s(n)
So, pure Horn clauses can be given semantics in B1/B2
and it getsnaturally extended to N1 and N2. Jones-Mycroft
semantics uses a domain similar to N2, but with
list[substitutions] instead of [substitutions -> 3-bool].
What are generally considered impure features such as cut,
var etc. force us to remain in N1/N2 instead of the simpler
domains B1/B2. I believe that modes, annotations etc. can
also be given semantics in N2, but nobody has done so yet.
But, interestingly, sequential operational semantics
doesn't require the more involved domains N1/N2.
-- Uday Reddy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 85 22:10:49 pst
From: Paul Voda <Voda%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: RF-Maple Horn clauses and negation
Vijay Saraswat of CMU should be publicly commended
for the courage of questioning the generality of
the sacrosanct Horn-clauses. After all, he is expressing
his doubts to the most partial of the audiences. His
contribution to the Prolog Digest V3#10 encouraged this
note about my language RF-Maple presented at the Fifth
Generation Conference in Tokyo (November 1984).
RF-Maple is a true union of two former languages of mine
R(elational)-Maple and F(unctional)-Maple. The logical
language R-Maple was designed in the spring of 1983 as
a relational language (concurrently or perhaps a little
bit before Tablog). It has explicit control and is based
on the full first order logic. It contains both sequential
and parallel connectives of conjunction and disjunction.
It has negation and explicit existential quantifiers.
The effect of output variables is achieved by the
"assignments". Yet the language is declarative with
absolutely rigid semantics. Interested reader is
referred to the just appearing issue of the New
Generation Computing (Vol 3 No 1) where it is described
as the language R in my paper "A View of Programming
Languages as the Symbiosis of Meaning and Computations".
Sadly enough - the year 1983 being the year of the
Concurrent Prolog - R-Maple was rejected in POPL-84
and another conference so it was published only as a
Research report of University of British Columbia
Vancouver (August 1983).
R-Maple can do everything both Prologs can, including
the cute stream oriented cooperation of C-Prolog
processes. And it has a well-behaved negation. R-Maple
does not use unification, the predicates are invoked
by substitution which can be implemented (using
environments) faster than the unification. In the
retrospective, I think that the absence of unification,
going evidently against the fad, may have contributed
to the rejection of R-Maple.
The functional language F-Maple was designed in December
1984 as a typed programming language with ML like types.
It has only four constructs. The data types are specified
by CF-Grammars giving the user extensible syntax for the
type constructors. This extensibility applies also to the
definition of functions which are freely specified by
grammar productions. The two additional constructs
(besides the productions for data types and function
headings) are productions for the variables and for the
case construct. F-Maple, being completely, specified by
the user-definable grammars uses structure editor (which
is menu driven by menus extracted from the grammar
productions) to construct both the programs and the data
required as input from the terminal by the running programs.
F-Maple was designed as integrated with its own environment
(operating system) taking care of files. Files are simply
typed data structures brought in and out from the secondary
store by a virtual memory scheme. Needless to say, F-Maple
was rejected from the Lisp and Functional Language
Conference 1984. Fortunately, the union of the two languages
RF-Maple was accepted in Tokyo. But such is the spell of
Horn clauses and unification that it apparently went
unnoticed. Here I refer to the exhaustive discussion on
functions cum relations in the Prolog digest.
This leads me back to the Vijay's note again. He claims
that having the full predicate calculus, there might not be
models for some of our "recursive" predicates, as for
instance P(x) iff not P(x). This is true only if one
accepts arbitrary "definitions" of predicates as axioms.
My Symbiosis paper (the one in the New Generation computing)
presents a first order Theory of Pairs (TP) axiomatizing
essentially the S-expressions of Lisp. TP is equivalent to
Peano arithmetic and thus it is consistent (i.e. it has a
model). Definitions of new predicates are possible only by the
so called conservative extensions. Conservative extension
of theories has been used in logic for at least half a
century yet they went absolutely unnoticed in the computer
science (just about the only exception is the system of
Boyer and Moore). The gradual extension of theories so
naturally corresponds to the gradual addition of new
functions in programming. Moreover, the conservative
extension guarantee the existence of a model. There is
no need to constatly set up a new model for each set of
axioms. This worries Vijay (and myself too) in Tablog.
Finally, Vijay has to be commended again for saying:
"...one has to introduce more control in order to write
programs efficiently. The art of designing a logic
programming language is basically concerned with finding
a delicate balance between expressibility and control ...."
This is exactly what the explicit control in RF-Maple is
about. The relationship between control and meaning is
discussed in depth in the Symbiosis paper. Obviously,
having a control, we deliberately abandon completeness.
But this does not mean that we cannot reason about the
termination of our programs. The Symbiosis paper advocates
the use of a full power first order theory (such as TP)
with unlimited quantifiers and with induction to allow the
reasoning about the programs. The control (operational
semantics) is defined by a subtheory of the meaning theory
in such a way that the proofs in the subtheory exactly
correspond to the computations by a computer. The use of
the control subtheory allows to restrict the full deductive
power of the meaning theory in such a way that the programs
can be efficiently executed. The Symbiosis paper discusses
three functional languages (having respectively
unrestricted, applicative, and lazy evaluations) as well
as two logic programming languages (a Prolog-like language
and R-Maple).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 85 10:31:59 pst
From: John Gerald Cleary <Cleary%Calgary.cdn%ubc@csnet-relay>
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #9
I agree with Jacob Levy it is certainly time we sorted
out the semantics of Concurrent Prolog.
First concerning the problem of ? annotations in the
head of clauses, Jacob says he doesnt want the status
of a variable to become read-only in a delayed fashion
on a distributed system. I have running a distributed
system which solves this particular problem (it was much
easier than a lot of other problems).
An example program may help:
Goal: ...a(X), b(X), ...
a(Z?):- true | some things which better have references to Z.
b(1).
In a sequential implementation (that is any where all
bindings are seen immediately by everyone) either a
or b is executed first. If a first then X is bound to Z?
becoming read only, then b(X) suspends. If b first
then X is bound to 1 and a suspends.
If however the goal is
... a(X)@hither, b(X)@yon ...
where hither and yon are distant processes with their own
local copies of X. Then both may succeed locally and you
have X bound to both 1 and Z?
The approach I have taken is that this is fine but that
when the bindings meet the unification suspends. I
generate a ghost process unify(Z?,1) which will suspend
until someone somewhere binds Z. This effect can be
achieved locally by rewriting the goal as
... a(X1), b(X2), eq(X1,X2), ...
eq(X,X).
Then even in a sequential simulation of concurrency
all possible things can happen depending on the order
that a, b and eq are executed.
This raises a serious problems (apart from the problem
of what is CP?). I want to write distributed systems
and I dont want the semantics of my programs to change
when I run them distributed. Effects such as the above
cannot occur in any of the CP interpreters I know of as
all distribute their bindings immediately to everyone.
Udi advises us to trust in our debuggers and interpreters
and not in God.
It seems that any trust in the debuggers is sadly misplaced.
A good rule for a debugging system for concurrent programs
is that if it can happen in any semanticly legal system
then it can happen in your debugging system -- at least
then it is possible to find your bugs.
It seems that unification should NOT be seen as an atomic
operation, but one whose individual steps occur concurrently.
This is reinforced by the following problem:
Goal: a(X?,X)
a(1,1):- true.
As pointed out by Vijay Saraswat this suspends if you
unify left to right but doesnt if you unify right to left.
(I wonder if a Hebrew implementation would differ here (-:))
The correct solution (it my opinion anyway) is to
'partially' suspend the attempt at unification at the point
where unify(X?,1) is attempted but to continue with the
second part unify(X,1) which will succeed waking the
earlier unify which too succeeds so that ultimately
there is no suspension. To do this I essentially split the
unification into concurrent steps. The result gves an
order independent unification. Code for my unify routine
follows (it works or has given me no trouble for a year
now, but is slower than Udi's original by a factor of about
2!). It also handles (one of) Vijays other concerns,
unify(X?,X) this is special cased out and succeeds.
Question: if unification is treated concurrently like this
should the implicit sequencing between the unification in
the head of a goal and execution of the guards be
maintained, does it make any difference to the semantics?
To put it another way are the following two clauses
semanticaly identical:
a(1,foo):- some guard | some body.
a(X,Y):- unify(X,1), unify(Y,foo), some guard | some body.
I think as a point of principle that they aught to be.
% this can replace the original unify in Ehud Shapiro's 1983
% paper a subset of concurrent prolog
unify(X,Y):-
u(X,Y,Head-[mark|Tail]),
unify1(Head-Tail,changed).
unify1([mark|←]-←,suspended):- !, fail.
unify1([mark]-[],Flag):- !.
unify1([mark|Head]-[mark|Tail],changed):- !,
unify1(Head-Tail,suspended).
unify1([u(X,Y)|Head]-Tail,Flag):-
u(X,Y,Tail-NewTail),
check←changed(u(X,Y),Tail-NewTail,Flag,NewFlag),
unify1(Head-NewTail,NewFlag).
check←changed(←,←,changed,changed).
check←changed(XY,[Z|Tail]-Tail,suspended,suspended):- XY == Z, !.
check←changed(XY,[Z|Tail]-Tail,suspended,changed).
u(X,Y,H-H):- var(X), !, deref(Y,Y1), u0(X,Y1).
u(X,Y,H-H):- var(Y), !, deref(X,X1), u0(Y,X1).
u(X,Y,H-T):- deref(X,X1), deref(Y,Y1), u1(X1,Y1,H-T).
u0(X,Y):- nonvar(Y), Y=Y1?, X==Y1, !.
u0(X,X).
/*Because of deref X&Y are both free variables*/
u1(X?,Y?,H-H):- X==Y, !.
u1(X?,Y,[u(X?,Y)|T]-T):- !.
u1(X,Y?,[u(X,Y?)|T]-T):- !.
u1([X|Xs],[Y|Ys],H-T):- !, u(X,Y,H-T1), u(Xs,Ys,T1-T).
u1([],[],H-H):- !.
u1(X,Y,H-T):- X=..[F|Xs], Y=..[F|Ys], !, u1(Xs,Ys,H-T).
deref(X,Y):- nonvar(X), X=X1?, nonvar(X1), !, deref(X1,Y).
deref(X,X).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 12:35:53 PST
From: cdsm@icdoc.UUCP (Chris Moss)
Subject: Does the cut do too much?
Logically, though not in implementation terms,
the standard cut/slash primitive in Prolog does
two things:
1. It prevents backtracking to any calls in this clause.
2. It prevents the evaluation of other clauses for the
same predicate.
What I would like to ask Prolog implementors is: are
there any major problems in providing a primitive which
does the second of these without the first?
There's a paper by Smolka (Making Control and Data Flow
in Logic Programs Explicit. by Gert Smolka (Cornell), in
ACM Functional Programming Conference, 1984, pp 311-322.)
which proposes replacing the standard cut by this 'soft'
cut and a 'functional call' primitive, which between them
seem to cater for all the reasonable uses of cut. I am at
the moment asking something more modest (provide it in
addition), but I need to motivate what are the advantages
of such a primitive.
It is impossible at the moment to provide a test which is
fully equivalent to the addition of negation of the test
added to subsequent clauses:
e.g. A if test & then.
A if not(test) & else.
is NOT equivalent to:
A if test & ! & then.
A if else.
because if 'then' backtracks to 'test' the second
formulation does not yield extra answers. The 'soft'
cut does the trick fine. In general it is impossible
to evaluate all the solutions to a subproblem with cut
distinguishing the case which there are no answers
from the case in which there is one or more. An obvious
example where this is desirable is a supervisor which
prints "no answers" in the first case and the answers
in the second case. We usually have to resort to "no
(more) answers" or similar. Again, the soft cut is
adequate.
In a straightforward Prolog implementation there seem
to be no problems in implementing this, although some
entries on the reset list might never be accessed. But
there may be interactions with various tail recursion
and other optimisations in compiling that I don't know
about. I'd be interested in people's ideas, whether they
see problems or not.
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂22-Mar-85 0920 BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Talking to Daniel
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 85 09:20:17 PST
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 09:15:40-PST
From: Betsy Macken <BETSY@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Talking to Daniel
To: folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Daniel Sagalowicz, the consultant John hired to help us define our
computational needs, has nearly completed his interview process. He asks
that anyone who still wants to talk to him please send him a message.
His net address is: <Sagalowicz>.
Thanks.
Betsy
-------
∂22-Mar-85 1202 BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA Spring break AFLB talk
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 85 12:02:02 PST
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 11:57:54-PST
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Spring break AFLB talk
To: aflb.all@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: tuley@SU-SCORE.ARPA, su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
3/28/85 - Prof. Vijay Vazirani
"NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions"
The known NP-complete problems show a wide variation in the number of
solutions; an instance can have 0, 1, several, or exponentially many
solutions. It is natural to ask, in order to gain insight into the
`P=NP?' problem, if the inherent intractability of NP-complete
problems is caused by this wide variation.
We give a negative answer to this question. Using randomized
polynomial time reducibilities, we show that solving SAT instances
having unique solutions is as hard as solving SAT itself. As
corollaries, we are able to establish the NP-hardness and
D∧P-hardness, under randomized polynomial time reducibilities, of
several open problems, including `Given a SAT formula f, does f have
an even number of solutions?', and `Given a SAT formula f, does f have
a unique solution?'. Our result also has consequences for
cryptography, which seeks a hard problem having unique solutions.
Note: This is joint with L. G. Valiant.
***** Time and place: March 28, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
If you have a topic you would like to talk about in the AFLB seminar
please let me know. (Electronic mail: broder@su-score.arpa, phones:
(415) 853-2118 and (415) 948-9172). Contributions are wanted and
welcome. Not all time slots for this academic year have been filled
so far.
For more information about future and past AFLB meetings and topics
you might want to look at the file [SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .
- Andrei Broder
-------
∂22-Mar-85 1244 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Nils' message
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 85 12:44:24 PST
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 12:43:51-PST
From: Gene Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Nils' message
To: Academic-Council: ;
I haven't had a chance to completely ingest Nils' long message but I
will reply after the weekend. I think, however, it would be better if
we carried on our discussion with the members of our faculty. If you
use the mailing list FACULTY then your message goes to many people
not directly involved with the issues. A more useful mailing list
is addressed as follows @<cs.public>academic-council.dis.
GENE
-------
∂22-Mar-85 1345 INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA Visit from Reidel Publishing Company
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 85 13:45:27 PST
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 13:40:55-PST
From: Ingrid Deiwiks - 497-3084 <INGRID@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Visit from Reidel Publishing Company
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
The Reidel linguistics editor, Martin Scribener, will be visiting CSLI
in the afternoon of Monday, April 22. Anyone who would like to meet with
him should place his/her name, room number, and appointment time on the
notice that was posted on the CSLI (Ventura Hall) bulletin board. Thank
you.
Ingrid
-------
∂22-Mar-85 1400 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA General Facutly Meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 85 14:00:26 PST
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 13:44:59-PST
From: Karen Hedges <HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: General Facutly Meeting
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Bureaucrats@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: hedges@SU-SCORE.ARPA
REMINDER: The General Faculty meeting will be held on April 2 at 2:30
p.m. in Conference Room 146 (MJH). If you have any agenda items please
give them to Karen Hedges, Room 214, no later than March 28. I you have
any questions, phone 497-9745.
----------
-------
∂22-Mar-85 1406 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Faculty Lunch
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 85 14:06:33 PST
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 13:54:28-PST
From: Karen Hedges <HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty Lunch
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
NOTICE: The Faculty Luncheons scheduled for Tuesday, March 26 and
Tuesday, April 2 at 12:15 have both been cancelled.
The next Faculty Lunch will be on April 9 at 12:15, Room 146.
-------
∂22-Mar-85 1537 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Gould Computer
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 85 15:37:16 PST
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 15:35:07-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Gould Computer
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Gould Computer is willing to give Stanford a "Gould Power Node,
9080 Dual Processor Computer with a Berkeley Unix 4.2 operating
system--roughly 6-7 MIPS" if there is anyone here who wants to
use it. The machine used to be made by SEL and was called
a "Concepts Series 32/97" before Gould bought SEL. Len Bosack
knows a little about this machine and could provide a bit more
info to the truly interested. I need to call Gould back by next
Monday if we are interested. (Being interested means there is
someone here who will take it under his/her wing.) If given to
Stanford it would be housed in Earth Sciences and we would only be
able to share its use. -Nils
-------
∂22-Mar-85 1620 EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Dr. Ruqian Lu/Papers/Schedule
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 85 16:20:01 PST
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 16:11:06-PST
From: Ellie Engelmore <EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Dr. Ruqian Lu/Papers/Schedule
To: siglunch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
I have in my office copies of the papers (listed below) by Dr. Lu
Ru-qian, today's SIGLunch speaker. Please let me know (by EMAIL) if
you are interested in having copies of any of these papers made for
you.
Dr. Lu, himself, will be at the HPP through April 2. If you would
like to arrange to spend some time with him during his stay, please
let me know by message or by calling 497-4878.
1) ON THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF TUILI:
This paper presents some design considerations on the
expert system describing language Tuili. It is general-
purpose, domain-independent and production based. New
pattern matching priciples, world models and control
strategies are introduced and discussed.
2) FURTHER REPORT ON THE DESIGN OF TUILI
3) A PROGRAM RELIABILITY MODEL BASED ON TRAVERSE DEGREE:
This paper first gives a short review of some existing
program reliability models, then suggests a new model.
This model determines quantitatively the traverse degree
of an arc and a path. Based on these concepts, it gives
the definition of program reliability and at the same time
a feasible method to estimate it precisely. At last, the
relation between traverse degree and MTBF is discussed.
4) AN ASSESSMENT OF THE XR PROJECT FOR COMPILER DEVELOPMENT
AND TRANSPORTATION: (with Wei Zi Chu)
A software engineering project, the XR project, is described,
and its results assessed. The goal of the XR project is to
contribute to the mechanical development and transportation
of compilers on widely used Chinese-made computers. The
basic tools are the compiler writing language XHY and the
itermediate language CJY.
All the compilers are written in XHY and produce code in
CJY form. In this paper, experiences, statistics and
lessons of practising this project are given, together
with and overview and a conclusion.
-------
∂22-Mar-85 1621 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Ballots
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 85 16:21:21 PST
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 16:20:43-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Ballots
To: Academic-Council: ;
Ballots have been distributed for voting for members of the academic
senate and for the advisory board. If anyone is interested in being
voted for for either of these positions, I would be glad to hear about
it and pass that information along to all the CSD/CSL academic council
members. This would allow people to vote for those who are known to
be interested "candidates." (If elected, I will not serve!-Nils) I
have heard from John McCarthy, presently a member of the academic
senate, that he would serve another term if elected--and that he
doesn't mind if people know that. So, at least you know that.
Anybody else?
-Nils
-------
∂22-Mar-85 1637 SKIPELLIS@SU-SCORE.ARPA Final call for Xerox PARC signup
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 85 16:37:16 PST
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 16:28:23-PST
From: Skip Ellis <SKIPELLIS@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Final call for Xerox PARC signup
To: CSL@SU-SIERRA.ARPA, CSD@SU-SCORE.ARPA, BBoard@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: SkipEllis@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Today (actually next monday) is the last day that you can sign up for the Xerox PARC Computer Systems and Sciences Open House happening April 10. Full agenda detail about this full day of talks, demos, and discussions (with lunch and dinner included)will be distributed to those who sign up.
Signup sheets are at the front desk of MJH, and in ERL448; or send me a message.
- Skip
-------
∂23-Mar-85 1546 BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA Les Earnest
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Mar 85 15:46:03 PST
Date: Sat 23 Mar 85 15:36:37-PST
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Les Earnest
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: BScott@SU-SCORE.ARPA
John McCarthy has asked me to let you know that he proposes the appointment
of Lester Earnest as a Senior Research Associate in Computer Science. As
most of you know, Les was a Senior Research Associate and Lecturer, and
also served as Executive Officer of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
from 1965 until 1980. John expects ARPA funding on a new research project
and Les would be associated with this new endeavor.
Les's file is in my office, and you are welcome to look at his current
resume.
Unless we receive dissenting votes by Monday, April 1, we will assume that
you have no objection to this appointment.
Betty
-------
∂25-Mar-85 0038 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #12
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Mar 85 00:38:37 PST
Date: Sunday, March 24, 1985 1:03PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #12
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Monday, 25 Mar 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 12
Today's Topics:
Implementations - RF Maple & Cuts & Retract
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 11:18:01-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-REDDY@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: What is a logic language?
The prevalent view, which I disagree with, seems
to be that a language based on "predicate logic"
syntax is a logic language. There are three
problems with this view. Firstly, a functional
language can be couched in predicate (or relational)
syntax without any essential modification of its
operational semantics. Pisa's FPL (in Clarke and
Tarnlund, Logic Programming) and Clarke and Gregory's
relational language (in 1981 Conf on Functional
Programming Lang and Comp Arch) are examples of such
languages. These languages cannot achieve the effects
of logic programming exemplified by Prolog. Secondly,
almost all languages support predicates and boolean
operations. Why should'nt they be called logic
languages? Thirdly, "logic" goes beyond predicate
calculus. Lambda calculus is logic too. Any
programming language is logic, as it gives a formal
syntax for axioms and well-defined inference rules in
terms of its operational semantics. In any case,
syntax is not such big a deal. Real advances are not
made by just using new syntax.
If we examine what is new about Prolog and its notion
of logic programming, the answer is that its operational
semantics supports a notion of "solving". This is a
radical departure from conventional functional languages
and imperative languages whose operational semantics is
based on "rewriting". In a rewriting language, the
computation begins with a ground expression (that does not
contain any free variables) and ends in finding the value
of the expression. On the other hand, in a logic language,
the computation begins with a non-ground expression and
ends in finding instantiations for its free variables.
Hence, my definition is that a "logic language" is one
whose operational semantics supports a notion of solving.
Syntax is now completely irrelevant. It should be possible
to design a logic language with any syntax. In particular,
logic languages can be designed with functional syntax, by
using "narrowing" as the operational semantics.
Now, is RF-Maple a "logic language"? The fact that it has
a sublanguage based on relational syntax with quantifiers
or whatever is irrelevant. Can it "solve"? I wonder how
it can, without using unification.
-- Uday Reddy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 85 17:53:00 pst
From: Peter Ludemann <ludemann%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: "soft" cuts
Chris Moss asked in digest V3 #11 about what is involved in
implementing a "soft" cut. I can't speak for other
implementations, but in the Prolog I'm building, it is
extremely easy to implement (in fact, it's already there).
When a "cut" is executed, the parent frame is marked as
having no more alternatives and the stack is popped back
(to eliminate the backtracking). For a soft cut, the
parent frame is marked but the stack isn't popped.
As to last call optimisation. In general, this can be
fully determined only at run time (for example, the famous
"append" is deterministic only if the first two arguments
are instantiated). Some implementations which determine
last call optimisation at compile time require one to use
"hard" cuts to help the compiler. The dynamic optimisation
is applicable if the stack looks like a cut was just done -
that is, the backtrack frame on the stack is the current
goal's parent.
With this implementation of last call optimisation (which
I have done), the soft cut works quite well and has much
nicer semantics than the more common "hard" cut. Just one
question: what should we call this cut (seeing that "!" is
already taken)? I haven't done much experimenting with the
soft cut, so I don't know how useful it is. I suspect that
in general it won't make much difference (assuming the
dynamic last call optimisation) because most things before
the cut will be tests and will just fail backtracking
because they will have no alternatives.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 18:52:33 PST
From: (Lee Naish) Lee@Mungunni.OZ
Subject: retract
I'm not surprised there are buggy versions of retract around.
It is one of the nastiest bits of Prolog to implement and
no-one has even completely defined how it should behave in
all cases. Consider the following kind of goal:
?- . . . p(X), . . . retract(p(Y)), . . .
When we get around to calling retract, the call to p(X) has
just matched some clause, say C. Retracting clauses before
C in the database is not too tricky. If we try to retract
C we cannot reclaim the memory immediately but it should be
done after backtracking or perhaps if cut is called. The
effect on the call to p(X) is not properly defined. The
same is true for retracting clauses after C in the database.
When p(X) backtracks, will it be able to match these
clauses? In some implementations it may depend on whether
there are other references to the clauses (so the memory
cannot be reclaimed immediately).
The situation becomes even worse in a database system, like
the one attached to MU-Prolog. Rather than a simple linked
list (for example) in main memory and accessed
sequentially, we have a fairly complicated dynamic hashing
data structure in a file with concurrent access. The normal
solution to the inevitable problems is the readers/writers
restriction. In Prolog this leads to deadlocks since the
same process is doing the reading and writing. Our current
solution in the database system is to make people put a cut
between p(X) and retract(p(Y)). This means that the call
to p reading the database can be killed before retract
writes on the database. The operational semantics are also
(relatively) unambiguous.
This is just one of many examples where retract (and assert
and cut) is not defined properly. Does anyone have any
sugestions for well defined semantics (preferably possible
to implement) or alternatives?
-- Lee Naish
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂25-Mar-85 1039 EDMISTEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA SIGLUNCH: MARCH 29, 1985
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Mar 85 10:39:23 PST
Date: Mon 25 Mar 85 10:32:18-PST
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: SIGLUNCH: MARCH 29, 1985
To: SIGLUNCH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Folks,
There will be NO Siglunch this week due to vacation break.
Thanx,
Paula
-------
∂25-Mar-85 1121 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Raibert Visit
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Mar 85 11:18:31 PST
Date: Mon 25 Mar 85 11:10:22-PST
From: Karen Hedges <HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Raibert Visit
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: Hedges@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Marc Raibert from CMU will be visiting on Thursday, March 28. So far,
only one faculty member has signed up to meet and talk with him on
Thursday morning. If you wish to do so, there are times between 10:30 and
12:00 available. Please let me know what times would be convenient so that
we can finalize the schedule for his visit.
Also, if you would like to join Professor Nilsson and Mr.Raibert for lunch
at Noon at the Faculty Club, please let me know as soon as possibile.
-Karen
----------
-------
∂25-Mar-85 1503 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa 1985 ICALP
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Mar 85 14:56:31 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 25 Mar 85 14:54:26-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 25 Mar 85 16:31:43 cst
Message-Id: <8503252213.AA05766@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 25 Mar 85 16:13:58 cst
Date: Mon 25 Mar 85 14:13:07-PST
From: C Papadimitriou <PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: 1985 ICALP
To: udi@WISC-RSCH.ARPA
Cc: theory@WISC-RSCH.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
Two subsequent messages contain the program for the 12th Annual International
Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), to be held in
Nafplion, Greece in July 15-19, 1985. This is the annual conference organized
by the EATCS, with Proceedings published by Springer.
This year's ICALP promises to be memorable, on many counts. It is organized
at an absolutely enchanting location (a lovely town in the eastern coast of
the Peloponnese), it had a record of submissions (above 200) and, in my
opinion, a new high on quality of contributed papers. The invited lectures
will be by Knuth, Lovasz, and Pnueli. There will be a matching social
program and excursion.
If you need more information on the 12th ICALP, write to me for a hardcopy
of the program, and for registration and accommodation forms:
Christos H. Papadimitriou (PAPA@SU-Score.ARPA)
Computer Science Department
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305.
I hope to see you there!
---Christos.
-------
∂25-Mar-85 1509 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa ICALP Program.
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Mar 85 15:09:12 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 25 Mar 85 14:57:55-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 25 Mar 85 16:32:40 cst
Message-Id: <8503252215.AA05791@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 25 Mar 85 16:15:00 cst
Date: Mon 25 Mar 85 14:14:04-PST
From: C Papadimitriou <PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: ICALP Program.
To: udi@WISC-RSCH.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
PROGRAM OF THE 12th ICALP
Nafplion, Greece
July 15-19, 1985
Monday, July 15.
9:00 Opening of the Conference
Session 1. Chairman: W. Brauer
9:15-10:15 Amir Pnueli "Linear and Branching Structures in the Semantics
and Logics of Concurrent Systems" (invited lecture).
10:15-10:40 D. Beauquier "About Rational Sets of Factors of a Bi-infinite
Word"
10:40-11:10 COFFEE BREAK
Session 2. Chairman: J. Paradaens
11:10-11:35 P. de Bra "Imposed-functional Dependencies Inducing
Horizontal Decompositions"
11:35-12:00 S. Sippu and E. Soisalon-Soininen "On the Use of Relational
Expressions in the Design of Efficient Algorithms"
12:00-12:25 M. Hennessy "An Algebraic Theory of Fair Asynchronous
Communicating Processes"
12:25-12:50 K.G. Larsen "A Context Dependent Equivalence Between
Processes"
12:50-16:30 LUNCH BREAK
Session 3. Chairman: E. Welzl
16:30-16:55 B. Chazelle and H. Edelsbrunner "Optimal Solutions for
a Class of Point Retrieval Problems"
16:55-17:20 R. Cole "Partitioning Point Sets in 4 Dimensions"
17:20-17:45 J.F. Fortune "A Fast Algorithm for Polygon Containment
by Translation"
17:45-18:15 COFFEE BREAK
Session 4. Chairman: A. Pnueli
18:15-18:40 M.Y. Vardi, A.P. Sistla and P. Wolper "The Complementation
Problem for Buchi Automata with Applications to
Temporal Logic"
18:40-19:05 R.H. Gonzalez and M.R. Artalejo "Hoare's Logic for
Nondeterministic Regular Programs: a Nonstandard
Completeness Theorem"
19:05-19:30 Z. Manna and R. Waldinger "Special Relations in Automated
Deduction"
Tuesday, July 16
Session 5. Chairman: A. Paz
9:00-9:25 M. Chrobak "Hierarchies of One-way Multihead
Automata Languages"
9:25-9:50 H. Vogler and J. Engelfriet "Characterization of High Level
Tree Transducers"
9:50-10:15 H. Jung "On Probabilistic Approximation"
10:15-10:40 Ph. Flajolet "Ambiguity and Transcendence"
10:40-11:10 COFFEE BREAK
Session 6. Chairman: C. Bohm
11:10-11:35 P.-L. Currien "Categorical Combinatory Logic"
11:35-12:00 K. Hrbacek "Powerdomains as Algebraic Lattices"
12:00-12:25 J.W. de Bakker and J.N. Kok "Towards a Uniform
Topological Treatment of Streams and Functions on Streams.
12:25-12:50 C.A. Gunter "A Universal Domain Technique for Profinite
Posets"
12:50-16:30 LUNCH BREAK
Session 7. Chairman: E.N. Protonotarios
16:30-16:55 M.M. Yung and G.M. Landau "Distributed Algorithms in
Synchronous Broadcasting Networks"
16:55-17:20 U. Manber and Th.G. Kurtz "A Probabilistic Distributed
Algorithm for Set Intersection and its Analysis"
Session 8. Chairman: Christos H. Papadimitriou
19:00 Special session in the ancient Greek theatre of Epidaurus
D. Knuth "Theory and Practice" (invited lecture)
20:00 EATCS General Assembly
21:00 CONFERENCE DINNER
Wednesday, July 17
Session 9. Chairman: A. Salomaa
9:00-9:25 D. Haussler, W. Bucher and A. Ehrenfeucht "On Total
Regulators Generated by Derivation Relations"
9:25-9:50 J.H. Johnson "Do Rational Equivalence Relations
have Regular Cross-Sections?"
9:50-10:15 V. Keranen "On k-repetition Free Words Generated by
Length Uniform Morphisms over a Binary Alphabet"
10:15-10:40 J. Kortelainen "Every Commutative Quasirational
Language is Regular"
10:40-11:10 COFFEE BREAK
Session 10. Chairman: L. Lovasz
11:10-11:35 A. Tsakalidis and K. Mehlhorn "Dynamic Interpolation
Search"
11:35-12:00 H.N. Gabow and M. Stallmann "Efficient Algorithms for
Graphic Matroid Intersection and Parity"
12:00-12:25 J.I. Munro, R.G. Karlsson and E.L. Robertson "The
Nearest Neighbor Problem on Hounded Domains"
12:25-12:50 B. Chazelle and Leo Guibas "Fractional Cascading: a
Data Structuring Technique with Geometric Applications"
Thursday, July 18
Session 11. Chairman: J. Diaz
9:00-9:25 M. Jerrum "Random Generation of Combinatorial Structures
from a Uniform Distribution"
9:25-9:50 Ming Li "Lower Bounds by Kolmogorow Complexity"
9:50-10:15 J. Hartmanis and N. Immerman "On Complete Problems for
NP intersection CoNP"
10:15-10:40 P. Orponen, D.A. Russo and U. Schoning "Polynomial
Levelability and Maximal Complexity Cores"
10:40-11:10 COFFEE BREAK
Session 12. Chairman: Z. Manna
11:10-11:35 J.W. de Bakker, J.-J.Ch. Meyer and E.-R. Olderog
"Infinite Streams and Finite Observations in the
Semantics of Uniform Concurrency"
11:35-12:00 M. Coppo "A Completeness Theorem for Recursively
Defined Types"
12:00-12:25 J.A. Goguen, J.-P. Jouannaud and J. Meseguer "Operational
Semantics for Order-Sorted Algebra"
12:25-12:50 J. Zwiers, W.P. de Roever and P. van Emde Boas
"Compositionality and Concurrent Networks: Soundness
and Completeness of a Proofsystem"
Session 13. Chairman: G. Rozenberg
16:30-16:55 J.E. Pin "Finite Group Topology and p-adic Topology
for Free Monoids"
16:55-17:20 M.G. Main, D. Haussler and W. Bucher "Application of a
Infinite Squaretree CO-CFL"
17:20-17:45 G. Hansel "A Simple Proof of Skolem-Mahler-Lech Theorem"
17:45-18:15 COFFEE BREAK
Session 14. Chairman: Th. Ottmann
18:15-18:40 M. Ben - Or, O. Goldreich and S. Micali "A Protocol
(For signing Contracts) which is Fair even if Reality
is Unfair"
18:40-19:05 L. Bouge "Repeated Synchronous Snapshots and their
Implementation in CSP"
19:05-19:30 C. Stirling "A Complete Compositional Modal Proof
Systems for a Subset of CCS.
21:00 RECEPTION BY THE MAYOR OF NAFPLION.
Friday, Julya 19
Session 15. Chairman: D. Knuth
9:00-9:50 L. Lovasz "Vertex Packing Algorithms" (invited lecture).
9:50-10-15 P. Ragde and M. Luby "A Bidirectional Shortest-Path
Algorithm with good Average-Case Behavior"
10:15-10:40 M. Furer "Deterministic and Las Vegas Primality
Testing Algorithms"
10:40-11:10 COFFEE BREAK
Session 16. Chairman: L. Guibas
11:10-11:35 U. Vishkin "Optimal Parallel Pattern Matching in Strings"
11:35-12:00 K. Mehlhorn and M. Kaufmann "Routing Through a Generalized
Switchbox"
12:00-12:25 G. Bilardi and F.P. Preparata "The Influence of Key-Length
on the Area-Time Complexity of Sorting"
12:25-12:50 I.V. Ramakrishnan and P.J. Varman "On Matrix Multiplication
Using Array Processors"
12:50 END OF CONFERENCE
13:00 Farewell party at the beach.
GENERAL INFORMATION
l. Lectures and Registration Desk
The Lectures are given in the lecture hall of "AMALIA" Hotel. The registration
desk also is located there, and is open Sunday from 6p.m. to 9p.m.
and the other days during lecture times. There is also a travel agency
by the registration desk.
2. Lunch Breaks
During lunch breaks Monday, Tuesday and Thursday (12:50 noon to 16:30 p.m.)
transportaion is provided from AMALIA Hotel to downtown Nafplion and
the other hotels, and to the beach at Tolo for a leisurely lunch/swim/siesta.
There are no Conference lunches, (but of course there are many reasonably
priced restaurants in Tolo, downtown Nafplion and the AMALIA Hotel).
Lunches may also be covered by your hotel.
3. Proceedings
Extra copies of the proceedings will be available for purchase at the
Conference.
4. Language
The language of the Conference will be English.
5. Mail
Participants'mailing address during the meeting will be:
"AMALIA" Hotel, 211.00 Nafplion, GREECE
Telephone: 0752/24401-4.
6. Registration
The registration fee for the 23th ICALP is $130, payable in U.S. Dollars.
Please complete the Registration Form and return it to the Conference
Office either with your chek payable to ICALP '85 or with a copy
of the bank draft.
The Conference bank account is ICALP '85, ERGO BANK, 32-34 Stournara
Branch, 104 33 Athens, Greece. Account No: 15/3200/60.
Do not forget to sign and write your name on the bank draft or check.
The Registration Fee is:
- If received before May 15; $130 and After May 16: $150.
- For full-time students the corresponding registration fee is:
- If received before May 15: $50 and after May 16: $150.
NOTE: If exceptionally serious reasons are documented, the Organizing
Committee will a limited number of applications for non-student
participants to register at the student rate. Such applications
must be received before April 30 with payment. The Committee's decision is
final and will be announced to the applicants by May 15, 1985.
The registration fee covers the attendance of the sessions, the proceedings,
coffee and refreshments during the breaks, a welcome reception, a reception
cocktail, a conference dinner, a half day excursion, a farewell beach
party and transfer from Athens to Nafplion and back.
The student registration fee covers the attendance of the sessions,
the Conference proceedings and coffee and refreshments during the
breaks.
7. Social Program
Sunday, July 14, 1985
9:00 p.m. Welcome drinks at the "AMALIA" hotel.
Tuesday, July 16, 1985
7:00 p.m. The EATCS General Assembly at the Epidaurus ancient
theater.
The Conference dinner at the Epidaurus "XENIA"
Wednesday, July 17, 1985
13:00 p.m. Excursion to the Costa Beach and the Island of Spetses
Thursday, July 18, 1985
9:00 p.m. Reception by the Mayor at the Nafplion "XENIA"
Friday, July 19, 1985
13:30 p.m. A farewell beach wine party.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, THE COMPLETE CONFERENCE PROGRAM, AND
REGISTRATION-ACCOMMODATION FORMS, WRITE TO:
Christos H. Papadimitriou (PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA)
Computer Science Department
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
U.S.A.
-------
∂25-Mar-85 1533 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa On the 12th ICALP
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Mar 85 15:33:07 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 25 Mar 85 15:12:41-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 25 Mar 85 16:33:27 cst
Message-Id: <8503252225.AA06058@wisc-rsch.arpa>
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by wisc-rsch.arpa; Mon, 25 Mar 85 16:25:59 cst
Date: Mon 25 Mar 85 14:18:42-PST
From: C Papadimitriou <PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: On the 12th ICALP
To: udi@WISC-RSCH.ARPA
Cc: theory@WISC-RSCH.ARPA
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
Here is a piece I wrote for the EATCS Bulletin on the occasion of the 12th
ICALP.
HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY
1. Nafplion
Nafplion( NAFplion, in Greek NAYP↑ION, ANAP↑I in the Peloponnesian
dialect, also transliterated Nauplia, Navplion, and Zeus knows how else) is a
lovely port on the eastern coast of the Peloponnese, in the bay of Argolis.
It was founded by (you guessed it) Nauplios in mythical times, and
was a moderately interesting town in Ancient Greece. In madieval times,
Nafplion came under Venetian rule, of which its three beautiful Venetian
castles still stand witness. (One of them, Akronafplia, notorious as a place
for detaining political prisoners during the darker pages of Greek political
history, was recently transformed into Xenia Pallace, an outstanding hotel
overlooking the bay). Nafplion was among the last parts of Greece to come
under Turkish occupation in the 18th century. During the Greek war of
independence, Nafplion was liberated in 1822, and was an important
fortification, for which both sides fought vigorously for seven years. It
became the first capital of Greece (1930-1934), until King Otto moved to Athens
(the Nafplians paid him back by starting the disturbance that toppled him,
30 years later).
Today, Nafplion is one of the most pleasant Greek towns, certainly the favorite
of your reporter. With about 10,000 inhabitants, it is the capital of
the Argolis perfecture. Nafplion is a reasonably active port and agricultural
center, but also a center for tourism. It has retained much of its original
architecture and color (unfortunately not the rule in Greece). Near the port
you will find a number of interesting buildings, including the Assembly, the
Archeological Museum (certainly worth a visit), etc. There are many antique
and souvenir shops, of course.
2. Around Nafplion
There are some very interesting places a stone's throw from Nafplion. Going
East, on the north shore of the bay, after 8 km. you end up in an excellent
beach, of which Tolo (toLO) is the best known part (camping facilities; also,
this is the recommended place for spending the four hour siesta, swimming
and/or digesting grilled red snappers and important theorems). 20 km. further,
you arrive at Epidaurus (ePIdavros), an important cultural center during
antiquity, with a masterpiece of an ancient Greek theater. Closer to Nafplion
but to the West you come after 12 km. to Argos (another historical town), and
then 10 km. to the North brings you to Mycenae (miKEEnes), the prehistoric
kingdom of Agamemnon, the favorite setting for ancient Greek tragedies, with
important ruins and impressive fortifications. Just 3 km. from Nafplion on the
road to Argos in the right you pass Tiryns (TIryns), the rival of Mycenae from
4000 years ago. On your left you will see the elegant shape of Hotel Amalia,
where ICALP is to be held. I should mention that some of the loveliest Greek
islands, Hydra (Idra), Spetses (SPEtses) and Poros (POros) will be waiting for
you a couple of kilometers off the coast of the Peloponnese, and no more than
60 km. from Nafplion.
3. The Peloponnese
Well, there is more. The Peloponnese is only 200 km. wide, so you can
conceivably drive to many places of interest during the Sessions on ...
(substitute here any area). There is bus and train transportation to many of
the spots mentioned below, as well as a variety of guided tours (the following
is best read with an open map).
Antiquities. One thing worth remembering is that the ancient Greeks were
as masterful in choosing the location of their monuments as in building them.
Consequently, visiting an archeological site is a treat even to those who are
bored by non-functional buildings. You should not miss Olympia (OlymPIa), near
the western coast, if at all possible. The home of the Olympic Games (the
real, ancient ones), a most peaceful landscape, very good museum with the
statue of Hermes by Praxiteles (the peak of classical sculpture). Pylos
(PEElos) on the south-west, and Vasses (VAsses) between the two are also
important archeological sites. (Outside the Peloponnese, Delphi is certainly
worth the short trip from Athens, and so is Sounion). Also, there are two
important Byzantine ``dead cities'', both near Sparta: Mystras (miSTRAS) a few
km. to its North, and Monemvassia, 100 km. to its south-east. (Outside the
Peloponnese, Daphni is an excellent Byzantine Monastery a few Km. outside
Athens, and on the way to Nafplion, Osios Loukas is another, on the way to
Delphi).
Other Items of Interest. In general, the landscape in the backroads of the
Peloponnese is something to be remembered. Particularly spectacular are the
drives in the middle of the three southern peninsulae (called MAni), in the
mountainous interior part (Arcadia, especially between Levidi and Olympia), and
to the north from Corinthos to Epidavros. Beautiful beaches are everywhere,
but as a rule those to the east and south are of the rocky persuasion (but
remember Tolo), and those to the west and north are more sandy. There are
three other interesting islands worth visiting, Kithira to the south, and
Zakinthos and Kefallonia to the west. Ethnologically, you may be interested in
the ancient Greek dialect spoken in the villages of the eastern coast between
Astros and Leonidi, and in the solemn and tough tradition of the people of
Mani, in perfect harmony with the landscape (but also do not underestimate how
fascinating ordinary Greeks can be). Tripolis, in the middle, is also a nice
traditional town, and Patra (nort-west coast) is the largest city of the
Peloponnese, and perhaps its cultural center. Roads in the Peloponnese are
better than you may expect (but not much). The highway on the north coast is
very good, and the main roads (e.g., from Nafplion to Tripolis to Kalamata) are
fine. There are no really dangerous roads on the maps. Gasoline supply is not
a problem, and I recommend trying the back roads. As for driving habits, the
Greeks are independent, adventurous, and creative, something between Romans and
Bostonians. But you are likely to encounter mostly tourists anyway.
4. Weather
It came to me as a surprise that this was a major concern to ICALP
participants. Well, I am not going to hide anything from you. It is *hot*
in the Peloponnese in July, but in a pleasant, dry, cool way. The sea helps,
so does a little siesta at noon, and don't forget that the better hotels have
air conditioning (as does the Conference Room, of course). Athens can be a bit
unpleasant at times because of its pollution problem, but this is not common
(you should plan at least a quick stop in Athens).
GASTRONOMY
Greek food is a cross between Middle Eastern and European. It is strong in
vegetables (tomatoes, eggplant, potatoes, etc.), all kinds of meat (lamb, beef,
pork, fowl, goat), lemon juice, and olive oil. The default preparation is
casserole, and heavy sauces are common but not universal. Greek food is not
spicy. You can usually secure a steak for dinner (but you don't know what you
are missing!). There is visible Italian influence, but also Turkish, French,
Arabic. You are probably going to miss the real traditional peasant dish, navy
(dry, white) bean soup, because Greeks think of it as unworthy of esteemed
guests. At summertime, it is a treat to taste fresh broiled fish at a sea
shore restaurant. There is a delicious array of hors d'
oeuvres to choose from. The salad is usually tomatoes, cucumbers, onions and
feta cheese (called ``peasant's salad'' in Greek, ``Greek salad'' in English),
or boiled radish. Desserts range from baklava to creme caramelle. In general,
restaurants are to different degrees westernized. As a rule, when the table
cloth is white and the waitor wears a bow tie, then you can order Western
European food in a Western European language. In all other places you can
inspect the food in the kitchen and/or the catch in the ice chest, and order by
pointing. Oh yes, tip is included in the price, but you are expected to leave
a little extra.
COMPUTER SCIENCE IN GREECE
There are two Departments of Computer Science in Greece, one in the University
of Patras and one in the University of Crete at Iraklion; there is also a
Division of Computer Science in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the
National Technical University of Athens. Departments are also being started at
the University of Athens and the Athens Business School, and there are several
isolated computer scientists at other Universities, such as the University of
Thessaloniki. Finally, there are three newly founded Departments of Computer
Technology in the Institutes for Technical Education.
The most pressing problem is, of course, qualified academic personnel. Most
Departments have tried to tap the Greek computer scientists of the diaspora,
with varying success. Many Greek computer scientists are currently in the
transition from a career abroad, typically in the U.S., to an academic career
in Greece, and the ``re-entry problem'' has proven formidable. The
two-year obligatory military service and its inflexible rules is not the least
of the problems. In all, this is a very critical moment for Computer Science
higher education in Greece.
Outside Academia, there is of course a large market for computer usage, a
growing software industry, and a number of hardware ventures in the making.
Very recently, there has been a considerable high-level government
involvement in all aspects of Informatics, via the Governmental Council for
Informatics.
As for research, in Patras there are research groups in Computer Architecture,
Numerical Analysis, and Workstations. In Crete, the interests range from
Databases and Office Automation to VLSI. In Thessaloniki, there is research
activity in Logic Programming, Architecture, and Numerical Analysis. Now, in
Theoretical Computer Science, there is one group at the Division of Informatics
at the National Technical University of Athens, with Leo Guibas, Foto Afrati,
Lefteris Kiroussis, Andreas Stafilopatis, and Christos Papadimitriou on the
faculty, and a group of graduate students. There is only a two-year military
service and a volume of intractable legislation between Mihalis Yannakakis and
this group. The interests range from Algorithms, Complexity, Geometry,
Database Theory, Automatic Program Synthesis, Combinatorial Optimization, and
Parallel Computation. Also at NTUA there are faculty members with research
interests in Databases, Hardware, and Logic Programming, as well as people
working in related fields, such as Communication, Signal Processing, and
Control.
Christos H. Papadimitriou
-------
∂25-Mar-85 1647 TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA San Jose phone book
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Mar 85 16:47:34 PST
Date: Mon 25 Mar 85 16:36:10-PST
From: Kimberly Tuley <TULEY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: San Jose phone book
To: csd@SU-SCORE.ARPA
If anyone would like a new San Jose phone book, for your CS office, come
by the reception desk. First come first....
-------
∂25-Mar-85 1852 GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA Re: Raibert Visit
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Mar 85 18:41:10 PST
Date: Mon 25 Mar 85 18:39:01-PST
From: Gene Golub <GOLUB@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Raibert Visit
To: HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Karen Hedges <HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>" of Mon 25 Mar 85 11:10:41-PST
Sorry, I'll be out of own. It would be better if visitors didn't come
during intercession.
Gene Golub
-------
∂26-Mar-85 0045 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #13
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Mar 85 00:45:37 PST
Date: Monday, March 25, 1985 11:57AM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #13
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Tuesday, 26 Mar 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 13
Today's Topics:
Implementations - New Engine & C-Prolog Patch & CP,
Denotational Semantics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon 25 Mar 85 03:05:07-PST
From: Tarnlund@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Warren's New Engine
Two questions re: put←unsafe←value:
Says Warren, "This instruction represents the
last occurrence of an unsafe variable...".
Shouldn't it be *all* occurrences of an unsafe
variable in the last goal where it occurs?
I don't see why put←unsafe←value needs to create
a global variable if the engine is in a nondeterminate
state, since in that case the environment is not about
to be discarded.
-- Mats Carlsson
------------------------------
Date: 25 Mar 1985 01:50:54 PST
From: Mike Newton <Newton@CIT-20.ARPA>
Subject: yet more C-Prolog hackery
While using C-Prolog (vsn 1.5) we came up with
the following sample program:
f(Y) :- (true, ! ; X = 0), Y =< 7.
Horrible things happen if one calls f(3).
I have been trying to go through the internals of
C-Prolog to correct this error.
THOUGH I AM NOT SURE OF THIS PATCH, I suggest the
following:
in pl/init change the lines that define semicolon from
(A;B) :- $call(A).
(A;B) :- $call(B).
to
(A;B) :- $hidden←call(A).
(A;B) :- $hidden←call(B).
This SEEMS to correct the problem. If anyone else
could confirm this or can figure out a better patch,
please send me mail. We are using C-Prolog in our
own effort to build a good Prolog compiler.
-- Mike
------------------------------
Date: Sun 24 Mar 85 16:05:54-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-Reddy@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Concurrent Prolog and Denotational Semantics
Who would have thought that Vijay's merge program
would'nt work? Excepting the language designers and
the machine, that is. If the previous articles
on Concurrent Prolog annotations went past you, try
this one. Warning: This is a long note.
The problem with CP's read-only annotations is that
their semantics is defined at too low a level (in terms
of how they affect unification) rather than in terms of
how they affect the meanings of the programs. We don't
know what the denotational semantics of CP is, whether
it exists at all, or how complex it is.
The simplest way to understand logic programs is of
course to say that they define predicates. Let me call
this "basic semantics". Under this semantics, a 2-ary
predicate p - for instance - when applied to a ground
tuple (t1, t2), is either "true" or "unspecified". We
very well know how to find the basic semantics of a
given logic program.
The next level of semantics views the action of
predicates on non-ground tuples. Let me call this
"non-ground semantics". Now, a predicate p when
applied to a non-ground tuple (n1, n2) yields a set of
substitutions. Boolean operators can be defined on
this kind of predicates, and logic programs can be
understood in terms of these. But, evidently, non-
ground semantics is significantly more complex than
basic semantics.
However, there is a "vital connection" between basic
semantics and non-ground semantics which makes it quite
unnecessary to understand logic programs in terms of
non-ground semantics. Let p* be the non-ground
predicate corresponding to a basic predicate p.
p*(n1,n2) contains exactly those substitutions which
when applied on (n1,n2) yield ground tuples for which
p is true. More simply, the vital connection can be
stated as "the truth of an atom is preserved by
instantiation". So, if we know the basic semantics of
a predicate symbol, we automatically know its non-
ground semantics as well.
It is a good idea to define a "pure" logic language as
one that maintains this vital connection between its
basic semantics and non-ground semantics. Purity is
thus not a God-given concept, but one that is
determined by pragmatic considerations of simplicity.
Prolog, even with its sequential "and" and "or"
operations would still be pure (it would work in a kind
of non-standard logic), only if it didn't have cut, var
and similar constructs. Take var, for instance.
var(X) is true. But it is not true for any ground
instance of X. Thus, var breaks the vital connection.
All predicates now have to be understood as mapping
non-ground tuples to substitutions instead of as good
old logic predicates. Truth is not anymore preserved
by instantiation. For instance, consider
p(X) :- var(X), X=1.
p(Y) yields the substitution Y -> 1. But, p(1) is
untrue. Another problem is that var does not permit a
commutative "and" operation, thus destroying
parallelism. Cut does not even permit a commutative
"or" operation.
Now, let us get to Concurrent Prolog's read-only
nnotation. What is the meaning of an atom p(n1?,n2)
where n1 and n2 are non-ground terms? First of all,
such an atom is not even legal unless n1 is a variable
(Only variables can be annotated, not terms). This is
rather paradoxical. If impure logic languages don't
preserve truth under instantiation, CP does not even
preserve syntactic legality under instantiation.
This adds another layer of complexity and leads to what
I call "substitution semantics". Note that we have not
so far distinguished between atoms and goals. Atoms
are the ones that occur in clauses, whereas goals -
obtained by applying substitutions on atoms - occur at
run-time. An atom (a predicate applied to a non-ground
tuple) should now be interpreted as a function that
maps a substitution to a set of substitutions. We have
come quite far from basic logical semantics. Maybe
these domain equations help to understand what is going
on.
goal = P(substitution)
atom = substitution -> P(substitution)
predicate = non-ground-tuple ->
substitution -> P(substitution)
Even though these domains may appear strange, I think
we normally reason about Prolog programs using such
denotations. Jones-Mycroft semantics for Prolog uses
this kind of domains.
Now, let us attempt to give a meaning to atoms with
read-only annotations. Suppose we know the meaning of
an atom A. Let A' be another atom obtained by
annotating a variable X in the original atom. A
reasonable candidate for the meaning of the new atom is
M[A'](s) = M[A](s) if s(X) is a non-variable term
{} otherwise
A' performs any computation at all only if X is
instantiated in the input substitution. When it does,
it performs the same computation as A. It appears to
me that this equation does hold for Concurrent Prolog.
But, I leave it to the language designers to correct
me if I am wrong.
Note that the above equation holds only if all
occurrences of a variable in an atom are annotated.
Also, we have not yet dealt with annotations in
clause heads. But, already there are problems.
Firstly, we have to define an "and" operation on these
atoms. It is possible to define a sequential "and"
operation.
M[A1, A2] (s) = {s2 in M[A2](s1) | s1 in M[A1](s)}
But, I don't see how one can define a commutative "and"
operation. This is important because, unless we have
a commutative "and" operation, we can't sensibly
execute A1 and A2 in parallel. The inability to define
a commutative "and" operation means that substitution
semantics is not adequate for Concurrent Prolog. Let
me illustrate the problem with an example:
p([A|L]) :- p(L?).
p([]).
Now consider the meaning of p(X). If the input
substitution instantiates X to a ground or non-ground
list, the atom holds. (The output set contains only
the identity substitution). But, what if the input
substitution does not instantiate X? The atom can
instantiate X to [A|L] and reduce to p(L?). If we go
by substitution semantics, computation should get stuck
here because L is a new variable introduced in the
output substitution of the atom and so L cannot have an
instantiation in the input substitution. But, in
Concurrent Prolog, p(X) can be used in conjunction with
other atoms which can "cooperate" to produce an
instantiation for X. That is, the other atoms used in
conjunction can accept X->[A|L] in their input
substitutions, and produce instantiations for L which
would then be accepted as the input substitution by
p(X). The meaning of p(X) should capture such dynamic
cooperation that may occur at run-time. Simple-minded
substitution semantics is not enough.
The second problem is that annotations do not just
occur in atoms. They occur in instantiations as well.
The definition says "If Y is a variable then the
unification of X? and Y succeeds, and the result is a
read-only variable". So, if Y occurs in the head of a
clause, the input substitution instantiates Y to a read
-only variable Y->X?. Needless to mention that this
adds another layer of complexity to the denotations.
So, there are enough problems with Concurrent Prolog
even without allowing annotations in clause heads. I
think annotations in clause heads with the standard
definition of unification is a very bad idea. If we
have a clause
A :- B.
the meaning of :- in substituion semantics is the
superset relation.
M[A](s) superset-of M[B](s)
For any input subsitution s, all the output
substitutions that B can produce are included in the
output subsitutions that A can produce. This meaning
of :- breaks down if annotations are allowed in clause
heads. Who knows what more needs to be added to
rehabilitate :- ?
I am ending on a pessimistic note because that is what
I intended to do. Concurrent Prolog is too complex.
Don't be misled by the simplicity of a three-line
definition of unification. Concepts that look very
simple operationally can turn out to be very complex
denotationally. The imperative "go to" is the classic
example of this. Denotations are meanings that
"compose". Only denotational semantics can tell us how
a simple three-line definition can affect the overall
meanings of programs.
PS: Both in this note and the earlier one on
denotational semantics, I misuse the term
"non-ground-tuple" to include both ground and non-
ground tuples. Sorry.
Uday Reddy
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂26-Mar-85 0910 reid@Glacier Re: Ballots
Received: from SU-GLACIER.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Mar 85 09:10:44 PST
Date: 26 Mar 1985 0909-PST (Tuesday)
From: Brian Reid <reid@Glacier>
To: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Cc: tob@su-ai, Buchanan@sumex, Cheriton@pescadero, Feigenbaum@sumex, rwf@sail,
Genesereth@sumex, guibas@decwrl, katevenis@shasta, golub@score,
dek@sail, Lantz@pescadero, zm@sail, mayr@score, jmc-lists@sail,
Miller@SRI-KL, oliger@navajo, Papa@score, pratt@navajo, ullman@diablo,
Wiederhold@sumex, tw@sail, yao@score.reid
Subject: Re: Ballots
In-Reply-To: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA> /
Fri 22 Mar 85 16:20:43-PST.
Nils, I received your message about Academic Council Ballots. Since you
used a private mailing list, I couldn't target my reply to the same
group, so I'm just guessing at who is on that list.
I am happy with having John McCarthy in the academic senate. I think
that in general he represents my interests fairly well, and he is
articulate enough to get the attention of people who disagree with him.
However, I do not have the opportunity to vote for him, because my
School of Engineering ballot does not list the names of any H&S
candidates.
This is one of the many situations that will be ameliorated by moving
the CSD into the school of engineering.
∂26-Mar-85 1132 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA no free lunch
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Mar 85 11:32:30 PST
Date: Tue 26 Mar 85 11:23:34-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: no free lunch
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Sorry about no free lunch today--thought the intersession break
deserved a lunch break also. Ordinarily we would have had a
faculty lunch next week, April 2, but the deans pre-empted our
Rm 146 place during the lunch period. We'll have to manage without
faculty-wide, stimulating lunch discussion until April 9.
(I'll be out of town that day, though. Any suggestions for a
lunch topic then?)
Here's a calendar for the next few lunches:
Faculty Tuesday Lunch Topics
1985 Agenda
March 26 Between-Quarter Break--No lunch scheduled
April 2 No lunch--our room was commandeered for some
high purpose by the deanery
April 9 Unscheduled--Nils will be away, but lunch as usual
April 16 Discussion about the CSD Teaching Load
April 23 Discussion about Computer Forum
Guest: Dr. William F. Miller
April 30 Discussion about a proposed new "Computing
Science Institute" sponsored by GMD (Germany)
Guest: Ronald Kay, Consultant to GMD
(Nils will be away)
May 7 Discussion about Concerns of Interest to our Students
May 14 CSD Committees--Is the Present System Working?
May 21 Should the CSD require its students to take courses?
May 28 The Math/CS Library
Guest: Harry Llull
June 4 Unscheduled
June 11 Finals Week--Lunch as usual and unscheduled
conversation
Possible topics to be scheduled:
Should the CSD re-start the "visiting committee?"
Ideas for Major Fund Raising
(New Building, Chairs)
Guests: Cuthbert Hurd Nancy Bruno (H&S Development Office)
-------
∂26-Mar-85 1600 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Raibert Visit
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Mar 85 16:00:46 PST
Date: Tue 26 Mar 85 15:58:05-PST
From: Karen Hedges <HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Raibert Visit
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: hedges@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Following are the time slots still open for those Faculty who would like
to meet and talk with Marc Raibert on Thursday, March 28:
10:00 - 10:30
11:00 - 11:30
11:30 - 12:00
Please let me know your time preference ASAP! Thanks for your help.
--Karen
-------
∂26-Mar-85 2231 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:udi@wisc-rsch.arpa Chicago Workshop
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Mar 85 22:31:09 PST
Received: from wisc-rsch.arpa by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 26 Mar 85 21:03:38-PST
Received: by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 26 Mar 85 22:51:24 cst
Received: from lbl-csam.ARPA by wisc-rsch.arpa; Tue, 26 Mar 85 18:16:01 cst
Received: by lbl-csam.ARPA ; Tue, 26 Mar 85 16:16:00 pst
Received: from gargoyle by oddjob.UUCP with UUCP (4.12/8.17)
id AA26591; Tue, 26 Mar 85 17:21:42 cst
Received: by gargoyle.UChicago (4.12/4.7)
id AA20347; Tue, 26 Mar 85 16:06:01 cst
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 85 16:06:01 cst
From: oddjob!gargoyle!laci@lbl-csam
Message-Id: <8503262206.AA20347@gargoyle.UChicago>
To: udi@wisc-rsch.ARPA
Subject: Chicago Workshop
Sender: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa
Resent-From: udi@wisc-rsch.arpa (Udi Manber)
Resent-To: theory:;@wisc-rsch.arpa
-------------------------------------------------------------
REMINDER
Chicago Workshop on Computational Complexity
University of Chicago, May 2 - 4, 1985
There will be a moderate size workshop on Computational
Complexity at the University of Chicago just before STOC.
The core of the meeting will be a series of four expository
lectures by Richard M. Karp on parallel computation. In
addition, four one-hour lectures will be given by
R. L. Graham, F. T. Leighton, L. Lova'sz and E. Szemere'di.
There will be ample time left for individual discussions.
Tentative schedule
Wednesday, May 1
8:30 P.M. Reception
Thursday, May 2
9:30 A.M. F. T. Leighton
10:30 coffee
11:00 E. Szemere'di
12:30 lunch
2:30 R. M. Karp I
3:30 coffee
4:30 Problem Session
Friday, May 3
9:30 R. M. Karp II
10:30 coffee
11:00 R. M. Karp III
12:30 lunch
2:30 R. L. Graham
4:00 tea, informal discussions
Saturday, May 4
9:30 L. Lova'sz
10:30 coffee
11:00 R. M. Karp IV
12:30 lunch
3:00 sightseeing in downtown Chicago
Deadline for preregistration is April 15. For forms and information call
Laszlo Babai
Department of Computer Science
University of Chicago
1100 E 58th St
Chicago, IL 60637
(312) 962-3487
csnet: laci@uchicago
∂27-Mar-85 0055 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #14
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Mar 85 00:54:50 PST
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 1985 5:44PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #14
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Wednesday, 27 Mar 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 14
Today's Topics:
Implementations - CProlog bug & New Engine & RF-Maple,
& Cuts & Numbervars/3 & Semantics & CP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 26 Mar 85 14:57:11-PST
From: Byrd@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: C-Prolog bug
(R.A.O'Keefe using Lawrence's account)
This concerns the bug in
f(Y) :- (true,! ; X = 0), Y =< 7.
?- f(3).
I have no idea what the symptom may be, as this
works just fine in version 1.5a.edai. The code
for ;/2 in 1.5a.edai does indeed use $call rather
than $hidden←call, so if that isn't the fix I'm
in trouble too.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 26 Mar 85 14:54:40-PST
From: Byrd@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: New Engine question
(R.A.O'Keefe using Lawrence's account)
No, put←unsafe←variable is NOT needed for ALL
occurrences of an unsafe variable in the last
goal, only the first. The reason is that
put←unsafe←variable SIDE-EFFECTS the Yn variable
in question, so that from then on it is not unsafe.
In fact if your compiler is the least bit clever,
after having done put←unsafe←value Yn,Ai you can
thereafter copy the value of Ai directly instead of
looking at Yn again.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 85 10:19:12 pst
From: Paul Voda <Voda%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: This is a logic language
This is a note commenting on Uday Reddy's understanding
of logic languages.
Logic does not go beyond predicate calculus. Logic is predicate
calculus (at least the classical logic). Lambda calculus can be
presented as a first order theory exactly as ZF is a first order
presentation of set theory.
Not every rewriting system is a logic language. Nobody would call
Turing machines, Post systems, Markov algorithms, amd even
von Neumann computers logic languages. A logic language must
bear very close relation to either predicate logic with
terms and formulas, or else to the so called term logic
(Hermes) where formulas are just special cases of terms
(the ones yielding boolean values). Logic programming languages
based on functions are usually term logics.
What makes a programming language a logic language
is the interpretation (model) assigning the standard
logical functions to connectives, quantifiers and identity.
Here is Uday right, the syntax does not matter very much,
but semantics does. There is no straightforward
interpretation of languages, ergo they cannot be called
logic languages.
The traditional functional languages indeed compute with
closed (Uday calls it ground) terms. The solving aspect,
where one assigns values to free variables occurring in
programs is, as Uday observes, the very characteristic
aspect which makes an otherwise functional language
a logic programming language. There are quite a few
languages of this variety FGL+LV of Lindstrom, Qute of
Sato, Eqlog of Goguen, Tablog of Manna and Malachi, etc.
That all these languages use unfication (and/or narrowing)
proves only that the unification is a method of producing
output values. But to go from this fact to the claim Uday
makes that without unification there cannot be output
variables is rather strong. Uday effectively says that
the unification (or narrowing) is the only way to create
output values. RF-Maple does not use unfication and it is
a logic programming language with output variables. The
absence of unification is not the only feature
distinguishing RF-Maple from the languages (with a
possible exception of Qute). The other one is that
RF-Maple has explicit control allowing the programmer
to control the process of derivation.
To quote the last sentence of Uday's note "I wonder how
it [i.e. RF-Maple] can [create output variables], without
using unification". Here one can offer a simple advice
"by reading the paper on RF-Maple".
-- Paul Voda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 85 11:05:37 pst
From: Paul Voda <Voda%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Cuts, retracts, commits
The ongoing discussion in this Digest of uncertainties,
and ambiguities of cuts and retracts of Prolog as well
as of the behaviour of commits and read-only annotations
of C-Prolog is a proof that there is something unfinished
in definitions of both languages. A cut-free Prolog has
a rigid semantics (Kowalski, van Emden). Cuts, retracts,
commits and read-only variables are present in the
practical versions of both Prologs only because the
control is quite important in practice. The designers
and implementors of both Prologs clearly recognized this
fact but they failed (even operationally) to completely
describe what they really mean by the control features.
The standards of the design and implementation of these
languages do not differ very much from those of imperative
languages (Algols, Pascals, Adas). Yet we claim that the
logic programming languages are superior (as the semantics
goes) to the imperative ones. To define the operational
semantics of a language by a concrete interpreter is
clearly not enough. One should come up with a complete
definition of control in both Prologs before one can call
them logic programming languages with a clear conscience.
-- Paul Voda
------------------------------
Date: Tue 26 Mar 85 15:28:12-PST
From: Byrd@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: "soft" cuts
(R.A.O'Keefe using Lawrence's account)
[a] They are trivial to implement
[b] To my knowledge, at least two Prolog dialects
already have a closely related feature, where the
soft cut refers to an explicit disjunction. One
is LM Prolog, where the construct is called "cases".
The other is C Prolog; I forget just when I put it
in, but 1.5a..edai certainly has it. (Your version
of C Prolog has it if 'cases' is defined as a prefix
operator.)
The syntax in C Prolog is
cases
Test1 -> Branch1
; Test2 -> Branch2
; ...
; Testn -> Branchn
; /* otherwise*/ BranchElse
where this has the "logical" reading
( Test1, Branch1
; \+ Test1, Test2, Branch2
; ...
; \+ Test1, \+ Test2, ..., Testn, Branchn
; \+ Test1, ..., \+ Testn, BranchElse
)
and the "procedural" reading is the same except that
the negated forms are not actually executed. To be
specific, the tests may backtrack.
[c] However, I have never yet found a genuine use for
this facility. You see, the negations themselves only
really have a logical reading when they are ground
(well, you can relax this, but you still end up with
something having no solutions or one only). That being
the case, the tests aren't going to backtrack in the
first place, so the normal if-then-else (just delete
the word "cases") is good enough. Could either C
Could either Chris Moss or Peter Ludemann (or someone
else) supply an example of why this would be useful?
If the example can be done as clearly using the existing
machinery, that will not do. Just because the
implementation of something is trivial is no reason to
put it in.
[d] A note on terminology: I've been using the phrase
"strong cut" to refer to "!" (because it is powerful
enough to force its way through intervening conjunctions
and disjunctions and cut right back to the parent goal)
and "weak cut" to refer to "->" (because it is so weak
it can't fight its way out of a paper bag, otherwise
known as a disjunction). Having implemented "cases" over
a year ago and never having found a use for it, I suggest
that we either call it "the 'cases' construct" using the
original name from LM-Prolog or else give it no name at all;
[e] Ludemanns's claim that "last call optimisation ... can
be fully determined only at run time" is in error. His
example is ill-chosen, as in
append([], L, L).
append([H|T], L, [H|R]) :-
append(T, L, R).
the instantiation pattern of the arguments has nothing to do
with the fact that the call to append/3 is the last goal in the
last clause of a predicate. Never mind whether we ever tried
the first clause or not, THIS goal is in a determinate context.
So his example is irrelevant to his claim. It is indeed true
that you cannot reclaim the local stack frame at the point of
doing a last call unless the parent goal is determinate. But
you can still obtain some benefits, e.g. you can set the new
goal up so that it will return where the parent was to return,
thus making subsequent returns faster. There are other things
you can do as well. Alert readers of David Warren's "New
Engine" paper will have spotted that ALL last calls use the
same instruction, and the only difference is whether or not
put←unsafe←var needs to do anything. (I had better say at
this point that although I now work for Quintus I do not yet
understand exactly what the Quintus version of that instruction
does.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue 26 Mar 85 15:54:10-PST
From: Byrd@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: numbervars/3
[1] The source code for numbervars/3 can be found in
{SU-SCORE}PS:<PROLOG>METUTL.PL
this file was also broadcast to net.lang.prolog a long time
ago, and its contents were discussed and included in my
Edinburgh DAI Working Paper "COding Metalogical Operations
in Prolog".
[2] a manual which suggests that the bindings produced by
numbersvars look like integers must be a really old one;
and it has never been the case that the output resembled
integers. At one time, despite numbervars binding
variables to $VAR(N), these terms were written as ←N, so
you'd get variables coming out like ←0,←1,...
[3] But that was an obvious loser. It is entirely
possible for a term to have some things which were
bound by numbervars, some things which are still
variables, and some constants which start with
capital letters. We would like to be able to tell
these apart. The fact that the DEC-10 Prolog output
routines (except display/1) write $VAR(←) terms as
capital letters followed by digits was my idea,
that means that
X = f(U,V), numbervars(X,0,←),
writeq(p(W,X,'A'))
prints
p(←273,f(A,B),'A')
so that you can tell what is going on.
[4] Source code for the output routines, including
the bit that hacks this feature, may be found in
{SU-SCORE}PS:<PROLOG>WRITE.PL
In fact there is a complete kit of I/O routines;
they'll be updated as soon as I figure out how to
get the files to SU-SCORE.
Bill Clocksin's version using '←' WILL NOT WORK
with these output routines. But then he has his own
output routines with which it does work. Anyone
hacking numbervars/3 in a Prolog which is so <insults
deleted> that it hasn't already got it would be well
advised to copy the one in METUTL.PL; all the other
code that I've contributed to the Prolog library
assumes $VAR(←), and that is true in DEC-10 Prolog,
C Prolog, and Quintus Prolog.
[5] Allen van Gelder's comment that "numbervars fails
if you give it too small a range" is true but misleading;
it will also fail if you give it too large a range.
The idea is that after calling nummbervars(Term, Before,
After) the number of distinct variables which used to be
in the term is After-Before. Normally, Before should be
passed as the number of variables which have already been
instantiated this way (so that this call won't introduce
bogus aliases) and After should be a variable, so that
you can do
numbervars(X, 0, NV1),
numbervars(Y, NV1, NV2),
numbervars(Z, NV2, ←)
I've only ever come across one usage of numbervars/3
where it makes any sort of sense to pass a constant
as the third argument:
ground(Term) :-
numbervars(Term, 0, 0).
In fact, in the previous example, I would normally
write
numbervars(.(X,Y,Z), 0, ←)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 85 10:46:12 pst
From: Paul Voda <Voda%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Semantics of CP
This is a comment on the operational semantics of CP
as sketched by Uday Reddy in the 3#13 issue of Prolog
Digest. Variables in classical logic serve only one
purpose: to stand for (or to range over) the universe
of discourse. Thus no open predicates (i.e. predicates
containing free variables) denote truth or falsehood
unless the free variables are fixed by an assignment
of values (in computer science called environments)
or replaced by constants denoting individuals. Both
assignments and replacements by constants are widely
used in the interpretation of formal theories in logic.
Now, we are suppossedly in logic programming. Hence
there is no need to rediscover this basic logical fact
by proposing a "substitution semantics for non-ground
terms". The problem of the predicate "var(X)" (we cannot
substitute for X) is a well-known confusion of the use
and mention. The variable "X" is simply mentioned in the
predicate "var". The predicate is thus an intensional
predicate on the par with "John believes that ....".
The standard method of dealing with intensions in logic
is to go to Goedel-numbers. Thus we have Var("X") {I do
not have the corners of Quine so I use the quote} and no
substitution is possible. If an operationally minded
Prologist disagrees and insists on using the "var" as if
it were a normal predicate then he is definitely not a
logic programmer but rather a logic hacker.
The proposal of Uday to treat read-only annotations in a
denotational way does not really solve the problem.
It escapes to the metatheory and the vital connection
to the predicate logic is lost: variables do not range
over the universe. Here I cannot resist a small attack
on the traditional denotational semantics. Is it not
significant that whenever we have control different from
the head normal reduction the denotational semantics is
in a trouble? All attempts to describe non-standard control
denotationally (parallelism, unification, read-only
annotations, etc.) are hopelessly complicated (if adequate
at all). This makes them useless in any practical reasoning
about our programs.
I think that the solution lies in the recognition of the
fact that computations are proofs (we are paying a lip
service to this anyway). Thus operational semantics can be
explained by a formal theory permitting exactly those
derivations we are willing to compute with. This is the
point I am trying to explain in my paper "A View of
Programming Languages as Symbiosis of Meaning and
Computations" in vol. 3 no. 1 of the New Generation Computing.
I did not attempt to set up a formal theory for
computations of CP but I think it is not too complicated.
The read only annotation "X?" of a variable will have to be
explained as a normal one place (postfix) function symbol
defined as "x? = x", i.e. the identity. This allows also
syntactically and semantically valid terms as "(3 + x)?"
(There is no way in the classical logic to restrict the
domain of a function to variables only unless we are in
the meta-theory, which we clearly do not want to be). The
axioms and the rules of inference of the operational
semantics can be rigged up in such a way that formulas with
these non-intended annotations are not derivable. Since
the terms "x" and "x?", although semantically equal, are
two different terms the Symbiosis approach allows to
specify transformations to "x?" which do not apply to "x".
Remember that in the classical logic axioms are just
sequences of symbols. It is true, that they are valid
formulas in any interpretation, but we use the axioms
only syntactically in our proofs (i.e. computations).
I think that it is perfectly possible to give a meaningful
set of axioms describing just the intended uses of
read-only annotations and ignoring the not-intended.
But of course our axioms will be then incomplete. We know,
however, that the explicit control precludes any
completeness anyway.
-- Paul Voda.
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂27-Mar-85 0906 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books In The Math/CS Library
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Mar 85 09:05:53 PST
Date: Wed 27 Mar 85 09:00:24-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New Books In The Math/CS Library
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
How To Solve It With Prolog. 3rd edition. by Coelho, Cotta, Pereira.
Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil. QA76.73.P356C63 1982
Robotics And Artificial Intelligence. edited by Gerhardt and Davidson
TJ210.3.N38 1983
Data Base Management In The 1980's: Tutorial by Larson and Freeman.
QA76.9.D3T867
The Design Of Information Systems For Human Beings: Informatics 5 ASLIB.
edited by Kevin Jones and Heather Taylog Z699.A1D45 1981
Human Aspects In Office Automation. edited by B.G.F. Cohen Elsevier Series
In Office Automation vol. 1. HF5547.5.H85 1984
Generating Language-Based Environments by Thomas W. Reps QA76.6.R44 1984
Research and Development In Information Retrieval. Proceedings of the 3rd
joint BCS and ACM Symposium Kings College, Cambridge 1984 QA76.9.D3R46 1984.
Representation and Exchange of Knowledge as a Basis of Information Processes.
edited by Dietschmann. Z672.5.I58 1983 c.2
Symposium on Small Computers in the Arts. 4th 1984. Philadelphia, Pa. IEEE
Compouter Society. NX458. S95 1984.
DFT/FFT and Convolution Algorithms; theory and Implementation. by Burrus
and Parks. TK5102.5.B77 1985.
The Role of Mathematics in Science. Schiffer and Bowden. QA93.S33
An Idiot's Fugitive Essays On Science. Methods. Criticim, Training,
Circumstances. by Truesdell Q126.8T78 1984
The ZX Programmers' Companion by Grant. QA76.8.S627.G73 1984
Harry Llull
-------
∂27-Mar-85 1739 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA Newsletter Mar. 28, No. 22
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Mar 85 17:39:32 PST
Date: Wed 27 Mar 85 17:18:44-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Newsletter Mar. 28, No. 22
To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
C S L I N E W S L E T T E R
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
March 28, 1985 Stanford Vol. 2, No. 22
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
←←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, March 28, 1985
There will be no CSLI activities this Thursday, March 28. Activities
will resume on April 4.
←←←←←←←←←←←
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, April 4, 1985
12 noon TINLunch
Ventura Hall ``Types, Translatins, and Prepositions''
Conference Room by Mark Gawron, New York University
Discussion leader to be announced
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Redwood Hall ``Manipulating Models in Syllogistic Reasoning''
Room G-19 Marilyn Ford, CSLI
Discussion leader to be announced
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:15 p.m. CSLI Colloquium
Redwood Hall ``Two Cheers for Functional Role Semantics''
Room G-19 Ned Block, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
``Manipulating Models in Syllogistic Reasoning''
Johnson-Laird has argued that reasoners do not use formed rules of
inference in solving problems involving syllogistic reasoning, but
rather that they come to a solution by manipulating mental models. I
will show that while this certainly appears to be true, a number of
details of Johnson-Laird's theory appear to be incorrect. An
alternative theory will be presented. --Marilyn Ford
!
Page 2 CSLI Newsletter March 28, 1985
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
``Two Cheers for Functional Role Semantics''
There are two quite different frameworks for semantics:
REDUCTIONIST approaches attempt to characterize the semantic in
non-semantic terms. NON-REDUCTIONIST approaches are more concerned
with relations among meaningS than with the nature of meaning itself.
The non-reductionist approaches are the more familiar ones (eg.,
Montague, the model-theoretic aspect of situation semantics,
Davidson, Katz). The reductionist approaches come in 4 major
categories:
1. Theories that reduce meaning to the mental. (This is what is
common to Grice and Searle.)
2. Causal semantics--theories that see semantic values as derived
from causal chains leading from the world to our words.
3. Indicator semantics--theories that see natural and non-natural
meaning as importantly similar. The paradigm of meaning is the way
the rings on the tree stump represent the age of the tree when cut
down. (Dretske/Stampe, and, in my view, though not in Barwise and
Perry's, Situations and Attitudes)
4. Functional role semantics--theories that see meaning in terms of
the functional role of linguistic expressions in thought, reasoning,
and planning, and in general in the way they mediate between sensory
inputs and behavioral outputs.
After sketching the difference between the reductionist and non-
reductionist approaches, I will focus on functional role semantics, a
view that has independently arisen in philosophy (where its sources
are Wittgenstein's idea of meaning as use, and pragmatism) and
cognitive science (where it is known as procedural semantics).
I will concentrate on what theories in this framework can DO, e.g.,
illuminate acquisition of and knowledge of meaning, principles of
charity, how meaning is relevant to explanation of behavior, the
intrinsic/observer-relative distinction, the relation between meaning
and the brain, and the relativity of meaning to representational
system. The point is to give a sense of the fertility and power of
the view, and so to provide a rationale for working on solutions to
its problems. Finally, I will sketch some reasons to prefer
functional role semantics to the other reductionist theories.
A copy of a paper which the talk draws on will be in the Ventura
reading room. --Ned Block
←←←←←←←←←←←←
AREA P-2 MEETING
The next P-2 meeting will be on Wednesday, April 3 at 4.30 in the
Ventura reading room. Susan Fischer will speak on ``Showing Cause in
ASL: An Autosegmental Approach to Syntax''.
-------
∂28-Mar-85 0030 RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA PROLOG Digest V3 #15
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Mar 85 00:29:39 PST
Date: Wednesday, March 27, 1985 6:27PM
From: Chuck Restivo (The Moderator) <PROLOG-REQUEST@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Reply-to: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
US-Mail: P.O. Box 4584, Stanford CA 94305
Phone: (415) 326-5550
Subject: PROLOG Digest V3 #15
To: PROLOG@SU-SCORE.ARPA
PROLOG Digest Thursday, 28 Mar 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 15
Today's Topics:
Editorial - Request
Implementations - Cuts & RF-Maple & CP Semantics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 27 Mar 85 11:35:29-PST
From: Fernando Pereira <Pereira@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Short and to the point
The current trend of longer and longer contributions
in the Prolog Digest makes it almost impossible to
follow the discussions. I find myself forced to skip
of just skim any contribution longer than a couple of
screens.
Here are some suggestions on how to improve the
readability of contributions:
1. Keep each contribution within the size of a single
typewritten page (~60 lines).
2. Don't discuss more than one topic in a contribution;
if you want to address several topics, make separate
contributions with separate subject lines.
3. Use an editor to compose your contribution, and edit
it before sending; this will help cut down repetition.
4. Abstain from ``ad hominen'' arguments, innuendo,
tasteless irony and other such flamage; readers looking
for such material are much more likely to find enjoyment
in the satirical literature in their local library.
5. If your argument REALLY needs more than 1000 words,
WRITE a paper instead and submit it to a conference or
journal. If your idea is worth more than 1000 words you
owe it to yourself to make it available to a wider audience
that the readership of this Digest.
6. Reread and reread your contribution: there's no
point in making enemies unnecessarily.
-- Fernando Pereira
------------------------------
Date: 27 Mar 85 17:41:48 +1000 (Wed)
From: decvax!mulga!mungunni.oz!lee@Berkeley
Subject: read only annotations
I agree with Vijay Saraswat's opinion that !
annotations are nicer than read only variable
annotations (?). I like some sort of mode
declaration even more.
The initial proposal for ? was more 'powerful'
than ! or modes, in particular, the ability to
pass around chains of read only references.
In order to make ? more easy to understand and
implement, its power has been reduced. However,
mode declarations are still conceptually much
simpler. I suspect they are easier to implement
also, especially if you are trying to compile
things as much as possible. After all, its the
heads of clauses which are compiled most, whereas
? occurs mostly in calls.
Does anyone know if the latest version of ? has
any more power than ! or modes? If so, is this
extra power useful in practice?
-- Lee Naish
------------------------------
Date: Wed 27 Mar 85 17:09:57-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-REDDY@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: RF-maple
Paul Voda from V3 #14:
"the claim Uday makes that without unification
there cannot be output variables (values?) is
rather strong".
I claimed no such thing. FORTRAN produces output
values and does'nt use unification.
My question was "Can RF-Maple solve?". It has'nt been
answered. From all that Paul says, it appears that it
can't. May be it is interesting in spite of that. He
can also choose to call it a "logic language". I have
no objection to that. But, then, it should be kept in
mind that his notion of a "logic language" is different
from the kind of logic languages we are discussing here
and that there is no basis for comparing it with these.
-- Uday Reddy
------------------------------
Date: Wed 27 Mar 85 17:53:17-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-REDDY@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Semantics of CP
In response to Paul Voda, V3 #14:
1. What is the meaning of the goal p(Y) in the context
of the clause
p(X) :- var("X"), X=1.
with the proposed "" construction?
2. Just as I don't agree with purity-as-God-given
principle, I don't also agree with classical-logicians-
didn't-do-this principle. Even if I have to "escape to
metatheory" or the vital connection to the predicate
logic is lost, maybe I can still live with it - as a
programmer. But, the level of complexity I can com-
fortably live with - is bounded.
3. "Is it not significant that whenever we have control
different from the head normal reduction [normal
order reduction?] the denotational semantics is in
trouble?"
Not true. The reduction order depends on whether the
functions are strict or non-strict. But, if different
reduction orders are used for the same function,
denotational semantics would naturally have trouble
with it.
4. "Operational semantics [of CP] can be explained by
a formal theory ..."
Sorry. Operational semantics does'nt "compose", no
matter how formal a theory. I want to know the
meanings of higher-level concepts in terms of its
constituent lower-level parts.
"Computations are proofs".
Exactly. That is why a proof theory is not enough.
It is no better than "run-it-and-see". Proof theories
CAN be compositional, like for instance Hoare-Dijkstra
semantics for imperative languages. But, not any proof
theory is compositional.
-- Uday Reddy
------------------------------
End of PROLOG Digest
********************
∂28-Mar-85 0913 ULLMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA [Susan Owicki <SSO.OWICKI@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>: Seminar on parallel computers for prolog]
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Mar 85 09:12:54 PST
Date: Thu 28 Mar 85 09:08:50-PST
From: Jeffrey D. Ullman <ULLMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [Susan Owicki <SSO.OWICKI@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>: Seminar on parallel computers for prolog]
To: super@SU-SCORE.ARPA, nail@SU-AIMVAX.ARPA
Return-Path: <VSINGH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 26 Mar 85 13:28:45-PST
Return-Path: <SSO.OWICKI@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
Received: from SU-SIERRA.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Mon 25 Mar 85 16:03:44-PST
Date: Mon 25 Mar 85 15:48:34-PST
From: Susan Owicki <SSO.OWICKI@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar on parallel computers for prolog
To: vsingh@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Tue 26 Mar 85 13:27:48-PST
ReSent-From: Vineet Singh <vsingh@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
ReSent-To: pai@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
This is the seminar I mentioned. Could you forward it to the PAI list?
Thanks,
Sue
Parallel Architectures for Problem Solving
L.V. Kale\
ABSTRACT
The problem of designing parallel architectures and execution
methods for solving large computational problems is investigated.
Logic Programming is chosen as a language to specify the
computation because it is seen as a language that is conceptually
simple as well as amenable to parallel interpretation.
The REDUCE-OR tree is introduced as
a view of computation that is more suitable for capturing
parallelism than the AND-OR tree.
A process model is proposed that
retains both AND and OR parallelism that is inherent in the
program. It permits a variety of control strategies.
A general model is developed that includes the essential components of any
parallel Prolog implementation.
It provides a uniform framework for analyzing tradeoffs and issues
pertaining to performance.
A specific class of multibus architectures is proposed and
investigated. Parameters of the architectures of this class are
identified, and alternatives such as different topologies
are analyzed from the point of view of performance.
-------
-------
∂28-Mar-85 0920 ULLMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA [Susan Owicki <SSO.OWICKI@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>: Seminar time and place]
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Mar 85 09:20:18 PST
Date: Thu 28 Mar 85 09:13:28-PST
From: Jeffrey D. Ullman <ULLMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: [Susan Owicki <SSO.OWICKI@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>: Seminar time and place]
To: super@SU-SCORE.ARPA, nail@SU-AIMVAX.ARPA
Return-Path: <VSINGH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Tue 26 Mar 85 13:45:34-PST
Return-Path: <SSO.OWICKI@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
Received: from SU-SIERRA.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Tue 26 Mar 85 13:36:38-PST
Date: Tue 26 Mar 85 13:33:19-PST
From: Susan Owicki <SSO.OWICKI@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar time and place
To: vsingh@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Tue 26 Mar 85 13:42:40-PST
ReSent-From: Vineet Singh <vsingh@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
ReSent-To: pai@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Thanks for forwarding my message. I realize that I forgot crucial info.
Time: 10:30 Thursday March 28
Place: ERL 442
Could you send that out for me?
-------
-------
∂28-Mar-85 1121 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Mr. Kale
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Mar 85 11:21:09 PST
Date: Thu 28 Mar 85 11:15:44-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Mr. Kale
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, students@SU-SCORE.ARPA
The Department received a phone call from the Univ. of Oregon
trying to track down a Mr. Laxmikant Kale who is said to be
visiting the CSD today. He should call either Barbara or
Dr. Luks at (503)686-4408. Urgent.
-------
∂28-Mar-85 1234 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:reid@Glacier Re: Mr. Kale
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Mar 85 12:34:12 PST
Received: from Glacier by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Thu 28 Mar 85 12:28:05-PST
Date: 28 Mar 1985 1227-PST (Thursday)
From: Brian Reid <reid@Glacier>
To: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, students@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Cc: csl-faculty@Sierra
Subject: Re: Mr. Kale
In-Reply-To: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA> /
Thu 28 Mar 85 11:15:44-PST.
This is another CSL/CSD "gotcha."
Laximalt Kale is a faculty candidate in CSL, interviewing today.
Nobody in the outside world has ever been able to understand the
difference between CSD and CSL.
∂28-Mar-85 1433 PHILOSOPHY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Sophie Hampshire-Cartwright
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Mar 85 14:33:12 PST
Date: Thu 28 Mar 85 14:29:36-PST
From: Eve Wasmer <PHILOSOPHY@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Sophie Hampshire-Cartwright
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Congratulations to Nancy and Stuart on the birth of Sophie Hampshire-
Cartwright, born on March 27, weight 3 lbs. 7 ozs. Mother, Father, and
daughter all doing well.
-------
∂28-Mar-85 1447 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--April 2
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Mar 85 14:47:04 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.42)
id AA06789; Thu, 28 Mar 85 14:37:31 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA09011; Thu, 28 Mar 85 14:45:45 pst
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 14:45:45 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8503282245.AA09011@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--April 2
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
TIME: Tuesday, April 2, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
(followed by)
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Luch Suchman, Intelligent Systems Laboratory,
Xerox PARC
TITLE: ``Plans and Situated Actions: the problem of
human-machine communication''
Researchers in Cognitive Science view the organization and
significance of action as derived from plans, which are prere-
quisite to and prescribe action at whatever level of detail one
might imagine. Mutual intelligibility on this view is a matter
of the recognizability of plans, due to common conventions for
the expression of intent, and common knowledge about typical
situations and appropriate actions. An alternative view, drawn
from recent work in social science, treats plans as derived
from situated actions. Situated actions as such comprise
necessarily ad hoc responses to the actions of others and to
the contingencies of particular situations. Rather than depend
upon the reliable recognition of intent, successful interaction
consists in the collaborative production of intelligibility
through mutual access to situation resources, and through the
detection, repair or exploitation of differences in understand-
ing.
As common sense formulations designed to accomodate the
unforseeable contingencies of situated action, plans are
inherently vague. Researchers interested in machine intelli-
gence attempt to remedy the vagueness of plans, to make them
the basis for artifacts intended to embody intelligent
behavior, including the ability to interact with their human
users. I examine the problem of human-machine interaction
through a case study of people using a machine designed on the
planning model, and intended to be intelligent and interactive.
A conversation analysis of "interactions" between users and the
machine reveals that the machine's insensitivity to particular
circumstances is both a central design resource, and a funda-
mental limitation. I conclude that problems in Cognitive
Science's theorizing about purposeful action as a basis for
machine intelligence are due to the project of substituting
plans for actions, and representations of the situation of
action for action's actual circumstances.
-------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING TALKS
April 9: Jerry Fodor, Philosophy Department, UC Berke-
ley
April 16: Mark Johnson, Philosophy Department, Southern
Illinois University
April 23: David Dowty, Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences
April 30: Herbert H. Clark, Psychology Department,
Stanford University
-------------------------------------------------------------
∂28-Mar-85 1833 chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley UCB Cogsci Seminar--Correction
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Mar 85 18:33:49 PST
Received: from ucbcogsci.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.42)
id AA11203; Thu, 28 Mar 85 18:26:50 pst
Received: by ucbcogsci.ARPA (4.24/4.38)
id AA09598; Thu, 28 Mar 85 18:35:10 pst
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 18:35:10 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Message-Id: <8503290235.AA09598@ucbcogsci.ARPA>
To: cogsci-friends%ucbcogsci@Berkeley
Subject: UCB Cogsci Seminar--Correction
Speaking on April 2 will be LUCY SUCHMAN of Intelligent Systems Lab at
Xerox PARC.
∂29-Mar-85 1148 PHILOSOPHY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Lecture by Amartya K. Sen
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Mar 85 11:48:48 PST
Date: Fri 29 Mar 85 11:17:21-PST
From: Eve Wasmer <PHILOSOPHY@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Lecture by Amartya K. Sen
To: Folks@SU-CSLI.ARPA
You are invited to a lecture
by
AMARTYA K. SEN
Drummond Professor of Political Economy
All Souls College, Oxford
"THE STANDARD OF LIVING"
Monday, April 1
8 P.M.
Building 200, Room 2
(History Corner, Lower Level)
Presented by the Committee on Theoretical and Applied Ethics and Social
and Political Theory, under the sponsorship of the School of Humanities
and Sciences.
-------
∂29-Mar-85 1438 SANDY@SU-CSLI.ARPA Security Changes
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Mar 85 14:38:39 PST
Date: Fri 29 Mar 85 14:29:18-PST
From: Sandy McC-Riggs <SANDY@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Security Changes
To: FOLKS@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Beginning Friday, 29 March, CSLI will no longer have security guards.
The front desk will be staffed by students from from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. on weekends and from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on week nights.
We are making efforts to keep the grounds and buildings safe by
increasing outdoor lighting levels and adding new locks. However, all
staff members and researchers must also develop greater security
awareness. When leaving, look around your office so when you enter it
next you will know if something has been disturbed, and check locks on
windows and doors. If you notice anything unusual, send a message to
Sandy or Jamie who may not be able to take any action, but will
serve as localized sources of information if needed.
If you're concerned about coming to and from Ventura week nights
before 10:00 p.m., call the front desk at 497-0628 and one of our
students with escort you. On weekends, or later in the night, you can
call the Stanford Escort Service at 497-3217.
Please don't hesitate to call Sandy at 497-0939 if you have any
particular concerns you'd like to discuss.
-------
∂30-Mar-85 1808 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ARK@SU-AI.ARPA CS Colloq, April 2: Dennis McLeod: Object Management in Distrib DB
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Mar 85 18:08:44 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sat 30 Mar 85 17:50:37-PST
Date: 30 Mar 85 1750 PST
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: CS Colloq, April 2: Dennis McLeod: Object Management in Distrib DB
To: All-Colloq@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
CC: ark@SU-SCORE.ARPA
CS Colloquium, April 2, 4:15pm, Terman Auditorium
OBJECT MANAGEMENT AND SHARING IN AUTONOMOUS,
DISTRIBUTED DATABASE SYSTEMS
Dennis McLeod
Computer Science Department
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0782
With the increasing use of personal computers/workstations as information
managers and the need to interconnect autonomous repositories of data, it is
necessary to devise concepts, techniques, and mechanisms for information
sharing and coordination in a logically distributed environment. Most research
on distributed database systems has focused on a tightly-coupled environment,
in which a global structural specification (conceptual schema) is defined, and
issues of distributed data consistency (viz., information partitioning and
multiple copy control), concurrency, and query processing are examined. This
research explores a more loosely-coupled distributed environment, in which a
set of autonomous nodes (databases) are interconnected via a network.
In the approach taken in this research, each node in the database network is
largely autonomous vis-a-vis the information it shares and coordinates with
other nodes; no global unified view of data is required. Each node must
however provide a network interface using the constructs of a simple sharing
and coordination model. Utilizing this model, all data is specified as
information objects; this includes specific data of various modalities,
meta-data, operations, constraints, and access rights. An object sharing
mechanism has been devised which provides facilities for: internode object
naming and identification; object scoping; internode object categorization
(typing) and relationships; multi-node object search; internode object
consistency; multi-node object manipulation; and distributed access control.
An experimental prototype system based on this approach is under development.
Applications to personal databases and information management support for a
collaborating collection of design engineers (viz., VLSI and software
designers) are considered.
----
Cookies and juice will probably be served in the 3rd floor lounge of MJH
at 3:45pm. See you there.
∂30-Mar-85 2255 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ossher@amadeus Danny Berlin
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Mar 85 22:55:30 PST
Received: from amadeus by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sat 30 Mar 85 22:46:34-PST
From: Harold Ossher <ossher@amadeus>
Date: 30 Mar 1985 2247-PST (Saturday)
To: csd@score, csl-everyone@sierra, post-su-bboards,
BridgeConsortium↑.PA@xerox, asente, lia, trewitt, mmt@gregorio,
fy@sail, rosenschein@sumex, treitel@sumex, reid, kovach, bobrow@xerox,
stefik@xerox, FORBES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, JOCK@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
PATASHNIK@SU-SCORE.ARPA, TONG@RUTGERS.ARPA, ML@SU-AI.ARPA,
CRISPIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA, PKR@SU-AI.ARPA, JJW@SU-AI.ARPA, RFN@SU-AI.ARPA,
FALCAO@SU-SCORE.ARPA, TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA, nowicki@Pescadero,
MORRIS@CSLI, JFINGER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, TOH@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
SUBRAMANIAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, rsf@Pescadero, LEIB@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA, DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, HSU@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
RDG@SU-AI.ARPA, FRAYMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, BACH@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
ALEE@SU-SCORE.ARPA, BRADFORD@SU-SIERRA.ARPA, BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
HENJUM@SU-SCORE.ARPA, WINSLETT@SU-SCORE.ARPA, waleson@sumex,
buchanan@sumex, rubin@score, jay%biochem@harvard.ARPA,
shortliffe@sumex, rperrault@sri-ai, ym@su-ai, tracy@score, jf@score,
trickey@diablo
Cc: ossher
Subject: Danny Berlin
Danny died peacefully this afternoon, after a long fight with cancer.
The funeral will be held in San Francisco, probably on Monday
afternoon, and prayers will be held locally Monday through Thursday
evenings next week. I'll provide details tomorrow once they have
been finalized.
∂31-Mar-85 0939 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA PhD orals
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 31 Mar 85 09:38:54 PST
Date: Sun 31 Mar 85 09:37:27-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: PhD orals
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Victoria tells me that she has some shortages in "random members" of
Ph.D. orals committees. (She needs more of us to say "yes" when
asked to be a random member.) I hope we will all be a little extra
sensitive to this important need--especially over the next few
months when we seem to be having a higher-than-average number of
oral exams. Thanks, -Nils
-------
∂31-Mar-85 1208 NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA Faculty Meeting
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 31 Mar 85 12:08:03 PST
Date: Sun 31 Mar 85 12:06:03-PST
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty Meeting
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Here are the agenda items that I have accumulated so far.
If there are additional suggestions, please send to my secy,
Karen Hedges--Hedges@score. (Since there are no outstanding
issues that involve the senior faculty alone, we will not
be having a senior faculty meeting on Thursday.)
TENTATIVE AGENDA
GENERAL CSD FACULTY MEETING
2:30 pm, Room 146 MJH
April 2, 1985
0. Opening, Review of Agenda, Nils Nilsson
1. Degree Recommendations, Victoria Cheadle
2. Reports
Financial, Betty Scott
Admissions Committee, Zohar Manna
Computer Forum, Carolyn Tajnai
Computer Facilities, Len Bosack
Search Committees, Nils Nilsson
Visiting Industrial Professors, John McCarthy
Curriculum Committee, Don Knuth
3. Possible CSD Move to the Engineering School
Discussion and Vote
4. Consulting Professorship Appointments and Renewals
Through CSLI: Consulting Professor: Martin Kay
Consulting Associate Professors: Barbara J. Grosz,
Robert C. Moore, Raymond Perrault, Stanley J.
Rosenschein, Brian C. Smith
New candidate: Consulting Associate Professor: Joe Halpern, IBM
5. Courtesy Appointments and Renewals
Review of situation
Candidates: John Hennessy, Susan S. Owicki, Brian Reid, John Gill,
Mark Linton, Mark Horowitz (All of E.E.)
6. Review of Policy on CSD Visitors, Nils Nilsson
7. ACM Ph.D. Dissertation Award, Don Knuth
8. New Teaching Requirements for PhD students, Stuart Reges
-------
∂31-Mar-85 1729 SKIPELLIS@SU-SCORE.ARPA Details - Xerox Open House
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 31 Mar 85 17:29:10 PST
Date: Sun 31 Mar 85 17:21:03-PST
From: Skip Ellis <SKIPELLIS@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Details - Xerox Open House
To: CSL@SU-SIERRA.ARPA, CSD@SU-SCORE.ARPA, SU-BBoard@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: skipellis@SU-SCORE.ARPA
If you signed the (hardcopy) Xerox Open House signup sheet, then you are invited to a day of technical sessions, demos, lunch, and dinner at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) on Wednesday, April 10. If you did not sign up, then we are sorry that we have a (very) full house and cannot accept or invite any further people.
Agenda:
9:00 - 9:30 coffee and stuff
9:30 - 12:15 morning session
12:15 - 1:00 lunch
1:10 - 5:00 afternoon session
5:30 - 6:00 wine and drinks
6:00 - 8:00 dinner
Morning session:
9:30 Welcome and PARC Overview by William Spencer, head of PARC
9:50 Office Systems Division (OSD) by John Shoch, head of OSD
10:10 Integrated Circuits Lab (ICL) by John Knights, manager of ICL
10:55 Computer Science Lab (CSL) by Robert Ritchie, manager of CSL
11:20 Intelligent Systems Lab (ISL) by John Seeley Brown, manager of ISL
11:45 Systems Concepts Lab (SCL) by Adele Goldberg, manager of SCL
Afternoon session:
Session 1 (1:10-2:00)
Cedar Environment - Carl Hauser
Workday Applications - Frank Zdybel
Algorithms Research - Frances Yao
Session 2 (2:10-3:00)
Dragon Computer Architecture - Ed McCreight
Interlisp Environment - Richard Burton
Voice Project - Dan Swinehart
Session 3 (3:10-4:00)
Smalltalk Environment - Glenn Krasner
Pride Knowledge Based System - Sanjay Mittal
Integrated Circuits Lab - Bill Meuli
Session 4 (4:10-5:00)
Notecards Information Organizer - Frank Halasz
Cross Machine Program Development - Laurie Horton
Color Graphics - Maureen Stone
All of these activities are happening on April 10 at Xerox PARC, 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto. PARC is about 3 miles from campus. Directions from campus:
El Camino or Juniper Serra to Page Mill Road, turn right.
Page Mill to Coyote Hill Road, turn left.
Coyote Hill to first building on your left, turn left.
Follow sign to visitor parking lot; then sign in at auditorium entrance.
If you signed up, we assume that you are coming to the morning session and your choice of afternoon sessions and dinner. For planning purposes, please send me a message if you are NOT coming to dinner. For further info, feel free to contact me via mail or at my office - MJH450B, 497-9684.
-skip ellis
-------
∂31-Mar-85 1805 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ossher@Glacier Danny Berlin
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 31 Mar 85 18:04:55 PST
Received: from Glacier by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Sun 31 Mar 85 17:58:36-PST
Date: 31 Mar 1985 1757-PST (Sunday)
From: Harold Ossher <ossher@Glacier>
To: csd@score, csl-everyone@sierra, BridgeConsortium↑.PA@xerox,
post-su-bboards, asente, lia, trewitt, mmt@gregorio, fy@sail,
rosenschein@sumex, treitel@sumex, reid, kovach, bobrow@xerox,
stefik@xerox, FORBES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, JOCK@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
PATASHNIK@SU-SCORE.ARPA, TONG@RUTGERS.ARPA, ML@SU-AI.ARPA,
CRISPIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA, PKR@SU-AI.ARPA, JJW@SU-AI.ARPA, RFN@SU-AI.ARPA,
FALCAO@SU-SCORE.ARPA, TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA, nowicki@Pescadero,
MORRIS@CSLI, JFINGER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, TOH@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
SUBRAMANIAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, rsf@Pescadero, LEIB@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA, DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, HSU@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
RDG@SU-AI.ARPA, FRAYMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, BACH@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
ALEE@SU-SCORE.ARPA, BRADFORD@SU-SIERRA.ARPA, BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
HENJUM@SU-SCORE.ARPA, WINSLETT@SU-SCORE.ARPA, waleson@sumex,
buchanan@sumex, rubin@score, jay%biochem@harvard.ARPA,
shortliffe@sumex, rperrault@sri-ai, ym@su-ai, tracy@score, jf@score,
trickey@diablo
Cc: ossher
Subject: Danny Berlin
Danny died peacefully yesterday afternoon after a long fight with
cancer. His funeral will be held on Monday (April 1) at 3:00 p.m. at Sinai
Memorial Chapel, 1501 Divisadero (at Geary), San Francisco. Prayers
will be held Monday through Thursday evenings this week at 6:30 p.m. at
2747 Del Medio Court, Apt. 106, Mountain View.
∂01-Apr-85 0935 LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA New Books in the Math/CS Library
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Apr 85 09:35:17 PST
Date: Mon 1 Apr 85 09:32:32-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: New Books in the Math/CS Library
To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Ada Applications and Environments. IEEE Computer Society 1984 Conference
on. QA76.73.A35I33 1984
First Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational
Linguistics. Proceedings of the Conference. September 1983 Pisa, Italy.
(8506737)
GAG:A Practical Compiler Generator by Kastens, Hutt, and Zimmermann
QA76.6.K349 1982
Kunstliche Intelligenz. edited by Bibel and Siekmann. Q335.5K97 1982
Data Systems Dictionary. Worterbuch Der Datentechnik. by Brinkmann and
Schmidt. Deutsch-English, English-German. REF QA76.15B74 1979 c.2
Algorithms, Software and Hardware of Parallel Computers. edited by Miklosko
and Kotov. QA76.6A43 1984
Human Factors And Interactive Computer Systems. edited by Vassiliou.
QA76.9.I58N98 1982 c.2
Implementing Functions: Microprocessors and Firmware. Euromicro Symposium
Paris, September 1981 edited by Richter, Le Beux, Chroust, Noguez.
QA76.5.E9 1981.
Introduction To SIMULA 67 by Lamprecht. QA76.73.S55L35 1983
Interactive Fortran 77; a hands-on approach. by Chivers and Clark
QA76.73.F25C485 1984.
Invitation To MVS: Logic and Debugging. by Katzan and Tharayil .
QA76.6I65 1984.
Harry Llull
-------
∂01-Apr-85 1024 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA new mailing list
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Apr 85 10:23:53 PST
Date: Mon 1 Apr 85 10:19:52-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: new mailing list
To: rrr@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Tel: 497-3479
If you received this and the previous message, you are already on the
mailing list.
-Emma
-------
∂01-Apr-85 1132 EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA program synthesis seminar
Received: from SU-CSLI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Apr 85 11:32:03 PST
Return-Path: <WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-CSLI.ARPA with TCP; Mon 1 Apr 85 10:31:11-PST
Mail-From: WALDINGER created at 1-Apr-85 10:21:21
Date: Mon 1 Apr 85 10:21:21-PST
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: program synthesis seminar
To: AIC-Associates: ;
ReSent-date: Mon 1 Apr 85 10:26:03-PST
ReSent-From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
ReSent-Date: Mon 1 Apr 85 11:28:28-PST
ReSent-From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
ReSent-To: friends@SU-CSLI.ARPA
Seminar in Program Synthesis
CS400C MW 11-12:15 (note change in time)
MJH 352
Richard Waldinger
A unified treatment of current research on the
systematic derivation of programs to meet given
specifications, with an emphasis on the deductive
approach.
Related topics in theorem proving, program
transformation, logic programming, and planning.
Individual projects.
-------
∂01-Apr-85 1158 HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA Faculty Lunch
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Apr 85 11:57:36 PST
Date: Mon 1 Apr 85 11:32:33-PST
From: Karen Hedges <HEDGES@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Faculty Lunch
To: Faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Bureaucrats@SU-SCORE.ARPA
cc: hedges@SU-SCORE.ARPA
NOTICE: The Faculty Lunch scheduled for Tuesday, April 2 has been
cancelled. The next Lunch will be Tuesday, April 9.
-------
∂01-Apr-85 1247 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:estrin@mit-comet research on inter-organization networks
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Apr 85 12:46:16 PST
Received: from mit-comet.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 1 Apr 85 12:33:56-PST
Received: by mit-comet.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
id AA14818; Mon, 1 Apr 85 15:29:37 est
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 85 15:29:37 est
From: estrin@mit-comet (Deborah L. Estrin)
Message-Id: <8504012029.AA14818@mit-comet.ARPA>
To: faculty@su-score
Subject: research on inter-organization networks
A couple of weeks ago I distributed an online questionnaire regarding my
research on the use of Inter-Organization Networks. THANK YOU to those of you
who responded so promptly. To those who have not yet had a chance to respond,
I urge you to give it a try. Most people find that it takes between 5 and 15
minutes and I believe the research results--which I will summarize and
distribute (with full respect for individual and organization privacy)--will
be of interest and value to our community.
If you find online response too tedious, I do recommend trying hard copy.
Also, if you misplaced or discarded your original copy of the questionnaire,
and would like another, just let me know.
Thank you again for your time and contributions!
Deborah Estrin
∂01-Apr-85 1424 WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Siglunch-April 5, 1985
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Apr 85 14:24:02 PST
Date: Mon 1 Apr 85 14:17:46-PST
From: Carol Wright <WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Siglunch-April 5, 1985
To: siglunch@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
SIGLUNCH
DATE: Friday, April 5, 1985
LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic Chemistry
TIME: 12:05
SPEAKER: Lawrence J. (Dave) Davis, Ph.D.
Texas Instruments Computer Science Laboratory.
Knowledge Based Systems Branch. Dallas, Texas.
TITLE: Applying Adaptive Algorithms to Epistatic Domains
Abstract: In his 1975 book ADAPTATION IN NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL
SYSTEMS, John Holland proposed a technique for carrying out search in
large solution spaces that is based on the process of natural
evolution. Among the important points in the book is Holland's proof
that the search process can be greatly accelerated if certain sorts of
mutations (CROSSOVER mutations) are used. Interest in probabilistic
search techniques, and the Holland techniques in particular, has grown
quite strong in the last two years. The talk will begin by describing
procedures Holland and his students used in their early work, and then
will move to the topic of recent innovations.
Holland has shown that when adaptive algorithms are used to search
certain kinds of extremely large spaces, they will converge on a
"good" solution fairly quickly. Such problem spaces are characterized
by a low degree of interaction between components of solutions. A
host of classical search problems, however, are oriented toward
solutions that are highly interactive. The talk will describe some
new techniques for applying adaptive algorithms to epistatic domains,
while retaining some of the strength of Holland's convergence proof.
-------
∂01-Apr-85 1448 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ossher@amadeus Danny Berlin
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Apr 85 14:48:31 PST
Received: from amadeus by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 1 Apr 85 14:18:12-PST
From: Harold Ossher <ossher@amadeus>
Date: 30 Mar 1985 2247-PST (Saturday)
To: csd@score, csl-everyone@sierra, post-su-bboards,
BridgeConsortium↑.PA@xerox, asente, lia, trewitt, mmt@gregorio,
fy@sail, rosenschein@sumex, treitel@sumex, reid, kovach, bobrow@xerox,
stefik@xerox, FORBES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, JOCK@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
PATASHNIK@SU-SCORE.ARPA, TONG@RUTGERS.ARPA, ML@SU-AI.ARPA,
CRISPIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA, PKR@SU-AI.ARPA, JJW@SU-AI.ARPA, RFN@SU-AI.ARPA,
FALCAO@SU-SCORE.ARPA, TAJNAI@SU-SCORE.ARPA, nowicki@Pescadero,
MORRIS@CSLI, JFINGER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, TOH@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
SUBRAMANIAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, rsf@Pescadero, LEIB@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
BRODER@SU-SCORE.ARPA, DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, HSU@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
RDG@SU-AI.ARPA, FRAYMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, BACH@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
ALEE@SU-SCORE.ARPA, BRADFORD@SU-SIERRA.ARPA, BRONSTEIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA,
HENJUM@SU-SCORE.ARPA, WINSLETT@SU-SCORE.ARPA, waleson@sumex,
buchanan@sumex, rubin@score, jay%biochem@harvard.ARPA,
shortliffe@sumex, rperrault@sri-ai, ym@su-ai, tracy@score, jf@score,
trickey@diablo
Cc: ossher
Subject: Danny Berlin
Danny died peacefully this afternoon, after a long fight with cancer.
The funeral will be held in San Francisco, probably on Monday
afternoon, and prayers will be held locally Monday through Thursday
evenings next week. I'll provide details tomorrow once they have
been finalized.
∂01-Apr-85 1546 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:ARK@SU-AI.ARPA Speaker on C++
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Apr 85 15:46:11 PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 1 Apr 85 15:41:03-PST
Date: 01 Apr 85 1440 PST
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Speaker on C++
To: faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA, CSL-faculty@SU-SCORE.ARPA
CC: ARK@SU-AI.ARPA
Bjarne Stroustrup is willing to give a talk at Stanford on C++ on April 25
or 26. Here's his message and abstract. Does anyone want to invite him?
Arthur
From: bs.wild.btl@csnet-relay.arpa
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1985 11:36 EST
Here is an abstract. I'm sorry that I cannot talk on a tuesday, maybe some other time.
Unless I hear from you in a day or two I'll make alternative arrangements for that
week.
****
An Introduction to C++
.AU
Bjarne Stroustrup
.AI
.MH
.AB
The C++ programming language is with minor exceptions a superset of C;
it is fully implemented and has been used for non-trivial projects.
The presentation focuses on the data abstraction features of C++.
They include:
Simula-like classes providing (optional) data hiding,
(optional) guaranteed initialization of data structures,
(optional) implicit type conversion for user defined types,
(optional) dynamic typing,
and operator overloading.
A program using these features is at least as efficient (in space and time usage)
as an equivalent C program, and the C++ compiler is faster than the old C compilers.
∂01-Apr-85 2121 @SU-SCORE.ARPA:estrin@mit-comet research on inter-organization networks
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Apr 85 21:21:37 PST
Received: from mit-comet.ARPA by SU-SCORE.ARPA with TCP; Mon 1 Apr 85 21:18:29-PST
Received: by mit-comet.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
id AA15804; Tue, 2 Apr 85 00:14:25 est
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 85 00:14:25 est
From: estrin@mit-comet (Deborah L. Estrin)
Message-Id: <8504020514.AA15804@mit-comet.ARPA>
To: faculty@su-score
Subject: research on inter-organization networks
My apologies for the previous message. It appears that my original message
(included below) never made it! Please excuse the mixup!
----------
Online Questionnaire: Inter-Organization Networks
Computer-based communication and resource sharing ACROSS organization
boundaries are the focus of my doctoral research in the MIT Lab for Computer
Science. As a test case, I am studying the effects of INTER-ORGANIZATION
NETWORKS on communication among Research Laboratories. I am seeking responses
to the following questionnaire. The 5 multiple-part questions are all short
answer or multiple choice. And as you will see, because I am primarily
interested in detecting patterns of change, the questions do NOT require
ultra-detailed answers. Please do take the few minutes to respond; it takes
most people between 5 and 15 minutes. All information will be treated
confidentially. You may respond online (to estrin@mit-xx) by inserting your
responses after each question or by numbering your responses. Or respond on
paper by printing the questions double spaced and writing in or numbering your
answers; send to Deborah Estrin, MIT, 545 Technology Sq., Cambridge MA 02139.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: I refer to electronic mail, file transfer, remote login, database, and
other computer-based communication mechanisms as INTER-ORGANIZATION NETWORK
(ION) FACILITIES. Telephone, face-to-face meetings, and postal mail are
referred to as TRADITIONAL MEDIA. EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS are government,
university, or industrial laboratories outside of your university.
1) EXTERNAL INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SHARING:
a) During an average work week, with about HOW MANY EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS
do you exchange work-related information (e.g. research ideas, tools and
techniques) or resources (e.g. equipment, software, data bases, computer
services) VIA ION FACILITIES ? If the answer is 0, please skip to question 4.
b) About HOW LONG AGO did you first begin using ION facilities to communicate
with these and other external organizations? (number of months or years)
c) Since you began using ION facilities, is the NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS with
which you share information or resources less, the same, or greater than it
was when you used only traditional media?
d) Since you began using ION facilities, is the NUMBER OF RESEARCH PROJECTS
that involve information or resource sharing with external organizations
smaller, the same, or larger than it was when you used only traditional media?
e) To what extent do you attribute the changes indicated in (c) and (d) to
the use of ION facilities? (not at all, some, quite a bit, very much)
f) Identify the individual organizations with which you exchange work related
information or resources via ION facilities most intensively; select no more
than 3 or 4. Assign a code letter to each one (i.e., a,b,c) and indicate
whether each is a university(u), government(g), or industrial(i) lab.
Bulletin boards and distribution lists do NOT qualify as organizations per se;
please do not include more than one of these among the 3 or 4 organizations.
2) COMMUNICATION AND ACCESS PATTERNS:
Respond to the following questions by listing each organization's code letter
(assigned above) followed by the appropriate answer for that organization.
a) Approximately HOW MANY people in EACH of these organization do you
communicate with via ION facilities during an average work week?
b) Since you began using ION facilities, is the NUMBER of people that you
communicate with per organization less, the same, or greater than it was when
you used only traditional media?
c) HOW OFTEN do you communicate with people or machines in EACH of these
organizations via ION facilities during an average work week (0 times, 1 time,
2-5 times, 6-10 times, more)?
d) Since you began using ION facilities, is the FREQUENCY of communication
with each of these organizations less, the same, or greater than it was when
you used only traditional media?
e) Since you began using ION facilities, do you communicate with each of
these organizations via TRADITIONAL media less,the same,or more than you did
when you used only traditional media?
f) For each of these organizations, which of the following INFORMATION and
RESOURCE TYPES do you exchange via ION facilities ?
INFORMATION: (1)research ideas (2)research results (3)joint authorship
comments (4)information for solving a particular problem (5)information about
tools and techniques (6)administrative scheduling (7) Other, please specify.
RESOURCES: (8)software (9)computer resources (10)remote applications
(e.g.,Macsyma, VLSI tools) (11)database (12)Other, please specify.
(List each organization's code letter followed by the appropriate numbers.)
g) For each of these organizations, indicate if the average amount of EACH
INFORMATION and RESOURCE TYPE exchanged per week is less, the same, or greater
than it was when you used only traditional media.
h) Since you began using ION facilities to communicate with these outside
organizations, has your communication with outside organizations that are NOT
accessible via ION facilities changed? Indicate if the average amount of EACH
INFORMATION and RESOURCE TYPE exchanged with the non-ION organizations is
less, the same, or greater.
i) Which of the information and resource types do you exchange with
people INSIDE your organization via internal computer facilities ?
j) For each of the external organizations that you communicate with via ION
facilities (identified in 1f), which of the following CLASSES of INFORMATION
and RESOURCES do you exchange via ION facilities ?
INFORMATION: (1)publicly available (2)available in internal documents only
(3)related to unpublished research (4)related to unreleased system or
product (5)proprietary (6)Other, please specify.
RESOURCES: (7)widely available (8)limited (9)costly (10)critical for internal
operations (12)proprietary (11)Other, please specify.
k) For each of these organizations, indicate if the average amount of EACH
information and resource CLASS exchanged per week is less, the same, or
greater than it was when you used only traditional media.
l) To what extent do you attribute the changes indicated in (b),(d),(e),(g),
(h),(k) to the use of ION facilities? (not at all,some,quite a bit,very much)
If appropriate, provide a separate response for each of the 6 questions (b,d,
e,g,h,k).
3) CONTRACTS AND RESTRICTIONS
a) What kinds of AGREEMENTS exist between your organization and each of the
individuals or organizations that you communicate with via ION facilities?
(none,informal,consulting contract,joint development contract,other specify)
b) Indicate if these agreements differ from the agreements governing
relationships that use only traditional media (no difference,more explicit
conditions,more protective,more exclusive to other organizations,more
open-ended or illdefined,other please specify) ?
c) Indicate if any of the following factors significantly INHIBIT your
using ION facilities more extensively (destinations inaccessible,inconvenient,
poor performance,confidentiality of information,company policy,none,
other please specify)
4) BACKGROUND:
a) About HOW MANY RESEARCH PROJECTS are you working on currently
that involve regular contact with persons in organizations outside of your own
company/university ?
b) During an average work week, with about HOW MANY EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS do
you share work related information or resources (via either traditional or
ION facilities) ?
c) Which aspect(s) of research/development do you work in, primarily?
(software, hardware, theory, systems, applications, other please specify)
d) Which job category do you belong to, primarily? (manager,faculty,
scientist, research staff, technical staff, other please specify)
e) How often do you use a computer of some kind in conjunction with your
work? (daily,several times a week,once a week,monthly,other,please specify)
5) COMMENTS:
If you use ION facilities in interesting ways that the above questions have
not touched upon, please describe them here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for your time!
Deborah Estrin