perm filename W89.IN[LET,JMC]1 blob
sn#871513 filedate 1989-03-22 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00821 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00102 00002 ∂01-Jan-89 0209 @CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:GOLUMBIC@ISRAEARN.BITNET
C00105 00003 ∂01-Jan-89 1154 darden@mimsy.umd.edu visit
C00107 00004 ∂01-Jan-89 1757 beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU re: triangles
C00108 00005 ∂03-Jan-89 0700 JMC
C00109 00006 ∂03-Jan-89 0800 JMC
C00110 00007 ∂03-Jan-89 0933 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: grumbles about your intro
C00114 00008 ∂03-Jan-89 1000 JMC
C00115 00009 ∂03-Jan-89 1100 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU re: original version of Hanks-McDermott problem
C00117 00010 ∂03-Jan-89 1100 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: grumbles about your intro
C00118 00011 ∂03-Jan-89 1401 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU re: grumbles about your intro
C00122 00012 ∂03-Jan-89 1610 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU re: grumbles about your intro
C00123 00013 ∂03-Jan-89 1627 beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU cross product
C00125 00014 ∂03-Jan-89 1805 peters@russell [Takayasu ITO: US-Japan Cooperative Research on Theoretical Computer Science]
C00129 00015 ∂03-Jan-89 1918 peters@russell Re: [Takayasu ITO: US-Japan Cooperative Research on Theoretical Computer Science]
C00131 00016 ∂03-Jan-89 2133 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu QP workshop
C00136 00017 ∂04-Jan-89 0738 COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM Nuclear Power, etc.
C00141 00018 ∂04-Jan-89 0757 harnad@Princeton.EDU Connectionist Concepts: BBS Call for Commentators
C00147 00019 ∂04-Jan-89 0757 harnad@Princeton.EDU Speech Perception: BBS Multiple Book Review
C00152 00020 ∂04-Jan-89 0842 @b.NSF.GOV:lrosenbe@note.nsf.gov Re: coordination theory
C00154 00021 ∂04-Jan-89 1039 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu why some of us still haven't gotten copies of our report
C00157 00022 ∂04-Jan-89 1127 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:carol@lucid.com new new-qlisp
C00159 00023 ∂04-Jan-89 1143 MPS
C00160 00024 ∂04-Jan-89 1155 cohen@venera.isi.edu A simple CBCL example (invoice)
C00165 00025 ∂04-Jan-89 1205 gurevich@polya.Stanford.EDU
C00167 00026 ∂04-Jan-89 2350 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU [Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU> : Re: CS 323 ]
C00169 00027 ∂04-Jan-89 2358 DEK Artificial Intelligence
C00170 00028 ∂05-Jan-89 1008 SOSTOYAN%DKNKURZ1.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu mental qualities
C00172 00029 ∂05-Jan-89 1027 DEK housing
C00173 00030 ∂05-Jan-89 1215 eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Re: Artificial Intelligence
C00175 00031 ∂05-Jan-89 1355 MPS Project Summary
C00176 00032 ∂05-Jan-89 1409 VAL Project Summary
C00182 00033 ∂05-Jan-89 1411 MPS
C00183 00034 ∂05-Jan-89 1417 VAL re: Project Summary
C00184 00035 ∂05-Jan-89 1423 Mailer re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
C00190 00036 ∂05-Jan-89 1709 M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal
C00192 00037 ∂05-Jan-89 1734 darden@mimsy.umd.edu conference plans
C00195 00038 ∂05-Jan-89 1736 darden@mimsy.umd.edu p.s.
C00197 00039 ∂05-Jan-89 1914 Mailer re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
C00202 00040 ∂06-Jan-89 0118 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
C00204 00041 ∂06-Jan-89 0741 JK
C00205 00042 ∂06-Jan-89 1123 HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C00207 00043 ∂06-Jan-89 1638 MPS Late Monday
C00208 00044 ∂07-Jan-89 0946 CLT tomorrow
C00209 00045 ∂08-Jan-89 0813 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu Re: responses to a few comments
C00211 00046 ∂09-Jan-89 0400 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu Re: paper
C00212 00047 ∂09-Jan-89 1047 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00215 00048 ∂09-Jan-89 1155 VAL ablex
C00216 00049 ∂09-Jan-89 1307 rpg@lucid.com Parallel Lisp Workshop Update
C00236 00050 ∂09-Jan-89 1759 amy@Popserver.Stanford.Edu sitn update
C00240 00051 ∂09-Jan-89 2147 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of November computer charges.
C00243 00052 ∂09-Jan-89 2213 harnad@Princeton.EDU Against the Romantic View of categorization
C00259 00053 ∂10-Jan-89 0100 JMC
C00260 00054 ∂10-Jan-89 0933 JK dartmouth
C00261 00055 ∂10-Jan-89 1019 JK
C00263 00056 ∂10-Jan-89 1022 Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu Jan 28th meeting
C00267 00057 ∂10-Jan-89 1052 JK edi
C00268 00058 ∂10-Jan-89 1105 winograd@loire.stanford.edu Course on ethics and social responsibility
C00274 00059 ∂10-Jan-89 1149 eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu [Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu : January 28th meeting ]
C00278 00060 ∂10-Jan-89 1145 eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu [ MAILER-DAEMON@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem:
C00282 00061 ∂11-Jan-89 1435 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Phone Call from Pat Simmons
C00283 00062 ∂11-Jan-89 1436 mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu [ MAILER-DAEMON@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem:
C00289 00063 ∂11-Jan-89 2313 M.MACHEFSKY@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU [Ira Machefsky <M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>: Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal]
C00295 00064 ∂12-Jan-89 1212 air@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU epistemic proposal to Air Force
C00296 00065 ∂12-Jan-89 1323 M.MACHEFSKY@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Re: meeting
C00297 00066 ∂12-Jan-89 1355 harnad@Princeton.EDU Categorization update
C00318 00067 ∂12-Jan-89 1601 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00321 00068 ∂12-Jan-89 2000 JMC
C00322 00069 ∂12-Jan-89 2123 dill@amadeus.Stanford.EDU re: Broadcast of courses on SUNet
C00324 00070 ∂12-Jan-89 2249 JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU videotapes
C00326 00071 ∂13-Jan-89 1413 rpg@lucid.com Parallel Lisp Workshop Attendees Update
C00328 00072 ∂13-Jan-89 1459 bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: broadcasting classes
C00338 00073 ∂14-Jan-89 1742 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00340 00074 ∂14-Jan-89 1956 harnad@Princeton.EDU Measuring Animal Suffering: BBS Call for Commentators
C00345 00075 ∂14-Jan-89 2112 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
C00347 00076 ∂14-Jan-89 2118 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00349 00077 ∂15-Jan-89 1008 Allen.Newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu Retransmission of re: jan 28th meeting
C00369 00078 ∂15-Jan-89 1321 coraki!pratt@Sun.COM Re: SITN
C00371 00079 ∂16-Jan-89 1031 C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Proper Use of the Overflow Room
C00375 00080 ∂16-Jan-89 1234 hayes@arisia.xerox.com SITN
C00377 00081 ∂16-Jan-89 1244 hayes@arisia.xerox.com More on the TV question
C00379 00082 ∂16-Jan-89 1309 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00380 00083 ∂16-Jan-89 1325 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00382 00084 ∂16-Jan-89 1351 pullen@vax.darpa.mil [clayton@morgul.psc.edu: Call for Participation]
C00401 00085 ∂16-Jan-89 1407 JSW TEXIT
C00402 00086 ∂16-Jan-89 1427 VAL Nonmonotonic Seminar: meeting time
C00403 00087 ∂16-Jan-89 1442 pullen@vax.darpa.mil [clayton@morgul.psc.edu: Call for Participation]
C00424 00088 ∂16-Jan-89 1550 ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com CS323
C00427 00089 ∂16-Jan-89 1626 C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Proper Use of the Overflow Room
C00430 00090 ∂16-Jan-89 1845 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu
C00431 00091 ∂17-Jan-89 0910 CN.MCS@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C00433 00092 ∂17-Jan-89 1025 CLT approval of expenses
C00434 00093 ∂17-Jan-89 1255 BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Task 17, CPL
C00435 00094 ∂17-Jan-89 1420 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil FAST RESPONSE NEEDED
C00438 00095 ∂17-Jan-89 1459 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Posting SU.ETC messages on other networks
C00440 00096 ∂17-Jan-89 1504 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Correction: Posting SU.ETC messages on other networks
C00442 00097 ∂17-Jan-89 1551 @IU.AI.SRI.COM,@peabody.teleos.com:leslie@teleos.com Algorithm Help
C00444 00098 ∂17-Jan-89 1619 @IU.AI.SRI.COM,@peabody.teleos.com:leslie@teleos.com Algorithm Help
C00446 00099 ∂17-Jan-89 1718 betsy@russell.Stanford.EDU Re: heat on weekends
C00448 00100 ∂17-Jan-89 1832 harnad@Princeton.EDU Categorization: Last Installment
C00471 00101 ∂17-Jan-89 2036 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00472 00102 ∂18-Jan-89 1041 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU [COOLEY@unix.SRI.COM: Re: Posting SU.ETC messages on other networks]
C00475 00103 ∂18-Jan-89 1117 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00477 00104 ∂18-Jan-89 1242 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil FAST RESPONSE
C00479 00105 ∂18-Jan-89 1509 COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM My Apology
C00482 00106 ∂18-Jan-89 1511 COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM My Posting on ca.environment
C00490 00107 ∂18-Jan-89 1634 MPS A. Spector
C00491 00108 ∂18-Jan-89 1638 John.Reynolds@proof.ergo.cs.cmu.edu Re: FAST RESPONSE NEEDED
C00493 00109 ∂18-Jan-89 1640 pullen@vax.darpa.mil [Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>: DARPA BAA 89-05]
C00524 00110 ∂18-Jan-89 2039 GLB
C00525 00111 ∂18-Jan-89 2256 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00526 00112 ∂18-Jan-89 2318 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00528 00113 ∂19-Jan-89 0633 Mailer Re: Democracy in China
C00530 00114 ∂19-Jan-89 0944 COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM re: My Posting on ca.environment
C00532 00115 ∂19-Jan-89 1021 JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU 6th DKBS Workshop - Arnold Spector, Sunderland Polytechnic, UK.
C00534 00116 ∂19-Jan-89 1205 COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM re: My Posting on ca.environment
C00536 00117 ∂19-Jan-89 1226 S.SEOWON@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: western culture
C00539 00118 ∂19-Jan-89 1233 Mailer re: Democracy in China
C00542 00119 ∂19-Jan-89 1250 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU:lusk@antares.mcs.anl.gov North American Conference on Logic Programming, call for papers
C00547 00120 ∂19-Jan-89 1429 B.BILLY-B@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU research assistantships
C00549 00121 ∂19-Jan-89 1456 Mailer re: Democracy in China
C00553 00122 ∂19-Jan-89 1600 JMC
C00554 00123 ∂19-Jan-89 1602 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00556 00124 ∂19-Jan-89 1619 Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu Issues for AAAI meeting
C00566 00125 ∂19-Jan-89 1650 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00567 00126 ∂19-Jan-89 1657 VAL
C00568 00127 ∂19-Jan-89 2247 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU exercises - question from students
C00570 00128 ∂20-Jan-89 1041 winograd@loire.stanford.edu talking with seminar on ethics
C00571 00129 ∂20-Jan-89 1047 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU
C00572 00130 ∂20-Jan-89 1050 MPS
C00573 00131 ∂20-Jan-89 1122 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU my play
C00574 00132 ∂20-Jan-89 1245 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU Re: reply to message
C00575 00133 ∂20-Jan-89 1259 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C00578 00134 ∂20-Jan-89 1435 AI.JUDY@MCC.COM re: CYCL WORSHOP JANUARY 30,31
C00579 00135 ∂21-Jan-89 0913 CLT house
C00580 00136 ∂21-Jan-89 1316 gio@sumex-aim.stanford.edu CS309 for 1989/1990
C00581 00137 ∂21-Jan-89 2309 binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU phone call
C00583 00138 ∂22-Jan-89 0700 JMC
C00584 00139 ∂22-Jan-89 0842 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [Alan Bawden: AI:ALANPCLSR MEMO]
C00588 00140 ∂22-Jan-89 0933 CLT cranberg returned your call
C00589 00141 ∂22-Jan-89 1343 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU cs 323 homework due date
C00591 00142 ∂22-Jan-89 1403 Mailer re: The Sesame influence / why "reducing disparity" is wrong.
C00595 00143 ∂22-Jan-89 1445 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: cs 323 homework due date
C00597 00144 ∂22-Jan-89 2324 Allen.Newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
C00615 00145 ∂23-Jan-89 0832 BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU ["Kathleen Thompson" <AS.KAT@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>: McCarthy/NSF]
C00617 00146 ∂23-Jan-89 0930 JMC
C00618 00147 ∂23-Jan-89 0930 JMC
C00619 00148 ∂23-Jan-89 0930 JMC
C00620 00149 ∂23-Jan-89 0944 harnad@Princeton.EDU email address change
C00622 00150 ∂23-Jan-89 1000 JMC
C00623 00151 ∂23-Jan-89 1008 AI.JUDY@MCC.COM CYC WORKSHOP -- JAN 30-31.
C00635 00152 ∂23-Jan-89 1009 VAL NSF proposal
C00636 00153 ∂23-Jan-89 1035 LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: request for information
C00637 00154 ∂23-Jan-89 1055 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Issues for AAAI meeting
C00640 00155 ∂23-Jan-89 1239 VAL Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar--No Meeting
C00641 00156 ∂23-Jan-89 1447 amarel@maestro.rutgers.edu Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
C00644 00157 ∂23-Jan-89 1512 luke@glacier.stanford.edu White Trash Cookbook
C00645 00158 ∂23-Jan-89 1545 P.PENSIVE@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc
C00647 00159 ∂23-Jan-89 1549 eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
C00650 00160 ∂23-Jan-89 2000 JMC
C00651 00161 ∂24-Jan-89 0353 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu Re: paper
C00653 00162 ∂24-Jan-89 0800 JMC
C00654 00163 ∂24-Jan-89 0800 JMC
C00655 00164 ∂24-Jan-89 0817 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Igor's stuff
C00656 00165 ∂24-Jan-89 0900 JMC
C00657 00166 ∂24-Jan-89 1057 VAL WICS
C00658 00167 ∂24-Jan-89 1450 VAL copyright
C00659 00168 ∂24-Jan-89 1457 bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
C00662 00169 ∂24-Jan-89 1532 VAL
C00663 00170 ∂24-Jan-89 1559 amy@Popserver.Stanford.Edu sitn update
C00667 00171 ∂24-Jan-89 1608 P.PENSIVE@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc
C00672 00172 ∂24-Jan-89 1630 VAL re: copyright
C00673 00173 ∂24-Jan-89 1817 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: integral reactor
C00675 00174 ∂24-Jan-89 1857 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com new new-qlisp
C00677 00175 ∂25-Jan-89 0150 harnad@Princeton.EDU Resurgence of Categorization Debate (850 lines)
C00756 00176 ∂25-Jan-89 0903 mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Jan 28-29, 1988
C00759 00177 ∂25-Jan-89 1000 JMC
C00760 00178 ∂25-Jan-89 1057 BEACH@Score.Stanford.EDU WICS: Knowledge Engineering
C00762 00179 ∂25-Jan-89 1122 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU re: integral reactor
C00764 00180 ∂25-Jan-89 1116 VAL reference
C00765 00181 ∂25-Jan-89 1155 MPS
C00766 00182 ∂25-Jan-89 1221 decwrl!decvax!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!utep-vaxa!teodor@labrea.stanford.edu teodor mail
C00770 00183 ∂25-Jan-89 1330 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU USENET censorship at Stanford
C00778 00184 ∂25-Jan-89 1421 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Ralph's message
C00782 00185 ∂25-Jan-89 1430 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny
C00807 00186 ∂25-Jan-89 1459 MPS
C00808 00187 ∂25-Jan-89 1457 PAF hacking hardware
C00809 00188 ∂25-Jan-89 1635 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Recent DARPA BAA
C00811 00189 ∂25-Jan-89 1759 PAF quals
C00812 00190 ∂25-Jan-89 1805 wang@coyote.stanford.edu CIE Conference
C00813 00191 ∂25-Jan-89 1942 CLT sarah
C00814 00192 ∂26-Jan-89 0841 PAF spelling
C00816 00193 ∂26-Jan-89 1027 PAF times
C00817 00194 ∂26-Jan-89 1114 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU cs 323 lecture this afternoon
C00819 00195 ∂26-Jan-89 1308 PAF times
C00820 00196 ∂26-Jan-89 1313 mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: El Salvador
C00822 00197 ∂26-Jan-89 1446 barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU Re: meeting on contexts alias situations
C00824 00198 ∂26-Jan-89 1723 VAL UC Santa Barbara
C00825 00199 ∂26-Jan-89 1753 LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: American Mercury
C00826 00200 ∂26-Jan-89 2131 arean@polya.Stanford.EDU re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
C00827 00201 ∂27-Jan-89 0128 LES Queries for Gorin
C00828 00202 ∂27-Jan-89 0142 LES re: Queries for Gorin
C00829 00203 ∂27-Jan-89 0150 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Queries for Gorin
C00831 00204 ∂27-Jan-89 0203 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU
C00833 00205 ∂27-Jan-89 0211 LES re: Queries for Gorin
C00834 00206 ∂27-Jan-89 0226 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: reply to message
C00835 00207 ∂27-Jan-89 0643 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Smoking
C00836 00208 ∂27-Jan-89 0738 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu Comments at last
C00844 00209 ∂27-Jan-89 1038 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU possible CS course to build simulation environment
C00849 00210 ∂27-Jan-89 1107 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Index prohibitorum
C00851 00211 ∂27-Jan-89 1131 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny jokebook
C00853 00212 ∂27-Jan-89 1224 haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Index liber prohibitorum
C00855 00213 ∂27-Jan-89 1427 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU More Account Information
C00856 00214 ∂27-Jan-89 1433 G.GORIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Usenet and Racism (rec.humor)
C00881 00215 ∂27-Jan-89 1433 G.GORIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU [Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>: reprieve for rec.humor]
C00890 00216 ∂27-Jan-89 1445 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Ortega quotes
C00892 00217 ∂27-Jan-89 2100 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of December computer charges.
C00895 00218 ∂27-Jan-89 2336 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU MIT AI Lab
C00897 00219 ∂28-Jan-89 1222 geddis@polya.Stanford.EDU re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
C00899 00220 ∂28-Jan-89 1245 latombe@coyote.stanford.edu AI curriculum changes and updates
C00901 00221 ∂28-Jan-89 1732 JJW rec.humor.funny
C00902 00222 ∂28-Jan-89 1809 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu Residual Context Comments
C00904 00223 ∂29-Jan-89 1048 HK.GRH@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Request to see Don Kennedy
C00906 00224 ∂29-Jan-89 1053 feldman%bimacs.bitnet@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Projects in Stanford for Ph.D. in Cs.
C00910 00225 ∂29-Jan-89 1135 LES Censorship stand
C00911 00226 ∂29-Jan-89 1317 weening@polya.Stanford.EDU
C00951 00227 ∂29-Jan-89 1531 bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU Scots
C00953 00228 ∂29-Jan-89 1539 philf@lindy.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
C00957 00229 ∂29-Jan-89 1552 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU [Alvaro del Val <delval@Portia.stanford.edu> : Assig. #1 ]
C00961 00230 ∂29-Jan-89 1602 stantz@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
C00964 00231 ∂29-Jan-89 1648 S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
C00965 00232 ∂29-Jan-89 1717 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU re: [Alvaro del Val <delval@Portia.stanford.edu> : Assig. #1 ]
C00966 00233 ∂29-Jan-89 1746 arean@polya.Stanford.EDU Protest letter
C00968 00234 ∂29-Jan-89 1843 arean@polya.Stanford.EDU Suggestions about protest letter
C00970 00235 ∂29-Jan-89 1845 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU University's legal rights
C00972 00236 ∂29-Jan-89 2105 crew@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
C00975 00237 ∂29-Jan-89 2135 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Templeton called
C00977 00238 ∂30-Jan-89 0022 ARK censorship comments
C00979 00239 ∂30-Jan-89 0031 Mailer rec.humor.funny
C00982 00240 ∂30-Jan-89 0052 hayes@arisia.xerox.com Has your son Simon changed his name to Barry?
C00984 00241 ∂30-Jan-89 0047 LES re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
C00985 00242 ∂30-Jan-89 0055 hayes@arisia.xerox.com rec.humor.funny
C00987 00243 ∂30-Jan-89 0057 hayes@arisia.xerox.com rec.humor.funny
C00989 00244 ∂30-Jan-89 0118 vera@Portia.stanford.edu Re: rec.humor.funny
C00991 00245 ∂30-Jan-89 0631 holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
C00994 00246 ∂30-Jan-89 0718 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
C00996 00247 ∂30-Jan-89 0720 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
C00998 00248 ∂30-Jan-89 0800 JMC
C00999 00249 ∂30-Jan-89 0820 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
C01001 00250 ∂30-Jan-89 0859 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu Censoring rec.humor.funny
C01003 00251 ∂30-Jan-89 0928 HK.GRH@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU re: Request to see Don Kennedy
C01005 00252 ∂30-Jan-89 0934 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU June Genis
C01007 00253 ∂30-Jan-89 1016 littell@polya.Stanford.EDU Fellowship supplements
C01009 00254 ∂30-Jan-89 1023 PAF terminal
C01010 00255 ∂30-Jan-89 1030 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
C01012 00256 ∂30-Jan-89 1109 LES Typing large symbol sets
C01013 00257 ∂30-Jan-89 1137 jacobs@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: misattribution
C01015 00258 ∂30-Jan-89 1155 mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: rec.humor.funny
C01017 00259 ∂30-Jan-89 1200 bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
C01019 00260 ∂30-Jan-89 1325 jacobs@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: misattribution
C01021 00261 ∂30-Jan-89 1326 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Protesting the censorship of a newsgroup
C01022 00262 ∂30-Jan-89 1417 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C01024 00263 ∂30-Jan-89 1457 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [Joel Shurkin: censorship release]
C01036 00264 ∂30-Jan-89 1503 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Lucid phone numbers
C01041 00265 ∂30-Jan-89 1949 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU libraries
C01043 00266 ∂30-Jan-89 2301 rustcat@cnc-sun.Stanford.EDU re: funny business
C01045 00267 ∂31-Jan-89 0919 C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Car Mechanic Wanted
C01047 00268 ∂31-Jan-89 1117 peyton@polya.Stanford.EDU re: Rec.humour.funny
C01049 00269 ∂31-Jan-89 1210 Mailer Re: mechanic wanted
C01054 00270 ∂31-Jan-89 1418 VAL Seminar Announcement
C01059 00271 ∂31-Jan-89 1931 HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU VTSS OUTINGS
C01061 00272 ∂01-Feb-89 0140 les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
C01063 00273 ∂01-Feb-89 0915 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Your statement of protest
C01064 00274 ∂01-Feb-89 0922 rit@coyote.stanford.edu Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
C01066 00275 ∂01-Feb-89 1116 heit@meme.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny
C01069 00276 ∂01-Feb-89 1212 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU re: libraries
C01070 00277 ∂01-Feb-89 1402 weening@polya.Stanford.EDU Jew & Scotsman joke
C01073 00278 ∂01-Feb-89 1424 oski@Portia.stanford.edu rec.humor.funny petition
C01075 00279 ∂01-Feb-89 1421 MPS
C01076 00280 ∂01-Feb-89 1505 Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU Message of 29-Jan-89 14:29:38
C01079 00281 ∂01-Feb-89 1516 MPS israel
C01080 00282 ∂01-Feb-89 1532 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Peninsula Times-Tribune article on rec.humor.funny
C01083 00283 ∂01-Feb-89 1546 Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU Message of 29-Jan-89 15:05:12
C01087 00284 ∂01-Feb-89 1609 haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU original correspondance
C01089 00285 ∂01-Feb-89 1630 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Radio stations
C01091 00286 ∂01-Feb-89 1638 patel@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
C01093 00287 ∂01-Feb-89 1716 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU decwrl
C01094 00288 ∂01-Feb-89 1725 haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: original correspondance
C01096 00289 ∂01-Feb-89 1746 Mailer re: A Trip to Meyer (was: rec.humor.funny)
C01098 00290 ∂01-Feb-89 1811 brad@looking.uucp banning newspapers
C01102 00291 ∂01-Feb-89 1811 brad@looking.uucp Newspaper reports
C01104 00292 ∂01-Feb-89 1836 Mailer failed mail returned
C01106 00293 ∂01-Feb-89 1837 Mailer failed mail returned
C01107 00294 ∂01-Feb-89 1917 rsf@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny petition
C01108 00295 ∂01-Feb-89 2032 S.STREET@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Telephone Messages
C01109 00296 ∂01-Feb-89 2040 bothner@wsl.dec.com rec.humor.funny petition
C01112 00297 ∂02-Feb-89 0044 oski@Portia.stanford.edu Thank foλλyou for the copy of the petition.
C01114 00298 ∂02-Feb-89 0430 ME #ε command in E
C01115 00299 ∂02-Feb-89 0651 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
C01118 00300 ∂02-Feb-89 0802 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Templeton's address
C01119 00301 ∂02-Feb-89 0829 MPS Adms mtg
C01120 00302 ∂02-Feb-89 1157 MPS
C01121 00303 ∂02-Feb-89 1158 MPS Academic Senate
C01122 00304 ∂02-Feb-89 1159 MPS
C01123 00305 ∂02-Feb-89 1413 MPS phone call
C01124 00306 ∂02-Feb-89 1414 MPS
C01125 00307 ∂02-Feb-89 1414 MPS PTO
C01126 00308 ∂02-Feb-89 1510 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Petition
C01128 00309 ∂02-Feb-89 1542 MPS Re: AI
C01130 00310 ∂02-Feb-89 2202 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU [Douglas Jones <jones@herky.cs.uiowa.edu>: Dead Code Maintenance]
C01137 00311 ∂02-Feb-89 2225 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
C01139 00312 ∂03-Feb-89 0010 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [xait!linus!watmath!looking!brad@harvard.harvard.edu (Brad Templeton): Re: su.etc at Stanford ]
C01143 00313 ∂03-Feb-89 0813 beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU Mr. P and Ms. S
C01145 00314 ∂03-Feb-89 0814 op@polya.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny
C01147 00315 ∂03-Feb-89 0813 S.STREET@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Telephone Messages
C01148 00316 ∂03-Feb-89 0839 MPS telex
C01149 00317 ∂03-Feb-89 1023 winograd@loire.stanford.edu John McCarthy discussion for Monday
C01173 00318 ∂03-Feb-89 1221 MPS
C01174 00319 ∂03-Feb-89 1640 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C01176 00320 ∂03-Feb-89 1804 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU "left wing" purges of libraries.
C01178 00321 ∂03-Feb-89 2347 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Admissions folders
C01180 00322 ∂04-Feb-89 0046 Mailer re: capital punishment
C01182 00323 ∂04-Feb-89 0734 op@polya.Stanford.EDU re: rec.humor.funny
C01185 00324 ∂04-Feb-89 0940 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Censorship battle
C01189 00325 ∂04-Feb-89 1410 CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C01191 00326 ∂05-Feb-89 0054 VAL re: lunch Monday
C01192 00327 ∂05-Feb-89 1052 harnad@Princeton.EDU Categorization Update
C01230 00328 ∂06-Feb-89 0852 HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU NASA
C01233 00329 ∂06-Feb-89 0901 JMC
C01234 00330 ∂06-Feb-89 0930 JMC
C01235 00331 ∂06-Feb-89 1000 JMC
C01236 00332 ∂06-Feb-89 1000 JMC
C01237 00333 ∂06-Feb-89 1000 JMC
C01238 00334 ∂06-Feb-89 1000 JMC
C01239 00335 ∂06-Feb-89 1540 MPS
C01240 00336 ∂06-Feb-89 1706 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C01242 00337 ∂07-Feb-89 0933 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU The impossible
C01247 00338 ∂07-Feb-89 1026 HK.GRH@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Appointment with President Kennedy
C01252 00339 ∂07-Feb-89 1417 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU [Jean-Claude Latombe <latombe@coyote.stanford.edu> : AI faculty
C01256 00340 ∂07-Feb-89 1431 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU re: The impossible
C01258 00341 ∂07-Feb-89 1546 MPS phone
C01260 00342 ∂07-Feb-89 1705 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU Evidence
C01262 00343 ∂07-Feb-89 2112 heit@meme.Stanford.EDU Re: An important question raised by the killing of rec.humor.funny
C01264 00344 ∂07-Feb-89 2256 brad@looking.uucp Winning against your admins
C01267 00345 ∂07-Feb-89 2328 harnad@Princeton.EDU Lakoff's Replies
C01276 00346 ∂08-Feb-89 0705 holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
C01278 00347 ∂08-Feb-89 0930 JMC
C01279 00348 ∂08-Feb-89 0930 JMC
C01280 00349 ∂08-Feb-89 0930 JMC
C01281 00350 ∂08-Feb-89 1053 MPS Teller
C01282 00351 ∂08-Feb-89 1112 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU A Granularity Question
C01286 00352 ∂08-Feb-89 1319 griff@cascade.Stanford.EDU free speech-campus report
C01289 00353 ∂08-Feb-89 1425 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com A Granularity Question
C01293 00354 ∂08-Feb-89 1436 HAUNGA@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: [Jean-Claude Latombe <latombe@coyote.stanford.edu> : AI faculty
C01295 00355 ∂08-Feb-89 1716 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Ruth Lawrence
C01297 00356 ∂08-Feb-89 1723 Mailer Re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
C01299 00357 ∂08-Feb-89 1742 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
C01300 00358 ∂08-Feb-89 2010 king@glacier.stanford.edu RHF
C01302 00359 ∂08-Feb-89 2323 watmath!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET re: Winning against your admins
C01307 00360 ∂09-Feb-89 0049 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
C01311 00361 ∂09-Feb-89 0553 WASPRAY@vx.acss.umn.edu DARPA IPTO HIλistory
C01314 00362 ∂09-Feb-89 0700 JMC
C01315 00363 ∂09-Feb-89 0700 JMC
C01316 00364 ∂09-Feb-89 0719 S.SEOWON@Lear.Stanford.EDU atmospheric experiment
C01318 00365 ∂09-Feb-89 0800 JMC
C01319 00366 ∂09-Feb-89 0845 JMC
C01320 00367 ∂09-Feb-89 0952 MPS meeting
C01321 00368 ∂09-Feb-89 0954 MPS
C01322 00369 ∂09-Feb-89 1048 harnad@Princeton.EDU Response to Lakoff
C01356 00370 ∂09-Feb-89 1325 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
C01358 00371 ∂09-Feb-89 1405 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU James Larus talk on Monday
C01360 00372 ∂09-Feb-89 1413 WASPRAY@vx.acss.umn.edu RE: re: DARPA IPTO HIλistory
C01361 00373 ∂09-Feb-89 1423 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU [csl@sierra.STANFORD.EDU: James Larus Seminar, February 13, 1989]
C01365 00374 ∂09-Feb-89 1556 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU A Granularity Question
C01369 00375 ∂09-Feb-89 1613 morris@carcoar.Stanford.EDU Re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
C01372 00376 ∂09-Feb-89 1628 CLT Timothy's appointment with Dr. Maneatis
C01373 00377 ∂09-Feb-89 1729 beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU hand mathematician beats computer again!
C01377 00378 ∂09-Feb-89 1945 JMC
C01378 00379 ∂09-Feb-89 2000 JMC
C01379 00380 ∂09-Feb-89 2015 brad@looking.uucp mailing Stanford admins
C01385 00381 ∂10-Feb-89 0713 harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu Searle
C01389 00382 ∂10-Feb-89 0856 MPS Meeting
C01390 00383 ∂10-Feb-89 1010 PAF keyboards et al
C01391 00384 ∂10-Feb-89 1110 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU The impossible.....
C01393 00385 ∂10-Feb-89 1629 MPS Computers
C01394 00386 ∂10-Feb-89 1756 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C01396 00387 ∂11-Feb-89 1349 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU Re: book burning, etc.
C01399 00388 ∂11-Feb-89 1522 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU "left wing" purges
C01402 00389 ∂11-Feb-89 1528 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU re: book burning, etc.
C01407 00390 ∂11-Feb-89 2326 tucker@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Voltaire
C01410 00391 ∂12-Feb-89 1920 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: Faculty Senate Debate on rec.humor
C01412 00392 ∂12-Feb-89 1925 heit@meme.Stanford.EDU Book burning
C01413 00393 HK.RWB@forsythe
C01424 00394 ∂12-Feb-89 2328 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Messages
C01428 00395 con-Feb-89 0311 GQ.JNK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Rec.Humor.Funny
C01441 00396 ∂13-Feb-89 0510 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM hakmem mystery solved
C01447 00397 ∂13-Feb-89 0825 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Pat Simmons
C01448 00398 ∂13-Feb-89 1000 JMC
C01449 00399 ∂13-Feb-89 1028 RH.ERW@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C01457 00400 ∂13-Feb-89 1052 VAL
C01458 00401 ∂13-Feb-89 1138 aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Draft Minutes from Strategic Planning Committee Mtg
C01467 00402 ∂13-Feb-89 1349 amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu Re: Draft Minutes from Strategic Planning Committee Mtg
C01471 00403 ∂13-Feb-89 1416 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Japan trip
C01473 00404 ∂13-Feb-89 1528 CLT news from Pullen
C01474 00405 ∂13-Feb-89 1705 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU student question
C01476 00406 ∂13-Feb-89 1708 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: student question
C01477 00407 ∂13-Feb-89 1836 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: student question
C01478 00408 ∂13-Feb-89 1940 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil [Jack_Schwartz.ISTO.DARPA@a.darpa.mil: Language BAA]
C01496 00409 ∂13-Feb-89 2345 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM carpeted step function
C01506 00410 ∂14-Feb-89 0900 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Pat Simmons
C01508 00411 ∂14-Feb-89 1246 heit@meme.Stanford.EDU Book burning
C01510 00412 ∂14-Feb-89 1306 CLT japan trip
C01511 00413 ∂14-Feb-89 1532 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU The impossible (AI Faculty Meeting)
C01513 00414 ∂14-Feb-89 1733 bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: more from President Freedman of Dartmouth
C01515 00415 ∂14-Feb-89 1813 marek@ms.uky.edu Some students.
C01517 00416 ∂15-Feb-89 0034 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM my friend Ermakoff
C01519 00417 ∂15-Feb-89 0951 ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com Context, granularity
C01521 00418 ∂15-Feb-89 0954 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU Gentle Reminder
C01523 00419 ∂15-Feb-89 1108 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU ARPA Follow-on Umbrella Contract Proposal
C01527 00420 ∂15-Feb-89 1113 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:lcp%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Research Associate In Generic Theorem Proving
C01532 00421 ∂15-Feb-89 1340 ME failed mail returned
C01535 00422 ∂15-Feb-89 1515 haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny & Faculty Senate
C01537 00423 ∂15-Feb-89 2256 GQ.JNK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU re: Rec.Humor.Funny
C01540 00424 ∂15-Feb-89 2310 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM Graham's ritzy cracker packing
C01547 00425 ∂16-Feb-89 0928 CLT cable
C01548 00426 ∂16-Feb-89 0932 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu GARP report
C01553 00427 ∂16-Feb-89 1101 JMC
C01554 00428 ∂16-Feb-89 1154 VAL Ivanov
C01555 00429 ∂16-Feb-89 1338 VAL re: Ivanov
C01556 00430 ∂16-Feb-89 1558 MPS
C01557 00431 ∂16-Feb-89 1621 MPS
C01559 00432 ∂16-Feb-89 2006 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU 3645 maintenance
C01560 00433 ∂16-Feb-89 2016 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Re: rhf
C01564 00434 ∂16-Feb-89 2217 brad@looking.uucp Academic Senate and other matters
C01569 00435 ∂16-Feb-89 2305 TERP@Score.Stanford.EDU re: beware of "driveways" masquerading as parking spaces in "A" lot near chem/bio
C01571 00436 ∂17-Feb-89 0456 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM non-cents and that fib series, again
C01575 00437 ∂17-Feb-89 0901 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU rhf
C01577 00438 ∂17-Feb-89 0925 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: rhf
C01579 00439 ∂17-Feb-89 1350 barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU AI, Logic, and Form Common sense
C01583 00440 ∂17-Feb-89 1351 barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU Model theoretic logics paper
C01585 00441 ∂17-Feb-89 1400 JMC
C01586 00442 ∂17-Feb-89 1400 MPS
C01587 00443 ∂17-Feb-89 1414 decwrl!decvax!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!utep-vaxa!teodor@labrea.stanford.edu teodor mail
C01591 00444 ∂17-Feb-89 1500 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu [struss.pa@Xerox.COM: WORKSHOP ON MODEL BASED DIAGNOSIS]
C01597 00445 ∂17-Feb-89 1554 MPS Talk at NC State
C01599 00446 ∂17-Feb-89 1733 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu Where to send messages
C01602 00447 ∂17-Feb-89 1858 HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU VTSS Adventure #3
C01605 00448 ∂17-Feb-89 1930 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu Yet another TR announcement
C01609 00449 ∂17-Feb-89 2109 brad@looking.uucp Philippe Rushton
C01611 00450 ∂17-Feb-89 2348 watmath!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET Re: rhf
C01615 00451 ∂17-Feb-89 2348 watmath!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET Re: rhf
C01617 00452 ∂18-Feb-89 0400 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM that fib series, again
C01622 00453 ∂18-Feb-89 2005 S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: What's the best way to undo/break rivets?
C01624 00454 ∂18-Feb-89 2148 Mailer re: Parking problems.
C01626 00455 ∂18-Feb-89 2203 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM my friend Ermakoff
C01630 00456 ∂19-Feb-89 1507 tantek@Portia.stanford.edu the free tape recorderλ
C01631 00457 ∂19-Feb-89 1515 tantek@Portia.stanford.edu re: the free tape recorderλ
C01632 00458 ∂19-Feb-89 1539 misha@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: tape recorder giveaway
C01634 00459 ∂19-Feb-89 1549 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Another Go4 message
C01636 00460 ∂20-Feb-89 0026 harnad@Princeton.EDU Categorization Update
C01656 00461 ∂20-Feb-89 0458 @WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM yet faster factorials
C01666 00462 ∂20-Feb-89 1103 N51LI501%NCSUVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU confirmation
C01669 00463 ∂20-Feb-89 1215 VAL YSP
C01670 00464 ∂20-Feb-89 1217 ANDERSJ%ccm.UManitoba.CA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Commonsense Reasoning
C01673 00465 ∂20-Feb-89 1233 karish@forel.Stanford.EDU re: Satanic verses
C01675 00466 ∂20-Feb-89 1911 @arisia.Xerox.COM:kpeters@cdp.UUCP visit to Stanford
C01679 00467 ∂20-Feb-89 1932 ANDERSJ%ccm.UManitoba.CA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines
C01681 00468 ∂20-Feb-89 2000 JMC
C01682 00469 ∂20-Feb-89 2227 brad@looking.uucp RHF, AIR, Senate
C01684 00470 ∂20-Feb-89 2354 brad@looking.uucp re: RHF, AIR, Senate
C01687 00471 ∂21-Feb-89 0154 LES ACM position on electronic journalism
C01690 00472 ∂21-Feb-89 0830 aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Re: email address
C01692 00473 ∂21-Feb-89 0851 CLT Galbiati
C01693 00474 ∂21-Feb-89 0916 gio@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Re: Proposed CSD statement on censorship of rec.humor.funny
C01695 00475 ∂21-Feb-89 1241 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C01698 00476 ∂21-Feb-89 1546 hayes@arisia.xerox.com Proposed CSD statement on censorship of rec.humor.funny
C01700 00477 ∂21-Feb-89 1940 Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU Message of 21-Feb-89 19:35:02
C01702 00478 ∂21-Feb-89 2009 brad@looking.uucp Re: csd resolution
C01704 00479 ∂22-Feb-89 0050 cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU Re: draft extra sentence to precede final paragraph
C01707 00480 ∂22-Feb-89 0707 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU AI Faculty Meeting
C01709 00481 ∂22-Feb-89 0900 JMC
C01710 00482 ∂22-Feb-89 0900 JMC
C01711 00483 ∂22-Feb-89 0900 JMC
C01712 00484 ∂22-Feb-89 0920 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu AI Faculty Meeting
C01714 00485 ∂22-Feb-89 1056 hayes@arisia.xerox.com draft extra sentence to precede final paragraph
C01717 00486 ∂22-Feb-89 1100 JMC
C01718 00487 ∂22-Feb-89 1255 eswolf@polya.Stanford.EDU Admissions committee - round 2.
C01720 00488 ∂22-Feb-89 1336 CLT $$
C01721 00489 ∂22-Feb-89 1424 MPS phone call
C01722 00490 ∂22-Feb-89 1425 MPS thats the daily journal
C01723 00491 ∂22-Feb-89 1725 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU More censorship--individual, this time.
C01729 00492 ∂22-Feb-89 2311 eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Re: AI Faculty Meeting
C01731 00493 ∂23-Feb-89 0031 brad@looking.uucp Not much luck at UW
C01736 00494 ∂23-Feb-89 0844 CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C01737 00495 ∂23-Feb-89 0902 CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C01738 00496 ∂23-Feb-89 0909 CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C01739 00497 ∂23-Feb-89 0930 JMC
C01740 00498 ∂23-Feb-89 1003 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu AI Faculty Meeting
C01742 00499 ∂23-Feb-89 1106 brad@looking.uucp Re: Not much luck at Waterloo
C01744 00500 ∂23-Feb-89 1235 bryan@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: take a cat home tonight
C01745 00501 ∂23-Feb-89 1428 bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU
C01747 00502 ∂23-Feb-89 1438 GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU Galbiati
C01748 00503 ∂23-Feb-89 1445 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Special Faculty Meeting
C01750 00504 ∂23-Feb-89 1501 brad@looking.uucp A sample policy statement
C01758 00505 ∂23-Feb-89 1533 brad@looking.uucp re: Not much luck at Waterloo
C01760 00506 ∂23-Feb-89 1647 ME E
C01761 00507 ∂23-Feb-89 1832 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com new new-qlisp with parallel allocation
C01764 00508 ∂23-Feb-89 1906 VAL YSP
C01765 00509 ∂23-Feb-89 2018 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com new new-qlisp with parallel allocation
C01768 00510 ∂23-Feb-89 2236 poggio@wheaties.ai.mit.edu Our proposal for enhancement of our CM
C01770 00511 ∂24-Feb-89 0001 ME new E
C01772 00512 ∂24-Feb-89 0043 ME E bug fixed
C01773 00513 ∂24-Feb-89 0910 MPS Book
C01774 00514 ∂24-Feb-89 0947 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU No-Cost Extensions on ARPA Umbrella Tasks
C01776 00515 ∂24-Feb-89 1006 barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU applied logic courses
C01777 00516 ∂24-Feb-89 1020 HK.IXB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU search proceeding
C01778 00517 ∂24-Feb-89 1031 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU new new-qlisp with parallel allocation
C01780 00518 ∂24-Feb-89 1103 rpg@lucid.com Parallel Lisp Workshop
C01793 00519 ∂24-Feb-89 1131 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Faculty Meeting
C01795 00520 ∂24-Feb-89 1144 cohen@venera.isi.edu Electronic Commerce
C01798 00521 ∂24-Feb-89 1203 minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu Przymusinski
C01800 00522 ∂24-Feb-89 1332 MPS
C01801 00523 ∂24-Feb-89 1340 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu applied logic courses
C01803 00524 ∂24-Feb-89 1346 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Faculty Meeting
C01806 00525 ∂24-Feb-89 1402 cdp!kpeters@labrea.stanford.edu re: visit to Stanford
C01807 00526 ∂24-Feb-89 1509 HK.IXB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU on-line version, minus footnote calls
C01858 00527 ∂24-Feb-89 1516 HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU vtss
C01861 00528 ∂24-Feb-89 1527 rpg@lucid.com US/Japan Workshop on Parllel Lisp
C01870 00529 ∂24-Feb-89 1533 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Japan Workshop
C01871 00530 ∂24-Feb-89 1553 W.WUWU@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
C01873 00531 ∂24-Feb-89 1602 MPS III
C01874 00532 ∂24-Feb-89 1627 W.WUWU@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
C01876 00533 ∂24-Feb-89 1633 HK.IXB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU are you sure?
C01877 00534 ∂24-Feb-89 1713 jacobs@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
C01879 00535 ∂24-Feb-89 1731 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C01882 00536 ∂24-Feb-89 1751 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Clancy
C01884 00537 ∂24-Feb-89 1756 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU Leftist purges of libraries
C01886 00538 ∂24-Feb-89 2323 golub@na-net.stanford.edu Re: Faculty Meeting
C01889 00539 ∂25-Feb-89 1215 nakashim@russell.Stanford.EDU commonsense reasoning
C01891 00540 ∂26-Feb-89 0326 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM q-nusum
C01894 00541 ∂26-Feb-89 1607 Z.ZENON@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
C01896 00542 ∂26-Feb-89 1753 prohaska@Sun.COM Looking for book of profiles of scientists
C01899 00543 ∂26-Feb-89 1809 brad@looking.uucp Rushton (the guy with the race paper)
C01901 00544 ∂26-Feb-89 1813 prohaska@Sun.COM re: Looking for book of profiles of scientists
C01903 00545 ∂26-Feb-89 1849 karish@forel.Stanford.EDU Re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
C01906 00546 ∂26-Feb-89 2025 Z.ZENON@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU Re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
C01908 00547 ∂26-Feb-89 2030 Z.ZENON@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU CSD faculty letter
C01910 00548 ∂26-Feb-89 2139 brad@looking.uucp re: Rushton (the guy with the race paper)
C01913 00549 ∂26-Feb-89 2206 david@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: mechanic wanted
C01915 00550 ∂27-Feb-89 0237 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM q-nusum
C01924 00551 ∂27-Feb-89 0817 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Possible RHF Senate Motion
C01927 00552 ∂27-Feb-89 0947 MPS
C01928 00553 ∂27-Feb-89 1118 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny
C01930 00554 ∂27-Feb-89 1148 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Baker's work on Yale shooting
C01932 00555 ∂27-Feb-89 1155 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU re: Baker's work on Yale shooting
C01933 00556 ∂27-Feb-89 1201 op@polya.Stanford.EDU RHF statement
C01938 00557 ∂27-Feb-89 1221 VAL re: ysp
C01940 00558 ∂27-Feb-89 1300 JMC
C01941 00559 ∂27-Feb-89 1301 ME your home line
C01942 00560 ∂27-Feb-89 1400 ME AP back up
C01943 00561 ∂27-Feb-89 1432 CN.HUT@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C01945 00562 ∂27-Feb-89 1657 VAL
C01946 00563 ∂27-Feb-89 1740 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU My father
C01947 00564 ∂27-Feb-89 2053 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of January computer charges.
C01950 00565 ∂27-Feb-89 2136 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Qlisp
C01952 00566 ∂28-Feb-89 0858 MPS phone
C01953 00567 ∂28-Feb-89 1113 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU GC bug
C01955 00568 ∂28-Feb-89 1754 op@polya.Stanford.EDU
C01957 00569 ∂01-Mar-89 0030 brad@looking.uucp Re: Here's a pretty kettle of fish. See my reply at the end.
C01962 00570 ∂01-Mar-89 0037 brad@looking.uucp Re: Here's a pretty kettle of fish. See my reply at the end.
C01965 00571 ∂01-Mar-89 0037 brad@looking.uucp Re: Here's a pretty kettle of fish. See my reply at the end.
C01967 00572 ∂01-Mar-89 0040 brad@looking.uucp how jokes appear at UW
C01970 00573 ∂01-Mar-89 0146 bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu Re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
C01972 00574 ∂01-Mar-89 0336 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM 1,1,5,61,1385,50521,2702765,199360981,19391512145,...
C01981 00575 ∂01-Mar-89 0810 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Re: animal rights
C01983 00576 ∂01-Mar-89 0859 MPS messages
C01984 00577 ∂01-Mar-89 0917 boesch@vax.darpa.mil WYSISYG Editors
C01987 00578 ∂01-Mar-89 1013 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES
C01990 00579 ∂01-Mar-89 1021 Mailer BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES
C01992 00580 ∂01-Mar-89 1056 ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com Lecture yesterday on default logic
C01996 00581 ∂01-Mar-89 1109 guibas@src.dec.com some thoughts on restructuring the 300 level theory courses
C02004 00582 ∂01-Mar-89 1138 brad@looking.uucp Re: [In reply to message sent Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:40:36 EST.]
C02006 00583 ∂01-Mar-89 1329 reid@decwrl.dec.com FYI
C02011 00584 ∂01-Mar-89 1434 P.HARDER@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU boudokh and his insurance problems
C02013 00585 ∂01-Mar-89 1454 suzuki@russell.Stanford.EDU Your interview on 3rd
C02015 00586 ∂01-Mar-89 1508 eyal@coyote.stanford.edu my Ms.C. thesis
C02017 00587 ∂01-Mar-89 1735 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
C02019 00588 ∂01-Mar-89 1750 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
C02021 00589 ∂01-Mar-89 1924 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C02023 00590 ∂02-Mar-89 0035 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU CFAR meeting
C02024 00591 ∂02-Mar-89 0226 brad@looking.uucp New Stanford Policy?
C02026 00592 ∂02-Mar-89 0227 brad@looking.uucp address
C02028 00593 ∂02-Mar-89 0259 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM 1,1,5,61,1385,50521,2702765,199360981,19391512145,...
C02033 00594 ∂02-Mar-89 0815 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU
C02035 00595 ∂02-Mar-89 0859 MPS
C02036 00596 ∂02-Mar-89 0915 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Re: reply to message
C02038 00597 ∂02-Mar-89 1009 CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C02039 00598 ∂02-Mar-89 1027 jcm@ra.stanford.edu Re: some thoughts on restructuring the 300 level theory courses
C02044 00599 ∂02-Mar-89 1030 JMC
C02045 00600 ∂02-Mar-89 1140 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU press conference
C02047 00601 ∂02-Mar-89 1230 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU re: press conference
C02049 00602 ∂02-Mar-89 1301 VAL ysp
C02050 00603 ∂02-Mar-89 1324 brad@looking.uucp re: address
C02053 00604 ∂02-Mar-89 1414 suzuki@russell.Stanford.EDU Re: Your interview on 3rd
C02055 00605 ∂02-Mar-89 1416 CLT ?
C02056 00606 ∂02-Mar-89 1506 MPS
C02057 00607 ∂02-Mar-89 1535 MPS
C02058 00608 ∂02-Mar-89 1642 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Folders
C02059 00609 ∂02-Mar-89 1719 VAL Existence of situations
C02062 00610 ∂02-Mar-89 1724 VAL Correction
C02063 00611 ∂03-Mar-89 0214 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM "audioactive decay"
C02066 00612 ∂03-Mar-89 0459 wab@sumex-aim.stanford.edu re: my apologies.
C02067 00613 ∂03-Mar-89 0821 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU parallel hash tables, non-trivial
C02071 00614 ∂03-Mar-89 0825 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Existence of situations
C02075 00615 ∂03-Mar-89 0901 chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Visit to Edinburgh?
C02077 00616 ∂03-Mar-89 0902 jhs%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Re: Stanford bboard censorship
C02080 00617 ∂03-Mar-89 0924 MPS
C02081 00618 ∂03-Mar-89 0932 MPS
C02083 00619 ∂03-Mar-89 0932 MPS
C02085 00620 ∂03-Mar-89 0933 MPS
C02087 00621 ∂03-Mar-89 1043 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
C02090 00622 ∂03-Mar-89 1059 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:rpg@lucid.com parallel hash tables, non-trivial
C02093 00623 ∂03-Mar-89 1128 MPS phone call
C02094 00624 ∂03-Mar-89 1133 AMNESTY%LOYVAX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Stanford bboard
C02097 00625 ∂03-Mar-89 1141 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
C02101 00626 ∂03-Mar-89 1146 binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU amnon shaashua
C02103 00627 ∂03-Mar-89 1203 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Meeting next week
C02104 00628 ∂03-Mar-89 1408 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:rpg@lucid.com parallel hash tables, non-trivial
C02109 00629 ∂03-Mar-89 1409 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Quantities, Qualities and Qlisp
C02112 00630 ∂03-Mar-89 1412 MPS batch 1
C02113 00631 ∂03-Mar-89 1420 nedzel@cive.STANFORD.EDU CFAR Petition
C02117 00632 ∂03-Mar-89 1446 VAL reply to message
C02118 00633 ∂03-Mar-89 1451 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: CFAR Petition
C02120 00634 ∂03-Mar-89 1602 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Letter to request DARPA approval for Japan trip
C02124 00635 ∂03-Mar-89 1603 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU parallel hash tables, non-trivial
C02127 00636 ∂03-Mar-89 1730 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C02129 00637 ∂03-Mar-89 2000 JMC
C02130 00638 ∂03-Mar-89 2120 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:OKUNO@ntt-20.ntt.jp Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
C02133 00639 ∂03-Mar-89 2332 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM "audioactive decay"
C02137 00640 ∂04-Mar-89 0133 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM M.I.T. AI Memo 239
C02139 00641 ∂04-Mar-89 0900 JMC
C02140 00642 ∂04-Mar-89 1000 JMC
C02141 00643 ∂04-Mar-89 1006 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Quantities, Qualities and Qlisp
C02145 00644 ∂04-Mar-89 1053 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C02147 00645 ∂04-Mar-89 1108 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
C02153 00646 ∂04-Mar-89 1611 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU parallel hash tables, non-trivial
C02157 00647 ∂04-Mar-89 1652 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Travel arrangements for Japan trip
C02160 00648 ∂04-Mar-89 1838 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Debate
C02162 00649 ∂05-Mar-89 1042 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Rivin's Law
C02165 00650 ∂05-Mar-89 1225 gangolli@wolvesden.Stanford.EDU Re: Withdraw the SCLC proposal!
C02167 00651 ∂05-Mar-89 1822 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Debate
C02170 00652 ∂05-Mar-89 1917 J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Withdraw the SCLC proposal!
C02172 00653 ∂05-Mar-89 2000 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:rpg@lucid.com Debate
C02175 00654 ∂05-Mar-89 2010 ME your home line 44
C02176 00655 ∂06-Mar-89 0800 JMC
C02177 00656 ∂06-Mar-89 0837 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU parallel hash tables, non-trivial
C02180 00657 ∂06-Mar-89 0850 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Pat Simmons......
C02181 00658 ∂06-Mar-89 0900 JMC
C02182 00659 ∂06-Mar-89 0903 CLT cable
C02184 00660 ∂06-Mar-89 1000 JMC
C02185 00661 ∂06-Mar-89 1132 BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: help wanted
C02186 00662 ∂06-Mar-89 1152 rpg@lucid.com New Attendees
C02189 00663 ∂06-Mar-89 1203 BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: help wanted
C02190 00664 ∂06-Mar-89 1209 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Qlisp meeting
C02192 00665 ∂06-Mar-89 1324 DAVIS@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: help wanted
C02193 00666 ∂06-Mar-89 1324 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:rpg@lucid.com Qlisp meeting
C02195 00667 ∂06-Mar-89 1333 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Meeting reschedule
C02197 00668 ∂06-Mar-89 1340 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Meeting reschedule, debate
C02199 00669 ∂06-Mar-89 1446 BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: help wanted
C02200 00670 ∂06-Mar-89 1515 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:larus%paris.Berkeley.EDU@ginger.Berkeley.EDU Re: Debate
C02203 00671 ∂06-Mar-89 1545 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU [searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu (John R. Searle): Re: times]
C02206 00672 ∂06-Mar-89 1608 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:larus%paris.Berkeley.EDU@ginger.Berkeley.EDU Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
C02209 00673 ∂06-Mar-89 1723 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C02212 00674 ∂06-Mar-89 2232 H.HUSSEIN@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: a true story
C02213 00675 ∂07-Mar-89 0749 N51LI501%NCSUVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU NCState visit
C02218 00676 ∂07-Mar-89 0800 JMC
C02219 00677 ∂07-Mar-89 0927 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: grumble about aclu
C02223 00678 ∂07-Mar-89 1010 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU New meeting time & place
C02224 00679 ∂07-Mar-89 1150 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu minor adjustment
C02226 00680 ∂07-Mar-89 1203 VAL
C02227 00681 ∂07-Mar-89 1208 VAL re: reply to message
C02228 00682 ∂07-Mar-89 1319 decwrl!decvax!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!utep-vaxa!halina@labrea.stanford.edu letter of reference
C02231 00683 ∂07-Mar-89 1700 JMC
C02232 00684 ∂07-Mar-89 1953 ME Prancing Pony Bill
C02235 00685 ∂08-Mar-89 0847 TALEEN@Score.Stanford.EDU Armenians on the local news
C02237 00686 ∂08-Mar-89 1023 JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Deep Knowledge Meeting - Sunderland Polytechnic
C02239 00687 ∂08-Mar-89 1110 S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Story for Campus Report
C02241 00688 ∂08-Mar-89 1436 S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Story for Campus Report
C02242 00689 ∂08-Mar-89 1623 hdeutsch@csli.Stanford.EDU dinner?
C02243 00690 ∂08-Mar-89 1632 hdeutsch@csli.Stanford.EDU re: dinner?
C02244 00691 ∂08-Mar-89 1730 burke@csli.Stanford.EDU 1962 IFIP article
C02246 00692 ∂09-Mar-89 0048 JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU re: Deep Knowledge Meeting - Sunderland Polytechnic
C02250 00693 ∂09-Mar-89 0213 chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK re: Visit to Edinburgh?
C02252 00694 ∂09-Mar-89 1346 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Hertz Luncheon
C02253 00695 ∂09-Mar-89 1431 MPS trip
C02254 00696 ∂09-Mar-89 1800 mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU my SAIL account
C02256 00697 ∂09-Mar-89 1953 eyal@coyote.stanford.edu Re: my M.Sc. thesis
C02257 00698 ∂09-Mar-89 2101 anderson@june.cs.washington.edu censorship
C02259 00699 ∂10-Mar-89 0427 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM stirring logs
C02264 00700 ∂10-Mar-89 0708 harnad@Princeton.EDU An alternative approach to categorization
C02282 00701 ∂10-Mar-89 0900 JMC
C02283 00702 ∂10-Mar-89 1114 eyal@coyote.stanford.edu Re: my M.Sc. thesis
C02285 00703 ∂10-Mar-89 1120 collins@psych.Stanford.EDU re: slaves
C02286 00704 ∂10-Mar-89 1154 GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU boxes
C02287 00705 ∂10-Mar-89 1224 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Alliant meeting
C02289 00706 ∂10-Mar-89 1319 tom@polya.Stanford.EDU [MAILER-DAEMON: Returned mail: Host unknown]
C02292 00707 ∂10-Mar-89 1409 MPS reference
C02293 00708 ∂10-Mar-89 1618 roach@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Nice Results With Dan's NEW-QLISP
C02298 00709 ∂10-Mar-89 1623 @Score.Stanford.EDU:tcr@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Scheduling a Meeting
C02301 00710 ∂10-Mar-89 1725 GP.CML@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
C02303 00711 ∂10-Mar-89 1737 Mailer re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
C02305 00712 ∂10-Mar-89 1748 RLM@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Religion. Who was it who said...
C02306 00713 ∂10-Mar-89 1843 dmr@csli.Stanford.EDU Re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
C02308 00714 ∂10-Mar-89 2109 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com maybe new-qlisp isn't so bad after all
C02312 00715 ∂10-Mar-89 2116 dmr@csli.Stanford.EDU re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
C02314 00716 ∂10-Mar-89 2258 JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Deep Knowledge Meeting - Provisional Timetable
C02320 00717 ∂11-Mar-89 1554 dash@polya.Stanford.EDU Commonsense Reasoning
C02322 00718 ∂11-Mar-89 1603 dash@Portia.stanford.edu re: Commonsense Reasoning
C02323 00719 ∂11-Mar-89 1656 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Need: Qlisp Policy Statement
C02326 00720 ∂11-Mar-89 1705 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Need: Qlisp Policy Statement
C02328 00721 ∂11-Mar-89 1712 dash@Portia.stanford.edu re: Commonsense Reasoning
C02331 00722 ∂11-Mar-89 1818 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: Thomas Sowell (was Re: Discrimination)
C02332 00723 ∂11-Mar-89 1840 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Need: Qlisp Policy Statement
C02335 00724 ∂11-Mar-89 1923 hhughes@Portia.stanford.edu `Help
C02336 00725 ∂11-Mar-89 1932 hhughes@Portia.stanford.edu re: `Help
C02337 00726 ∂12-Mar-89 0650 CLT Formal reasoning budget
C02338 00727 ∂12-Mar-89 0800 JMC
C02339 00728 ∂12-Mar-89 1044 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU [searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu (John R. Searle): Re: an invitation]
C02342 00729 ∂12-Mar-89 1100 JMC
C02343 00730 ∂12-Mar-89 1400 S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: secession and new admissions policy
C02344 00731 ∂12-Mar-89 1423 S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: secession and new admissions policy
C02346 00732 ∂12-Mar-89 2146 VAL re: meeting about Soviet visitors
C02347 00733 ∂12-Mar-89 2146 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C02350 00734 ∂12-Mar-89 2235 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Sowell
C02353 00735 ∂13-Mar-89 0552 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM the li sequence
C02360 00736 ∂13-Mar-89 0641 underdog@Portia.stanford.edu bboard regular and bboard su-etc
C02362 00737 ∂13-Mar-89 0642 underdog@Portia.stanford.edu oh, also
C02363 00738 ∂13-Mar-89 0659 op@polya.Stanford.EDU re: Sowell
C02368 00739 ∂13-Mar-89 0753 MPS
C02369 00740 ∂13-Mar-89 0846 @Score.Stanford.EDU:wheaton@Athena.Stanford.EDU Scheduling a Meeting
C02371 00741 ∂13-Mar-89 0916 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: Sowell
C02373 00742 ∂13-Mar-89 1000 JMC
C02374 00743 ∂13-Mar-89 1000 JMC
C02375 00744 ∂13-Mar-89 1130 weening@polya.Stanford.EDU
C02383 00745 ∂13-Mar-89 1220 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU [Jaap Suermondt <hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu> : cs 323 hw ]
C02386 00746 ∂13-Mar-89 1225 chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK re: Visit to Edinburgh?
C02389 00747 ∂13-Mar-89 1341 MPS phone calls
C02390 00748 ∂13-Mar-89 1501 VAL re: Here's my part of the telegram.
C02391 00749 ∂13-Mar-89 1524 MPS High school student
C02392 00750 ∂14-Mar-89 0739 @Score.Stanford.EDU:daniel@mojave.Stanford.EDU Scheduling a Meeting
C02394 00751 ∂14-Mar-89 0908 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:ag@pepper.stanford.edu Reminder about Sequent talk
C02398 00752 ∂14-Mar-89 1155 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU [Jaap Suermondt <hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu> : Re: cs 323 hw ]
C02401 00753 ∂14-Mar-89 1254 lamport@src.dec.com jokes
C02403 00754 ∂14-Mar-89 1513 MPS phone call
C02404 00755 ∂14-Mar-89 1834 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU [Irwin E. Welker <welker> : homework ]
C02407 00756 ∂14-Mar-89 1938 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU circumscription language : reality check
C02409 00757 ∂14-Mar-89 2224 boyer@CLI.COM Arrays in Functional Programming
C02423 00758 ∂15-Mar-89 0107 VAL "Solovki Power"
C02424 00759 ∂15-Mar-89 1152 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C02426 00760 ∂15-Mar-89 1202 VAL visas
C02427 00761 ∂15-Mar-89 1216 @WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM:Greenwald@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM yet faster factorials
C02438 00762 ∂15-Mar-89 1426 CLT house seeker
C02439 00763 ∂15-Mar-89 1513 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Meeting with Alliant
C02440 00764 ∂15-Mar-89 2044 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU my circumscription misunderstanding: Post-Mortem analysis
C02445 00765 ∂15-Mar-89 2113 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU two things
C02447 00766 ∂16-Mar-89 1014 MPS phone
C02448 00767 ∂16-Mar-89 1245 JMC
C02449 00768 ∂16-Mar-89 1315 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Meeting
C02450 00769 ∂16-Mar-89 1320 MPS book
C02451 00770 ∂16-Mar-89 1449 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU Catch/Throw and Processes
C02453 00771 ∂16-Mar-89 1731 VAL CBCL
C02454 00772 ∂16-Mar-89 2028 brad@looking.uucp Re: freedom of speech
C02457 00773 ∂16-Mar-89 2051 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU news
C02459 00774 ∂17-Mar-89 0754 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU re: CSD Retreat
C02460 00775 ∂17-Mar-89 0852 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU CSD Faculty Retreat
C02463 00776 ∂17-Mar-89 0924 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU re: CSD Faculty Retreat
C02465 00777 ∂17-Mar-89 1016 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU re: CSD Faculty Retreat
C02466 00778 ∂17-Mar-89 1045 looking!brad@watmath.waterloo.edu Re: freedom of expression
C02468 00779 ∂17-Mar-89 1049 VAL re: visas
C02469 00780 ∂17-Mar-89 1104 CLT $
C02470 00781 ∂17-Mar-89 1129 brad@looking.uucp Re: freedom of expression
C02472 00782 ∂17-Mar-89 1231 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com Qlisp documentation
C02474 00783 ∂17-Mar-89 1233 anderson@polya.Stanford.EDU Appointment with prospective Ph.D. Student
C02476 00784 ∂17-Mar-89 1242 tom@polya.Stanford.EDU 4wire circuit to your new home
C02478 00785 ∂17-Mar-89 1312 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Qlisp documentation
C02480 00786 ∂17-Mar-89 1343 MPS Meeting with Professor McCarthy
C02482 00787 ∂17-Mar-89 1358 MPS
C02483 00788 ∂17-Mar-89 1408 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Qlisp documentation
C02485 00789 ∂17-Mar-89 1436 anderson@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Appointment with prospective Ph.D. Student
C02487 00790 ∂17-Mar-89 1627 levy@polya.Stanford.EDU re: Meeting with Professor McCarthy
C02489 00791 ∂17-Mar-89 1739 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C02491 00792 ∂18-Mar-89 2147 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Hertz fellow
C02492 00793 ∂19-Mar-89 1650 GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: possible whiteball
C02493 00794 ∂19-Mar-89 1939 rpg@lucid.com Prof ITO
C02495 00795 ∂19-Mar-89 2058 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU Homework # 3: done - epsilon
C02497 00796 ∂19-Mar-89 2106 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: Homework # 3: done - epsilon
C02499 00797 ∂19-Mar-89 2153 mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU Prof ITO
C02502 00798 ∂19-Mar-89 2308 T.TEDEBEAR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: bill bennett
C02504 00799 ∂19-Mar-89 2311 T.TEDEBEAR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU whoops.
C02505 00800 ∂20-Mar-89 0800 JMC
C02506 00801 ∂20-Mar-89 0829 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Serial Time
C02510 00802 ∂20-Mar-89 1114 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU I borrowed a book from you.
C02511 00803 ∂20-Mar-89 1206 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Re: education, ignorance and intelligence
C02513 00804 ∂20-Mar-89 1223 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Alliant meeting
C02517 00805 ∂20-Mar-89 1231 rpg@lucid.com ITO
C02519 00806 ∂20-Mar-89 1243 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com Serial Time
C02521 00807 ∂20-Mar-89 1305 VAL trip to El Paso
C02522 00808 ∂20-Mar-89 1353 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Export restrictions?
C02524 00809 ∂20-Mar-89 1443 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU Serial Time
C02528 00810 ∂20-Mar-89 1554 tom@polya.Stanford.EDU your home system
C02529 00811 ∂20-Mar-89 1602 shashank@coyote.stanford.edu Re: ignorance, American education, Japan
C02531 00812 ∂20-Mar-89 1735 hayes@arisia.xerox.com Frameproblem workshop
C02534 00813 ∂20-Mar-89 2020 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: education, ignorance and intelligence
C02536 00814 ∂21-Mar-89 0310 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM joint posting (or kneecapping?)
C02539 00815 ∂21-Mar-89 0612 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM tanfabulence
C02541 00816 ∂21-Mar-89 0731 MPS Can a PhD admittee see Prof Mccarthy?
C02543 00817 ∂21-Mar-89 1008 hayes@arisia.xerox.com Frameproblem workshop
C02546 00818 ∂21-Mar-89 1049 GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: elaboration
C02549 00819 ∂21-Mar-89 1329 tom@polya.Stanford.EDU home system
C02550 00820 ∂21-Mar-89 1341 VAL
C02551 00821 ∂21-Mar-89 1343 jucovics@polya.Stanford.EDU CS323 exam question
C02553 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂01-Jan-89 0209 @CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:GOLUMBIC@ISRAEARN.BITNET
Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jan 89 02:09:49 PST
Received: from ISRAEARN.BITNET by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.1) with BSMTP id 1078; Sun, 01 Jan 89 05:07:46 EST
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 89 12:07:45 IDT
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: GOLUMBIC%ISRAEARN.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Date: 1 January 89, 11:51:25 IDT
From: Martin Charles Golumbic 972 4 296282 GOLUMBIC at ISRAEARN
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD
On behalf of the program committee, we were delighted to receive your
acceptance to be an invited speaker at the forthcoming Symposium to be
held here in June. Your participation will make it a special event.
I must apologize that the first call for papers was sent out around
December 15 and therefore contains only the names of Ron Rivest and
Joe Halpern but not your name. All subsequent mailings of course will.
We will write to you again shortly with more details regarding the symposium.
Sincerely, Marty Golumbic
∂01-Jan-89 1154 darden@mimsy.umd.edu visit
Received: from mimsy.umd.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jan 89 11:54:35 PST
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.58/4.7)
id AA28164; Sun, 1 Jan 89 14:53:17 EST
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 89 14:53:17 EST
From: Prof. Lindley Darden <darden@mimsy.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8901011953.AA28164@mimsy.umd.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: visit
Hi John,
How are things? I hope you are well and happy.
I will be at Stanford for a conference on computational approaches
to scientific discovery January 6-8. Are you possibilly free for
dinner on Sunday Jan 8? I think all the conference doings will be
over by then. If that time isn't convenient, maybe we could get
together some other time that weekend, in between conference events?
My paper is called "Diagnosing and Fixing Faults in Theories".
Happy New Year!
Bye, Lindley
∂01-Jan-89 1757 beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU re: triangles
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jan 89 17:57:33 PST
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.59/1.28)
id AA03328; Sun, 1 Jan 89 17:56:34 PST
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 89 17:56:34 PST
From: beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8901020156.AA03328@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU
Subject: re: triangles
I was referring only to three dimensions: I just thought about that
on the way home from our last lunch, where you asked me the question.
∂03-Jan-89 0700 JMC
Simpson
∂03-Jan-89 0800 JMC
800 221-7774
∂03-Jan-89 0933 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: grumbles about your intro
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jan 89 09:33:43 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA20859; Tue, 3 Jan 89 09:33:15 PDT
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 09:33:15 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901031733.AA20859@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: grumbles about your intro
Cc: ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU
Let's see. I'm at Rockwell today, and in LA tomorrow, and wanted to make
sure to reply to you before I started travelling (I may be at Stanford
in the morning tomorrow, but don't know yet).
I basically agree with your comments. The remarks about first-order
logic not being sufficient because it is impossible to determine the
full extent of the database, as opposed to reasons that can be
circumvented by a meta-level reformulation, had not occurred to me (or
to Reiter in his summary article, or to anyone else, as far as I
know). I disagree that one cannot in principle list all of the
qualifications to an action -- I would expect it to be possible to do
some sort of deductive closure on one's causal description of a domain
to obtain such a list.
You are right that I suggest that circumscription can only minimize ab,
and this is an error. (Can you give me a good example where one does *not*
minimize an abnormality?)
With regard to the attribution of the original Hanks-McDermott
problem, my recollection is that I credited Vladimir (citing your
paper as the reference), and that Vladimir, who reviewed the material,
said that the credit should actually go to you. I will check with him
about this.
Finally, the weak vs. strong distinction seems to me to be a valid one,
and I believe that the AI community generally shares this opinion. And
my own feeling is that we could all use a little more pessimism ...
Fair enough? Thanks for your comments!
Matt
∂03-Jan-89 1000 JMC
anderson
∂03-Jan-89 1100 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU re: original version of Hanks-McDermott problem
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jan 89 11:00:06 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA25032; Tue, 3 Jan 89 10:59:34 PDT
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 10:59:34 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901031859.AA25032@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: original version of Hanks-McDermott problem
Cc: jmc@sail
In that case, I owe you an apology. I attributed the example to John
in the introduction to the nonmon book (he attributes it to you in the
paper, but I thought that you subsequently attributed it to him). In
any event, I'm sorry -- were you not troubled by the attribution on
p.12 of the nonmon introduction?
I'll fix it for any future editions -- and I'm sorry, again.
OK?
Matt
∂03-Jan-89 1100 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: grumbles about your intro
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jan 89 11:00:32 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA25047; Tue, 3 Jan 89 11:00:03 PDT
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 11:00:03 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901031900.AA25047@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: grumbles about your intro
... and I owe you an apology as well, of course. Thanks for pointing
out the mistake to me.
Matt
∂03-Jan-89 1401 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU re: grumbles about your intro
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jan 89 14:01:28 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00877; Tue, 3 Jan 89 14:01:03 PDT
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 14:01:03 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901032201.AA00877@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: grumbles about your intro
OK. The only place where we disagree is about specifying all of the
qualifications to an action. I don't think that the new fact that
penguins can't fly should count, since it corresponds to a modification
of your domain knowledge -- like if you learn that cars need gas to run.
If you don't know that, then even if you know that the car *is* out of
gas, you won't view the action of starting it as qualified.
The second type, where you learn that Tweety is a penguin, comes from
the fact that you have incomplete knowledge of the world state. What
I was trying to say was that if you have complete knowledge of the
world state (e.g., there is for sure no potato in the tailpipe), it
would be possible to look at the domain description and compute a set of
monotonic rules that would tell you (assuming that your domain knowledge
was correct) whether or not an action was going to be qualified. Performing
this computation would presumably be computationally similar to taking the
deductive closure of your domain knowledge, since you need to determine
in advance every possible cause of the qualification. The point wasn't
that "taking the deductive closure" corresponded to a precise technique,
but only that such a technique could, in principle, exist -- provided that
your domain knowledge was complete. Employing the technique requires your
knowledge of the world state to be complete (a point that I do make in the
nonmon intro).
Can you buy that?
Matt
∂03-Jan-89 1610 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU re: grumbles about your intro
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jan 89 16:10:25 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06520; Tue, 3 Jan 89 16:10:05 PDT
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 16:10:05 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901040010.AA06520@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: grumbles about your intro
OK!
Matt
∂03-Jan-89 1627 beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU cross product
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jan 89 16:26:59 PST
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.59/1.28)
id AA02049; Tue, 3 Jan 89 16:25:58 PST
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 16:25:58 PST
From: beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8901040025.AA02049@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: cross product
Pondering your latest question, I realized that the usual cross product
in three-space is nothing but the quaternion product in four-space,
projected onto the subspace of vectors with zero first component.
If you identify i = (0,1,0,0), j= (0,0,1,0), k = (0,0,0,1), then
since cross product and projected quaternion product agree on i,j, and k,
they must agree everywhere. I guess somebody who named the usual
unit vectors i,j, and k, must have known that! but I didn't, although
I've known both products all my adult life.
As applied to my remark about the number k being determined by the
plane, in four-space just use the quaternion product instead of the
cross-product, and you'll get a line.
∂03-Jan-89 1805 peters@russell [Takayasu ITO: US-Japan Cooperative Research on Theoretical Computer Science]
Received: from russell (Russell.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jan 89 18:00:08 PST
Received: from localhost by russell (4.0/4.7); Tue, 3 Jan 89 18:02:16 PST
To: jmc@sail
Subject: [Takayasu ITO: US-Japan Cooperative Research on Theoretical Computer Science]
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 89 18:02:14 PST
From: peters@russell
Dear John,
I received the following message from Takayasu Ito about a US-Japan
exchange in the area of theoretical computer science. It looks to me
like he has some interesting people in mind on the Japanese side. Can
you see something here you would be want to be involved in? It's very
open ended at this point, just an exploration to see if two
like-minded groups of people want to get funding to get together one
of more times.
Best,
Stanley
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 88 21:41:40 JST
From: Takayasu ITO <ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
To: peters%russell.stanford.edu%relay.cs.net%u-tokyo.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: US-Japan Cooperative Research on Theoretical Computer Science
I think that US-Japan cooperative research on theoretical computer science is
very useful.The exchange of researchers and joint work by US-Japan computer
scientists will be useful and important.
I can think of the following Japanese researchers:
Prof. Masahiko Sato(Tohoku Univ.) in constructive logic and type theory
Dr. Susumu Hayashi(RIMS,Kyoto Univ.) in constructive logic and type theory
Prof. Aki Yonezawa(Tokyo Inst. of Tech) in concurrency and AI languages
Takayasu Ito(Tohoku Univ.) in concurrency theory and parallel Lisp
and several young researchers and graduate students.
Would you tell me the names of possible US collaborators and their fields of
interest?
I will try to get touch with JSPS and Monbusho for support.
One of Prof. Sato,Prof. Yonezawa and myself will become Japanese organizer of
this joint efforts.{In any case I will do my best to obtain financial support
if you can find/form US group.}
I hope that you and your wife could have an enjoyable stay at Kyoto,Osaka and
Tokyo.
With best regards,
Takayas Ito
(P.S.) It is sure to visit US in March,1989.I will let you know when my travel
plan become definite.
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂03-Jan-89 1918 peters@russell Re: [Takayasu ITO: US-Japan Cooperative Research on Theoretical Computer Science]
Received: from russell (Russell.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jan 89 19:18:11 PST
Received: from localhost by russell (4.0/4.7); Tue, 3 Jan 89 19:20:21 PST
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: peters@RUSSELL.Stanford.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: [Takayasu ITO: US-Japan Cooperative Research on Theoretical Computer Science]
In-Reply-To: Your message of 03 Jan 89 18:35:00 PST.
<LwvFr@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 89 19:20:18 PST
From: peters@russell
John,
Thanks for that information. Conferencing to get acquainted gets old
really fast. I can understand your not feeling any need for more of
it soon. If something more useful than that occurs to you, I'd be
delighted to be of assistance in helping it happen.
Stanley
∂03-Jan-89 2133 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu QP workshop
Received: from neat.ai.toronto.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jan 89 21:33:44 PST
Received: by neat.ai.toronto.edu id 38115; Wed, 4 Jan 89 00:28:02 EST
Resent-From: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-To: qphysics-distribution@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-Sender: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by neat.ai.toronto.edu with SMTP id 38114; Tue, 3 Jan 89 20:45:35 EST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA28407; Tue, 3 Jan 89 12:20:43 PST
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 15:20:43 EST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8901032020.AA28407@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: AIList@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, QPHYSICS@ai.toronto.edu
Subject: QP workshop
Resent-Message-Id: <89Jan4.002802est.38115@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 20:45:46 EST
<Please distribute this as widely as you find convenient:>
Third Workshop on Qualitative Physics: California, August 9-11
The third international workshop on Qualitative Physics will be held on the
ninth through eleventh (9-11) August 1989 in Palo Alto, California, U.S.A.
The workshop will emphasize both theoretical and practical aspects of
qualitative and naive physics. Topics include, but are not limited to:
* New qualitative reasoning methods
* Complexity analyses of fundamental algorithms
* Implementation techniques and performance studies
* Applications of qualitative physics
* Temporal reasoning and representation
* Automated modeling
To facilitate informal communication, the workshop attendance will be
limited to a group of 50 people. Activities will include
approximately 25 paper presentations, several panel discussions, and
demonstrations of working implementations. There will be no published
proceedings, but a selection of papers may be included in a special
journal issue devoted to qualitative physics.
Authors who wish to present research, should submit four (4) copies of their
papers in hard copy form. Papers must not exceed 5000 words (10 pages, double
spaced). Papers must be printed on 8.5" x 11" or A4 sized paper. Authors who
wish to have copies of their papers distributed must pay appropriate attention
to print quality.
The workshop wishes to encourage attendance of graduate students and
interested researchers, perhaps from other fields, who may not wish to
present a formal paper. To be considered for general attendance,
researchers should submit four (4) copies of a short description of
their background and interests, clearly explaining their interest in
qualitative physics. Some authors may be accepted for general
attendance only, their submission being taken as evidence of their
interest.
All material must be submitted by February 28, 1989. Notification of
acceptance will be mailed by April 7, 1988. Address all communication
to the program chair:
Dr. Patrick Hayes phone: (415) 494-4749
Xerox PARC
3333 Coyote Hill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304 internet: hayes.pa@xerox.com
∂04-Jan-89 0738 COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM Nuclear Power, etc.
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 07:37:56 PST
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 07:36:12 PST
From: Donald W. Cooley <COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: Nuclear Power, etc.
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
cc: cooley@KL.SRI.COM
Message-ID: <12459874751.10.COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM>
John,
I am puzzled by your response. You mainly seem upset about
the stance Greenpeace and some other nature groups have taken
on the nuclear industry in this country, but you hint there
are other reasons also. (I'd be interested to know what they are.)
But back to the nuclear industry. I agree better,safer nuclear
reactors are possible and research in this area should be funded.
(This is TIME's response also, see p.41 of their Jan 2, 1989 issue.)
However, safety should come first. And the question of what to do
with nuclear wastes continues to be a problem. Again, I believe
more research in this area is needed. ( None of the States seem
to want the stuff, even Nevadans are reluctant to have more radioactive
wastes stored in their state. ) This is not even to mention the
problems associated with our nuclear weapons plants. So although I'm
optimistic about the future of nuclear power, I think its past
(and present) can be fairly critized.
What upsets me about your response is that you have let one issue
blind you to the good the environmental movement is doing. It is
clear to me that overpopulation and a much too fast rate of population
growth are the root cause of most of the environmental problems
we face now and in the future. According to TIME (p.29), 40,000
babies starve to death each day. (This is almost the equivalent
of one Armenian earthquake every other day!) I wished TIME had
been stronger in their recommendations in this area. I wish
the environmental groups I mentioned did more in this area also.
But, at least they are trying to deal with the environmental
consequences of this population explosion before its too late.
And I don't think thousands of nuclear reactors placed in every
country is the solution to all these problems!
I hope these comments don't polarize you and others who agree
with you even further. We all have alot more to gain by comprimizing in
areas where we disagree and taking action before it's too late.
We are diving 100 species of plants and animals to extinction
every day (on the average). This is 1000 times the rate that
has prevailed since prehistory.(TIME, p.32.) While we debate
the virtues of nuclear power, whole ecosystems are being
destroyed (the Rainforests) at a alarming rate.
- Don Cooley
-------
∂04-Jan-89 0757 harnad@Princeton.EDU Connectionist Concepts: BBS Call for Commentators
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 07:57:28 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/1.93)
id AA04567; Wed, 4 Jan 89 10:47:31 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.67)
id AA11296; Wed, 4 Jan 89 10:12:06 EST
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 10:12:06 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8901041512.AA11296@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: connectionists@cs.cmu.edu, epsynet%uhupvm1.bitnet@confidence.Princeton.EDU
Subject: Connectionist Concepts: BBS Call for Commentators
Below is the abstract of a forthcoming target article to appear in
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), an international,
interdisciplinary journal that provides Open Peer Commentary on important
and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive
sciences. Commentators must be current BBS Associates or nominated by a
current BBS Associate. To be considered as a commentator on this article,
to suggest other appropriate commentators, or for information about how
to become a BBS Associate, please send email to:
harnad@confidence.princeton.edu or write to:
BBS, 20 Nassau Street, #240, Princeton NJ 08542 [tel: 609-921-7771]
____________________________________________________________________
THE CONNECTIONIST CONSTRUCTION OF CONCEPTS
Adrian Cussins, New College, Oxford
Keywords: connectionism, representation, cognition, perception,
nonconceptual content, concepts, learning, objectivity, semantics
Computational modelling of cognition depends on an underlying theory
of representation. Classical cognitive science has exploited the
syntax/semantics theory of representation derived from formal
logic. As a consequence, the kind of psychological explanation
supported by classical cognitive science is "conceptualist":
psychological phenomena are modelled in terms of relations between
concepts and between the sensors/effectors and concepts. This kind of
explanation is inappropriate according to Smolensky's "Proper
Treatment of Connectionism" [BBS 11(1) 1988]. Is there an alternative
theory of representation that retains the advantages of classical
theory but does not force psychological explanation into the
conceptualist mold? I outline such an alternative by introducing an
experience-based notion of nonconceptual content and by showing how a
complex construction out of nonconceptual content can satisfy
classical constraints on cognition. Cognitive structure is not
interconceptual but intraconceptual. The theory of representational
structure within concepts allows psychological phenomena to be
explained as the progressive emergence of objectivity. This can be
modelled computationally by transformations of nonconceptual content
which progressively decrease its perspective-dependence through the
formation of a cognitive map.
Stevan Harnad ARPA/INTERNET harnad@confidence.princeton.edu harnad@princeton.edu
harnad@mind.princeton.edu srh@flash.bellcore.com harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu
CSNET: harnad%mind.princeton.edu@relay.cs.net UUCP: harnad@princeton.uucp
BITNET: harnad@pucc.bitnet harnad1@umass.bitnet Phone: (609)-921-7771
∂04-Jan-89 0757 harnad@Princeton.EDU Speech Perception: BBS Multiple Book Review
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 07:57:28 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/1.93)
id AA04834; Wed, 4 Jan 89 10:51:43 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.67)
id AA11306; Wed, 4 Jan 89 10:18:00 EST
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 10:18:00 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8901041518.AA11306@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: connectionists@cs.cmu.edu, epsynet%uhupvm1.bitnet@confidence.Princeton.EDU
Subject: Speech Perception: BBS Multiple Book Review
Below is the abstract of a book that will be multiply reviewed in
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), an international,
interdisciplinary journal that provides Open Peer Commentary on important
and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive
sciences. Reviewers must be current BBS Associates or nominated by a
current BBS Associate. To be considered as a reviewer for this book,
to suggest other appropriate reviewers, or for information about how
to become a BBS Associate, please send email to:
harnad@confidence.princeton.edu or write to:
BBS, 20 Nassau Street, #240, Princeton NJ 08542 [tel: 609-921-7771]
____________________________________________________________________
BBS Multiple Book review of:
SPEECH PERCEPTION BY EAR AND EYE: A PARADIGM FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY
(Hillsdale NJ: LE Erlbaum Associates 1987)
Dominic William Massaro
Program in Experimental Psychology
University of California, Santa Cruz
Keywords: speech perception; vision; audition; categorical perception;
connectionist models; fuzzy logic; sensory impairment; decision making
This book is about the processing of information, particularly in
face-to-face spoken communication where both audible and visible
information are available. Experimental tasks were designed to
manipulate many of these sources of information independently and to
test mathematical fuzzy logical and other models of performance and the
underlying stages of information processing. Multiple sources of
information are evaluated and integrated to achieve speech perception.
Graded information seems to be derived about the degree to which an
input fits a given category rather than just all-or-none categorical
information. Sources of information are evaluated independently, with
the integration process insuring that the least ambiguous sources have
the most impact on the judgment. The processes underlying
speech-perception also occur in a variety of other behaviors, ranging
from categorization to sentence interpretation, decision making and
forming impressions about people.
-----
Stevan Harnad INTERNET harnad@confidence.princeton.edu harnad@princeton.edu
harnad@mind.princeton.edu srh@flash.bellcore.com harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu
CSNET: harnad%mind.princeton.edu@relay.cs.net UUCP: harnad@princeton.uucp
BITNET: harnad@pucc.bitnet harnad1@umass.bitnet Phone: (609)-921-7771
∂04-Jan-89 0842 @b.NSF.GOV:lrosenbe@note.nsf.gov Re: coordination theory
Received: from note.nsf.gov by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 08:42:42 PST
Received: from b.nsf.gov by note.nsf.gov id aa17881; 4 Jan 89 11:21 EST
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: coordination theory
In-reply-to: Your message of 15 Dec 88 16:22:00 -0800.
<dQzIG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 89 11:20:38 -0500
From: Laurence Rosenberg <lrosenbe@note.nsf.gov>
Message-ID: <8901041120.aa24880@b.nsf.gov>
reply
The deadline for receipt of proposals under the announcement was Nov. 30.
However, smaller--individual investigator-or two PI-proposals can be
submitted anytime. I have snail mailed another copy to you this morning and
also have sent one to Danny Cohen.
∂04-Jan-89 1039 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu why some of us still haven't gotten copies of our report
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 10:38:47 PST
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 11:28 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: why some of us still haven't gotten copies of our report
To: DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, MBLUMENT@NAS.BITNET,
DONGARRA%ANL-MCS.arpa@arizona.edu, GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com,
JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@rand-unix.arpa, JLH@sierra.stanford.edu,
JMC@sail.stanford.edu, MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS
From: Jnet%"MBLUMENT@NAS" "Marjory Blumenthal" 4-JAN-1989 06:28:22.51
To: <goodman@arizmis>
CC:
Subj: a copy of our
Received: From NASVM(MAILER) by MRVAX with Jnet id 0236
for GOODMAN@ARIZMIS; Wed, 4 Jan 89 06:28 MST
Received: by NASVM (Mailer X1.25) id 0235; Wed, 04 Jan 89 08:29:22 EST
Received: by NAS (PC Mail Gateway) id 3488; Wed, 04 Jan 89 08:29:21 EST
Date: ???, 03 Jan 89 20:21 EST
From: Marjory Blumenthal <MBLUMENT@NAS>
Subject: a copy of our
To: <goodman@arizmis>
*cc: Meg Knemeyer
report still hasn't arrived. It's got to come soon! Even the US Mail
can't be that bad!
========
Before or at the same time as the initial report mailing to
you and others, Meg sent a test letter to husband on Capitol
Hill (i.e., in the same city). It still hasn't
arrived...it's been two weeks.
∂04-Jan-89 1127 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:carol@lucid.com new new-qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 11:27:24 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02717; Wed, 4 Jan 89 11:24:07 PST
Received: from kolyma ([192.9.200.9]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA04398g; Wed, 4 Jan 89 11:22:53 PST
Received: by kolyma id AA05847g; Wed, 4 Jan 89 11:27:27 PST
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 11:27:27 PST
From: Carol Sexton <carol@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8901041927.AA05847@kolyma>
To: qlisp@go4.stanford.edu
Subject: new new-qlisp
I just installed a new new-qlisp which contains
a bug fix for get-lock. Let me know if there
are any problems.
Carol
∂04-Jan-89 1143 MPS
Dave Bensen of the Natl Research Council would
like you to call him on
202-334-2760.
∂04-Jan-89 1155 cohen@venera.isi.edu A simple CBCL example (invoice)
Received: from venera.isi.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 11:55:31 PST
Posted-Date: Wed 4 Jan 89 11:55:38-PST
Received: by venera.isi.edu (5.54/5.51)
id AA10099; Wed, 4 Jan 89 11:55:40 PST
Date: Wed 4 Jan 89 11:55:38-PST
From: Danny Cohen <COHEN@venera.isi.edu>
Subject: A simple CBCL example (invoice)
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu, jk@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <599946939.0.COHEN@VENERA.ISI.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <VAX-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VENERA.ISI.EDU>
John, Jussi:
Following is an example for an invoice written in CBCL. This invoice is
a slight variation on the one that I showed you before (both in plain
text and in X12).
It is in the style that I expect CBCL to have. Did I get it right?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
(INVOICE
(INVOICE-BY
(COMPANY-NAME SMITH CORPORATION)
(COMPANY-ADDR 900 EAST STREET // BIG CITY, NJ 15455)
(ATTN C.D. Jones)
(TEL 618-555-8230)
)
(INVOICE-TO
(COMPANY-NAME ACME DISTRIBUTING COMPANY)
(COMPANY-ADDR P.O.BOX 33327 // ANYTOWN, NJ 45509)
)
(INVOICE-NO 1234567)
(DATE 7-13-81)
(ORDER
(PO-NO P989320)
(CUSTOMER-REF 6004)
(DATE 6-25-81)
)
(SHIPPING
(SHIPPED-TO (SAME-AS INVOICE-TO) )
(SHIPPED-BY (COMPANY-NAME CONSOLIDATED TRUCK) )
(DATE 7-14-81)
(SHIPPING-BL 28713)
(CHARGE 12.21)
)
(PAYMENT-DUE (ADD SHIPPING.DATE 30) )
(ITEM
(MANY
(ITEM
(DESCRIPTION CELLULOSE SPONGES)
(QUANTITY 3)
(UNIT CS)
(NO 6900)
(PRICE 12.75)
)
(ITEM
(DESCRIPTION (UPC 9753102468) )
(QUANTITY 12)
(UNIT EA)
(NO P450)
(PRICE
(VALUE 3.00)
(CURRENCY FRENCH-FRANC)
)
)
(ITEM xxxxxx)
(ITEM xxxxxx)
)
)
(TOTAL 51.11)
)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Items of some interest in this example: the SAME-AS, the MANY,
the SHIPPING.DATE, the two forms of DESCRIPTION, and the two forms
of PRICE --- all very different from X12 style format.
The toughest job, and a most time connsuming one, is to define the
semantics, such as what does INVOICE mean, what attributes/fields it
has, and so on. For example, INVOICE.TOTAL is either the field called
TOTAL in the INVOICE, if provided (as in this example), or the sum of
all the costs from all ITEMs, less discount (when/if specified), plus
SHIPPING.CHARGE, etc. (Question: what does one do if it is provide but
is not consistent with its definition? -- accept? ignore? recompute?
complain?...)
I bet that the X12 did a great job in getting into this level of detail,
defining which attributes/field belong to which document, and what is
the exact semantics of the documents that they considered.
Needlessto say that I have doubts about the generality of their results,
but I am sure that they did lots of the legwork that we'll need, too.
Danny
-------
∂04-Jan-89 1205 gurevich@polya.Stanford.EDU
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 12:05:41 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00140; Wed, 4 Jan 89 12:05:20 PDT
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 12:05:20 PDT
From: Yuri Gurevich <gurevich@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901042005.AA00140@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Dear Professor McCarthy,
Penn State University has an open "chaired" position. Their CS Dept.
suggested my name to the dean. Today the chairman told me that they
have a problem: The dean understood from recommendation letters that I
am more of a mathematician than a computer scientist. I wonder if I
can give your name to them to ask (I guess on the phone) about me. I
realize that my work isn't that well known to you, and would
understand your possible reluctance. But if you can talk to them, I
would greatly appreciate.
Thank you,
-Yuri
∂04-Jan-89 2350 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU [Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU> : Re: CS 323 ]
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Jan 89 23:50:16 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 4 Jan 89 23:49:28 PST
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1989 23:49:27 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU, mps@sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: [Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU> : Re: CS 323 ]
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.599989767.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
I am happy to report that this was the response to my question "Am I the TA
for CS 323 ? "
Alex
---------------
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by jessica.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Wed, 4 Jan 89 16:03:22 PST
Date: Wed 4 Jan 89 16:02:55-PST
From: Claire Stager <STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: CS 323
To: alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.88.599961742.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Office: CS-TAC 29, 723-6094
Message-Id: <12459966994.21.STAGER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Yes, you did.
Claire
-------
∂04-Jan-89 2358 DEK Artificial Intelligence
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, feigenbaum@Score.Stanford.EDU
Who invented that name for the field, and where was it first published?
∂05-Jan-89 1008 SOSTOYAN%DKNKURZ1.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu mental qualities
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 10:07:58 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 5 Jan 89 08:17:41 PST
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 89 17:14:50 MEZ
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
From: SOSTOYAN%DKNKURZ1.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Comment: CROSSNET mail via MAILER@STANFORD
Return-Receipt-To: SOSTOYAN@DKNKURZ1.BITNET
Subject: mental qualities
Date: 05 January 1989, 17:10:56 MEZ
From: Herbert Stoyan +49 7531 88 3593 SOSTOYAN at DKNKURZ1
To: John McCarthy JMC at SAIL
Hi John. I hope, you had a good start in the new year. I would like to ask
you where your paper 'ascribing mental qualities to machines' (or like)
was printed. if the source is not public I want to ask for a copy. If you
send me paper please add a complete publication list. Did you have a look
in my Programming Methods book?
Best regards to Carolyn and your son.
herbert
∂05-Jan-89 1027 DEK housing
I'd like to chat with you for a minute (only) about your experience finding
a new house. (Because Dick Karp is coming to visit me this weekend and
he would like to know about the current situation if he were to hunt for
a home on campus.) Please phone me at 723-1184.
PS: Thanks for your note about AI. I'm preparing questions for the
Trivia Hunt that will take place in three weeks.
∂05-Jan-89 1215 eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Re: Artificial Intelligence
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 12:13:55 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA04150; Thu, 5 Jan 89 12:13:47 PST
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1989 12:13:45 PST
From: Edward A. Feigenbaum <eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: Don Knuth <DEK@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence
In-Reply-To: Your message of 04 Jan 89 2358 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.600034425.eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Legend has it that McCarthy invented the name and that it was first
used in a proposal he wrote to the Rockefeller Foundation for
funding of the Dartmouth Summer Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
He wrote that proposal in the Spring of 1956, I think.
But John will have to verify that the legend is myth or fact.
Ed
∂05-Jan-89 1355 MPS Project Summary
To: JMC
CC: VAL
Mary Sullivan, DARPA, 202-694-4002
Called requesting a project summary about the Formal Reasoning Research.
This is to include a short one paragraph statement about the objective of
the research; FY 88 accomplishments and FY 89 objectives. She wants it
sent e-mail.
sully@vax.darpa.mil
Pat
∂05-Jan-89 1409 VAL Project Summary
To: sully@VAX.DARPA.MIL
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Here is a copy of the project summary I sent you by e-mail on Dec. 9, 1988.
Please let me know if there is anything else I should do.
--Vladimir Lifschitz
∂09-Dec-88 1703 VAL Project Summary: ARPA Order 4912
To: sully@VAX.DARPA.MIL
CC: simpson@VAX.DARPA.MIL
DARPA PROJECT SUMMARY (Lt. Col. Simpson - 202-694-5917)
Title: Formal Reasoning Research
Institution: Stanford University
Starting Date: August 1988 Expected End Date: August 1991
Principal Investigator: Prof. John McCarthy
Technical Summary: The objective of this project is to continue the
investigation of nonmonotonic theories, concentrating on representation of
knowledge about the effects of actions. Formalisms will be developed for
modelling the processes of temporal projection and temporal explanation.
Actions with indirect effects will be included, as well as concurrent and
continuous actions, and actions that involve creating and destroying objects.
New approaches to the automation of nonmonotonic reasoning will be developed
on the basis of the computational methods of logic programming. The idea of
context will be formalized and applied to the problem of creating a general
database of commonsense facts.
Principal expected innovations: It is expected that as a result of this work
nonmonotonic formalisms and contexts will become practical tools allowing
AI researchers to overcome important limitations of present expert system
technology.
Expected product for distribution: Technical reports.
Summary of accomplishments:
Accomplishments for FY88:
- Developed an improved version of the causality-based nonmonotonic
theory of action, capable of handling causal anomalies.
- On the basis of the iterated fixpoint semantics of logic programming,
developed a method for compiling circumscriptive theories into logic programs.
- Extended the iterated fixpoint semantics of logic programming,
applicable to stratified programs only, to a more general class of logic
programs with stable models.
Objectives for FY89:
- To extend the causality-based nonmonotonic theory of action to
more general ontologies of time and action. That will include incorporating
a continuous model of time, concurrent actions, and actions that involve
creating and destroying objects.
- To develop the theory of "introspective circumscription",
the new nonmonotonic formalism which combines some features of the two
most successful models of nonmonotonic reasoning - circumscription and
autoepistemic logic. Investigate its relation to other theories of
nonmonotonic reasoning and its applicability to unsolved problems in the
theory of commonsense knowledge.
- To develop the formal definition of contexts and of methods for
switching to more general and less general contexts. Apply the theory of
contexts to the problem of structuring general purpose knowledge bases.
Key technical reports:
M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, "The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming",
in: Logic Programming: Proc. 5th Int'l Conf. and Symp., 1988.
M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, "Compiling Circumscriptive Theories into Logic
Programs: Preliminary Report", in: Proc. AAAI-88, 1988.
V. Lifschitz and A. Rabinov, "Miracles in Formal Theories of Action", to appear
in the Artificial Intelligence Journal.
A. Rabinov, "A Generalization of Collapsible Cases of Circumscription", to
appear in the Artificial Intelligence Journal.
A. Rabinov, "On Ramifications, Qualifications and Domain Constraints in Formal
Theories of Action", submitted for publication in the Artificial Intelligence
Journal.
∂05-Jan-89 1411 MPS
She ran out of time with the first message so she
called again to fnish the message.
Pat
∂05-Jan-89 1417 VAL re: Project Summary
[In reply to message rcvd 05-Jan-89 14:15-PT.]
I sent it to Sullivan, with cc to Simpson.
∂05-Jan-89 1423 Mailer re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
Received: from uwavm.acs.washington.edu (oly.acs.washington.edu) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 14:22:54 PST
Received: from Tomobiki-Cho.acs.washington.edu by uwavm.acs.washington.edu ; Thu, 05 Jan 89 14:20:31 PST
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1989 13:50:04 PST
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
cc: arean@polya.stanford.edu, su-etc@sail.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: <8wdzB@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <MS-C.600040204.662824084.mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
The claim that "authoritarian regimes often convert to democracy and
totalitarian regimes never do" is meaningless, since it depends upon the
individual interpretation of what is "authoritarian" and what is
"totalitarian".
In general, dictators do not surrender power voluntarily; something has
to happen to force their hand. In some cases (e.g. Franco) it was death; in
many cases it has been a coup. Sometimes the successor government becomes
democratic; more often it establishes a new dictatorship after a brief
flirtation with democracy (e.g. Cuba). The most reliable way for a
dictatorship to be replaced by a democracy is conquest in war by a democracy
which forcibly establishes a solid democratic government before restoring
soverignty to the country.
Dictatorships which survive for long periods of time generally do so by
avoiding mistakes. One obvious mistake is engage in aggressive warfare, as
Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo found out (it might be pointed out that Nazi
Germany was undoubtably totalitarian, whereas Fascist Italy and militarist
Japan were more authoritarian -- all three governments were undeniably popular
with their people in their heyday). Another obvious mistake is to alienate
the population to the point that they will revolt.
It is a pipe-dream of the right-wingers that the people of the Soviet
Union hate their government and would revolt to establish a democracy if only
they weren't so heavily oppressed. Most of the Communist regimes in the world
are genuinely popular among their people, or at least tolerated. The success
of Communist dictatorships has been that only a few are *hated* by their
people; Pol Pot's Kampuchea comes immediately to mind. Only Albania and North
Korea have done so by absolute domination of the population; most other
Communist regimes have significant non-Communist political and social forces
at work and the Communist Party has been obliged to work and compromise with
these forces to maintain its hold on power.
Even in Cuba, the US' favorite bogeyman, there is a significant
difference between what the Party (read: Castro) would like to accomplish and
the reality. There are checks on the Party's power, and at the same time many
of these checks provide safety valves that ensure its power. One of the most
important of these is relatively easy emigration to (and communication with)
the US. The telephone cables between Miami and Cuba are heavily used!
Few of the anti-government activists in Communist countries seriously
challenge the basic tenats of Communism, much less Socialism. They seek a
reform of its social system rather than its overthrow. Solidarity would be
considered a subversive left-wing organization in the US!
My conclusion is that with the Communist dictatorships (most extant
Communist governments are dictatorships) we are seeing a new form that does
not fit into the "authoritarian" vs. "totalitarian" model, except in the
pipe-dreams of right-wingers. They avoid alienating the population and
institute some genuinely popular social programs.
∂05-Jan-89 1709 M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 17:09:34 PST
Date: Thu 5 Jan 89 17:07:36-PST
From: Ira Machefsky <M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: m.machefsky@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12460240914.77.M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
John,
I work for DEC's External Research Program (ERP). Although I have
resided on campus for several years, I've never had the opportunity to
meet you professionally. (Actually, we did meet once at a child-birth
class at the YMCA, but I don't know if you remember that.) Eliot
Levinthal forwarded me a copy of the above proposal. I was interested
in it and wondered if we might meet sometime next week to discuss it
and your other current research. My group manager, Jean Bonney, will
be here from Maynard, and she would like to talk to you, too. We are
free on Thurs. Jan 12 from 3:00-5:00, and on Friday Jan. 13 from
11:30-3:00. Would it be possible to meet with you during that time?
regards,
Ira
-------
∂05-Jan-89 1734 darden@mimsy.umd.edu conference plans
Received: from mimsy.umd.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 17:34:52 PST
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.58/4.7)
id AA10093; Thu, 5 Jan 89 20:32:06 EST
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 89 20:32:06 EST
From: Prof. Lindley Darden <darden@mimsy.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8901060132.AA10093@mimsy.umd.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: conference plans
Hi John,
I am arriving tomorrow (Friday, Jan 6), if the predicted snow storm
doesn't create complications. I'm staying at the Stanford Terrace Inn.
Tomorrow I have to get together with my collaborators from Ohio State
to coordinate the details at the end of my talk about what has been
implemented. So, I think I am tied up on Friday afternoon and evening.
The meeting starts at 9:00 am on Saturday. My talk is at 1:30, right
after lunch! I hope somebody is awake! There is a "tentative" banquet
scheduled for Saturday, and the conference continues on Sunday from
9-5. Two full days! It is called "Symposium on Computational
Models of Scientific Discovery"; will meet in the Stanford Center
for Educational Research; is being organized by Pat Langley and
Jeff Shrager (from PARC).
I hope I will have a chance to see you. If you have any time,
please leave a msg at the Inn--857-0333.
Take care,
Bye, Lindley
∂05-Jan-89 1736 darden@mimsy.umd.edu p.s.
Received: from mimsy.umd.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 17:36:40 PST
Received: by mimsy.umd.edu (5.58/4.7)
id AA10110; Thu, 5 Jan 89 20:34:03 EST
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 89 20:34:03 EST
From: Prof. Lindley Darden <darden@mimsy.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8901060134.AA10110@mimsy.umd.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: p.s.
oh, I should have said that I am staying at the Inn through Sunday
night, so a breakfast on Monday would be possible. Sometime Monday
morning friends of mine from Pacifica are picking me up and I'm staying
over with them on Monday night, before leaving on Tuesday.
L.D.
∂05-Jan-89 1914 Mailer re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
Received: from uwavm.acs.washington.edu (oly.acs.washington.edu) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 19:14:00 PST
Received: from Tomobiki-Cho.acs.washington.edu by uwavm.acs.washington.edu ; Thu, 05 Jan 89 19:11:40 PST
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1989 18:52:14 PST
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
cc: mrc@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, su-etc@sail.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: <lxsIZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <MS-C.600058334.1147902781.mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
JMC suggests that "the Soviet people would [not] vote for a capitalist
democracy" because they do not "consider...change sufficiently possible." Can
I construe to mean that if the USSR held a plebiscite and the people voted to
retain Communism, the results should be rejected?
I suspect that the regime in the USSR is generally popular. The regime
is responsible for immense improvements in the quality of life in Russia, and
has pursued a highly successful imperialist foreign policy (always a good way
to win domestic support). Except for outspoken dissidents, the government is
generally encountered only in terms of the occasional annoyance (the way all
governments are ultimately seen by their citizens) -- and so is seen at worst
as a necessary (and tolerable) evil.
This doesn't say anything about how "good" or "evil" the Soviet regime
is. The Nazi regime in Germany was perhaps the most popular government in
history with its citizens...until German cities started turning to rubble.
The fact that the Soviet Union has private businesses and a vocal
opposition only backs up what I've been saying -- there are a large number of
pressure valves in Soviet society that by and large keep the people content.
Before the relaxation, there was still back-door business (AND bribery).
People found a way to get what they wanted.
JMC challenges me to name a "communist regime" that is not a dicatorship.
Since the Right insists upon labelling Nicaragua and Zimbabwe as "communist
regimes", I offer them as counter-examples. Neither fits the classical
definition of a dictatorship, even though the ruling parties in both countries
do have tendencies in that direction.
Although Cuba does not allow freedome of emigration, it remains
relatively easy to emigrate from Cuba illegally. In general, it's the US
which is more distressed by this relative ease.
-- Mark --
-------
∂06-Jan-89 0118 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 6 January 1989
Previous Balance 20.40
Monthly Interest at 1.0% 0.20
Current Charges 4.00 (bicycle lockers)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 24.60
PAYMENT DELIVERY LOCATION: CSD Receptionist.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
Please deliver payments to the Computer Science Dept receptionist, Jacks Hall.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your PONY ACCOUNT NAME on your check.
Note: The recording of a payment takes up to three weeks after the payment is
made, but never beyond the next billing date. Please allow for this delay.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.0% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
An account with a credit balance earns interest of .33% per month,
based on the average daily balance.
Your last Pony payment was recorded on 7/12/88.
Accounts with balances remaining unpaid for more than 55 days are
considered delinquent and are subject to reduction of credit limit.
Please pay your bill and keep your account current.
∂06-Jan-89 0741 JK
∂05-Jan-89 1712 JMC re: Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal
To: M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
CC: JK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, AIR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 5 Jan 89 17:07:36-PST.]
I should be able to make one of these times. Let me ask my colleagues
Jussi Ketonen and Arkady Rabinov about their possibilities.
-----------------------
Both of these times are open for now. Let me know which one you decide on.
By the way, Freedman's office at Dartmouth promised to send me the
entire speech.
∂06-Jan-89 1123 HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jan 89 11:23:00 PST
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 11:22:55 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Joyce Kiefer" <HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
TO VTSS FACULTY & STUDENTS
By now you have received a note from Professor Jim Adams, describing
three VTSS field trips designed to "view technology up close and
personal". The first trip will be this coming Friday the 13th (!)
when we will go to the Woodside ranch of Jacques Littlefield to see
and play with his fire engine, calliope, tanks and other mechanical
treats. Jim says we'll conclude the afternoon with a "splash of
wine and a bit of conversation".
Here are the details for Friday:
1:15 p.m. Meet at the VTSS Office, Bldg. 370, Rm. 372
1:45 p.m. Arrive at Pony Tracks Ranch (home of Jacques
Littlefield).
4:30 p.m. Depart for Stanford
RSVP as soon as possible, as time is getting short!
To: J McCarthy(JMC@SAIL)
∂06-Jan-89 1638 MPS Late Monday
To: JMC
CC: RWF, CLT, VAL
I have to take my son to the airport on Monday. He
has a 3-month sabbatical and is spending it in South
America. I should be in around noon time.
Pat
∂07-Jan-89 0946 CLT tomorrow
I now have your cold and Timothy was rather stuffed up
when he woke up. Perhaps Susie won't want to expose
Joseph and Katherine.
∂08-Jan-89 0813 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu Re: responses to a few comments
Received: from CAD.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Jan 89 08:12:57 PST
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1989 11:11:19 EST
From: Rich Thomason <thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: responses to a few comments
In-Reply-To: Your message of 07 Jan 89 1639 PST
Message-ID: <CMM.0.88.600279079.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
I had tried to give comments in a way that would get the job done --
this is the right order to do things in. I hadn't expected the major
comments to have much of an effect on the paper. They are things to think
about, not even necessarily to agree with.
This seems to be going well.
--Rich
∂09-Jan-89 0400 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu Re: paper
Received: from CAD.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jan 89 04:00:48 PST
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1989 6:58:53 EST
From: Rich Thomason <thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: paper
In-Reply-To: Your message of 09 Jan 89 0224 PST
Message-ID: <CMM.0.88.600350333.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
If it's no trouble, could you send the present version?
Thanks,
--Rich
∂09-Jan-89 1047 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
ON THE RELATION BETWEEN AUTOEPISTEMIC LOGIC AND CIRCUMSCRIPTION
Kurt Konolige
Center for the Study of Language and Information
SRI International
Friday, January 13, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Circumscription on the one hand and autoepistemic and default logics on
the other seem to have quite different characteristics as formal
systems, which makes it difficult to compare them as formalizations of
defeasible commonsense reasoning. In this talk we accomplish two
tasks: (1) we extend the original semantics of autoepistemic logic to a
language which includes variables quantified into the context of the
autoepistemic operator, and (2) we show that a certain class of
autoepistemic theories in the extended language has a minimal-model
semantics corresponding to circumscription. We conclude that all of the
first-order consequences of parallel predicate circumscription can be
obtained from this class of autoepistemic theories. The correspondence
we construct also sheds light on the problematic treatment of equality
in circumscription.
∂09-Jan-89 1155 VAL ablex
They are making their move--the copy-edited manuscript is being mailed to us!
∂09-Jan-89 1307 rpg@lucid.com Parallel Lisp Workshop Update
Received: from lucid.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jan 89 13:06:53 PST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA00914g; Mon, 9 Jan 89 13:02:47 PST
Received: by challenger id AA16763g; Mon, 9 Jan 89 12:58:17 PST
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 12:58:17 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8901092058.AA16763@challenger>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, jsw@sail.stanford.edu, arg@challenger,
rhh@ai.ai.mit.edu, ran@vx.lcs.mit.edu, tk@ai.ai.mit.edu,
Kessler@cs.utah.edu, pierson@multimax.arpa, kranz@wheaties.ai.mit.edu,
ran@VX.LCS.MIT.EDU, jmiller@cs.brandeis.edu, katz@polya.stanford.edu,
ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Subject: Parallel Lisp Workshop Update
What follows is the current information on the First US/Japan Workshop
on Parallel Lisp:
The First US/Japan Workshop on Parallel Lisp is planned on June 5, 6,
7 and 8,1989 at Aoba Memorial Building, School of Engineering, Tohoku
University. Professor Ito has reserved a conference room and several
meeting rooms at Aoba Memorial, and he talked with Sendai-Tokyu Hotel
and Sendai-Washington Hotel about their discount prices.
In order to fix the reservation I like to know who plans to attend as
early as possible. The hotel prices are about 9,000 Yens/day for a
single room at Sendai-Tokyu Hotel and about 7,000 Yens/day for a
single room at Sendai-Washington Hotel. We can get a larger discount
if we let them know early who will be staying.
Also, I like to know who needs financial support to stay at Sendai and
who needs travel support in Japan. Professor Ito will be able to
partially support University people, but he must must prepare several
documents for Tohoku University. He will be able to support
accomodations in Sendai and train fare between Tokyo and Sendai for 5
University people, but not travel between US and Japan.
One reception and one Banquet will be supported by Professor Ito, and
possibly also a bus tour on June 8.
The tentative plan is:
Opening to introduce Participants and 8 talks on June 5 (Mon)
9 talks on June 6 (Tuesday)
7 talks and Panel on June 7 (Wednesday)
Bus tour on June 8 (Thursday)
Reception on Monday Evening
Banquet on Tuesday Evening
Dinner on Thursday Evening
On June 9 Professor Ito would like to plan the following:
Demonstration by Participants at my laboratory
Several Public Lectures on Friday Afternoon
The following is my list of possible attendees, their affiliations, and
what they plan to talk about. Please try to firm up your plans as
soon as possible, but no later than January 27.
*************************************************************************
Name: Bert Halstead
Title:
Affiliation: DEC Cambridge Research Lab)
Attendance: funding question, but plans to attend.
Abstract:
I will give an overview of the Multilisp project (including the Mul-T
compiled parallel Lisp system that we've built recently), indicating
the principal results that we have discovered, the principal
directions that we now think should be pursued (two of the major ones
are processor architecture for Multilisp and support for speculative
parallelism), and what we're currently doing about pursuing those
directions.
******************************
Name: Randy Osborn
Title: ???
Affiliation: ???
Attendance: funding question
Abstract:
I will talk about speculative computation in Multilisp. I will to
present a model for speculative computation, discuss an implementation
of this model, and relate the experiences I've gained with speculative
computation.
******************************
Name: David Krantz
Title: ???
Affiliation: ???
Attendance: funding question
Abstract: David will discuss the Mul-T compiled parallel Lisp system.
******************************
Name: James Miller
Title: Professor
Affiliation: Brandeis University
Attendance: will attend
Abstract:
I have two research projects in process and would be happy to present
a short talk on either or both. The first is joint with Don Allen (of
BBN ACI) and Bill Rozas (MIT). This is a detailed study of the
performance of the Butterfly Lisp/Scheme garbage collector -- a
two-space stop-and-copy collector which operates in parallel on all
processors. A good deal of tuning has been done on this version and
we are curious about where the time is actually being spent,
contention on the Butterfly network, etc.
The other piece of work is being done with a graduate student named
Marc Feeley. He has written a stand-alone Scheme compiler that is
producing high-quality code for both the 68020 and the proposed BBN
Monarch parallel processor.
******************************
Name: Tom Knight
Title: Professor
Affiliation: MIT
Attendance: ???
Abstract: Tom will discuss the Liquid Architecture
******************************
Name: Dan Pierson
Title: ???
Affiliation: Encore Computers
Attendance: funding question
Abstract: ???
******************************
Name: Joseph Weening
Title: Research Associate (currently graduate student)
Affiliation: Stanford University
Attendance: will probably go
Abstract: Joe will discuss process scheduling in Qlisp.
******************************
Name: John McCarthy
Title: Professor
Affiliation: Stanford University
Attendance: will go
Abstract: John will talk about parallel Lisp
******************************
Name: Bob Kessler
Title: Research Professor (?)
Affiliation: University of Utah
Attendance: funding question
Abstract:
I will talk about our latest work. We are currently developing what
we are calling Concurrent Scheme (CS) for the Mayfly parallel
processor. Mayfly is the second generation of Al Davis's FAIM system,
a message-passing architecture, using three HP RISC processors within
each logical processing node. Concurrent Scheme is essentially R3RS
with a few restrictions and a set of new parallel programming
constructs.
We have CS running in uni-processor mode on HP Bobcat's, and are
currently developing the operating system-like kernel for the Mayfly.
We will also port CS to the Butterfly to test CS while we are waiting
for hardware. A 2 node Mayfly is to be delivered to us in February
and a 19 node version a few months later. I should be able to report
on our first implementation, timing comparisions, etc.
******************************
Name: Morry Katz
Title: Graduate student
Affiliation: Stanford University
Attendance: major funding question
Abstract:
I can give a talk on either my ParaTran research (see L&FP) or the
problems in the interaction of futures and first class continuations,
or both.
******************************
Name: Ron Goldman
Title: Senior Scientist
Affiliation: Lucid, Inc.
Attendance: will go
Abstract:
Qlisp, a dialect of Common Lisp, has been proposed as a
multiprocessing programming language which is suitable for studying
the styles of parallel programming at the medium-grain level. An
initial version of Qlisp has been implemented on a multiprocessor and
a number of experiments with it conducted. I will describe the
implementation and report on some of the experiments.
******************************
Name: Richard P. Gabriel
Title: Consulting Associate Professor, Chief Technical Officer
Affiliation: Stanford University, Lucid, Inc.
Attendance: will go
Abstract:
One of the major problems in converting serial programs to take
advantage of parallel processing has been the lack of a good
multiprocessing language---one which is both powerful and
understandable to programmers. I will describe multiprocessing
extensions to Common Lisp designed to be suitable for studying styles
of parallel programming at the medium-grain level in a shared-memory
architecture. The resulting language is called Qlisp.
A problem with parallel programming is the degree to which the
programmer must explicitly address synchronization problems. Three
new approaches to this problem look promising: the first is the
concept of heavyweight futures, the second is a new type of function
called a partially, multiply invoked function, and the third is an
object-oriented approach called process environments.
*******************************************************************
-rpg-
∂09-Jan-89 1759 amy@Popserver.Stanford.Edu sitn update
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jan 89 17:58:56 PST
Received: from amy@Popserver.Stanford.Edu (36.10.0.89) by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Mon, 9 Jan 89 17:54:24 PST
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 17:54:24 PST
From: amy@Popserver.Stanford.Edu
To: ag@amadeus, BBL@star, binford@whitney, bracewell@star, cleron@score,
daniel@mojave, dill@score, drmac@sierra, ejm@sierra, feigenbaum@sumex,
ferziger@score, franklin@isl, genesereth@sumex, goodman@isl, gray@isl,
guibas@navajo, jmc@sail, kroo@ames-aero, latombe@whitney,
linvill@sierra, M.matheson@macbeth, M@sierra, mitchell@score,
moin@score, nanni@mojave, nix@sierra, pantell@sierra, plummer@sierra,
pmbanks@star, reges@score, reid@score, Reynolds@score, rwf@sail,
spicer@sierra, VVA@isl, w.wlewis@macbeth, wooley@presto
Cc:
Subject: sitn update
Happy New Year and welcome back! We are pleased to be televising your
class this quarter on the Stanford Instructional Television Network.
We have had a recent technical upgrade which the network would like you
to know about. We now have new smaller microphones. These simply clip onto
your tie or shirt and the small power adapter fastens onto your belt. These
microphones look better on television than the larger lavalier microphones
which fastened around the neck.
As we continue to enhance and extend SITN's technical and support
systems, we are encouraging faculty input regarding your in-class
presentation needs.A faculty advisory committee is being established to
address these needs on an ongoing basis.
We are committed to providing you with high quality technical and
teaching support. Please feel free to call me (5-3005) with any suggestions
you have regarding teaching on SITN this quarter.
Sincerely,
Amy Klitsner
Studio Operations Coordinator
∂09-Jan-89 2147 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of November computer charges.
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jan 89 21:47:29 PST
Date: Mon 9 Jan 89 21:37:55-PST
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of November computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12461338701.9.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for November.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA807T 100 272.44 15.85 ***.** 12.80 5.00 2284.54
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA807T 100 .12 .00 30.47 .00 5.00 35.59
jmc LABREA 2-DMA807T 100 .00 .00 105.90 .00 5.00 110.90
Total: 272.56 15.85 ***.** 12.80 15.00 2431.03
University budget accounts billed above include the following.
Account Principal Investigator Title
2-DMA807 McCarthy N00039-84-C-0211
The preceding statement is a condensed version of the detailed summary sheet
sent monthly to your department.
Please verify each month that the proper university budget accounts are paying
for your computer usage. Please also check the list of account numbers below
the numeric totals. If the organizations/people associated with that account
number should NOT be paying for your computer time, send mail to BEDIT@SCORE.
Please direct questions/comments to BEDIT@SCORE.
-------
∂09-Jan-89 2213 harnad@Princeton.EDU Against the Romantic View of categorization
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jan 89 22:13:39 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/1.93)
id AA05779; Tue, 10 Jan 89 01:09:10 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.68)
id AA03341; Tue, 10 Jan 89 01:08:34 EST
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 01:08:34 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8901100608.AA03341@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: lakoff@cogsci.berkeley.edu
Subject: Against the Romantic View of categorization
To: George Lakoff, Berkeley
George: I've just posted this message to comp.ai in response to
the discussion of categorization that's been going on there
for a few weeks. Cheers, Stevan
-----
I'd like to take the discussion of the "classical" [vs. the
"quantum"?] view of categories back a few steps to the original
question:
markh@@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) of the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee wrote:
" [Lakoff/Rosch's] kind of argument does not rule out the Classical view,
" because the predicate: (A and B) or (B and C) or (C and A) *IS* a
" necessary and sufficient condition for membership in such a class.
" Forgetting about that magical word "or" is Lakoff's mistake.
I think this original observation was quite correct, and the rest of
the discussion diverged into red herrings and irrelevancies. The
supposed argument against the so-called "classical view" is this:
The classical view is wrong because (1) people do not use
necessary/sufficient conditions to recognize categories and (2)
necessary/sufficient conditions for categories do not exist.
The evidence for (1) consisted of psychological experiments in which
the dependent variable was (a) judgments of category goodness-of-fit,
(b) reaction time, and (c) introspections about the features underlying
categories. The data suggested that subjects (a') found some members more
typical of a category than others, (b') took a longer time to categorize
the less typical members, and (c') could not come up with necessary and
sufficient conditions for the membership by introspection.
The evidence for (2) consisted of (c') (the lack of introspective
conditions) plus (d) the fact that some categories indeed lack
necessary and sufficient conditions, either because membership is by
nature and by definition not all-or-none (as in the category "big"
vs "small") or because the boundary between membership and
nonmembership is graded, fuzzy, approximate, arbitrary, unknown, or
unknowable (as with "living" vs. "nonliving").
What should be apparent from this summary is that none of the
conclusions were based on examining categorization itself -- i.e., our
ability to categorize an X as an X and a non-X as a non-X for all
those X's with which we can demonstrably do this in a reliable,
successful, all-or-none fashion. Instead, the conclusions were based on
typicality judgments and reaction time, and these were indeed found to
be graded, unlike the membership judgments themselves, which were, of
course, all-or-none. With experimenters and subjects then all suitably
flabbergasted that not only was typicality graded, but no one could
think of necessary and sufficient conditions, it was concluded that the
underlying representations for categories must prototypes, exemplars,
"family resemblances" or what have you, with graded degrees of
membership governed by closeness to a prototype rather than all-or-none
membership governed by necessary/sufficient conditions. A good enough
illustration of this came in this very discussion, where
bondc@@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Clay M Bond) of Indiana University CSCI,
Bloomington wrote:
" [My students] began the discussion [of the properties of cups vs
" glasses] thinking not only that the "Classical" system was correct, but
" also by logical extension, the more defining properties they gave, the
" more discrete and well-defined the categories would be. They left the
" classroom realizing that the categories were anything but discrete, and
" that the more properties they listed, the less discrete the categories
" became.
rwojcik@@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) added:
" [Lakoff's] thinking is strongly influenced by Rosch's psychological
" theory of prototypes. Classical categorization does not explain
" prototype effects--the impression that some entities belong more
" strongly to a category than other entities do... you need some metric
" for calculating prototype effects off of such formulas... some
" properties are more central than others to a category... it is now
" thought biologically possible to grow babies in males. Would
" such a male parent be considered the 'mother'?
The problem is that this kind of research and this kind of conclusion
simply changes the subject: Instead of trying to find (C) the
representation that will allow us to perform X/non-X categorization
in the myriad cases where we can indeed do it in a reliable, all-or-none
fashion, it turns instead to (T) judgments of typicality and to
introspections about how we categorize, and then offers T as if it
were the mechanism for C, whereas T simply PRESUPPOSES a mechanism for
C, without specifying it or even realizing that the question has been
begged! Worse yet, a T-mechanism is put forward as a C-mechanism, a
job it certainly can't do!
To put it simply: The problem of categorization and its underlying
representation is the problem of how categorizers like us are able to
do what we can do, which includes an enormous core of successful,
reliable, correct, all-or-none categorizations as well as a large
number of categorizations that are graded to various degrees. I don't
categorize a penguin as a bird "to a degree" -- it's a bird, all the
way, and I get it right every time. I do find it a less typical bird
than a robin. And if I introspect about HOW I manage to categorize it
as a bird, I probably can't come up with a set of features that are
necessary and sufficient to do so. But SOMETHING up there manages to
do it in my head, and it's then my job, not as introspector but as
empirical theorist, to try to come up with models for how that can be
done. One thing is sure: in all the cases where categorizers are
demonstrably able to categorize their input in a reliable, correct
all-or-none fashion, there NECESSARILY exists a set of features in the input
that is jointly SUFFICIENT to generate the successful performance, and
the internal mechanism will certainly detect and represent these, though
not necessarily in a consciously accessible way. (As to "necessity":
empirical science does not really specialize in this; psychology
cannot really hope to discover or stipulate what is necessary for
something to BE an X -- just what is sufficient to reliably detect it
as an X, when it is indeed detectable.)
Now let's move on to the last red herring: Disjunctive features.
zhang@@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jiajie Zhang) of Institute for Cognitive
Science, UC San Diego wrote:
" Yes, the predicate (A and B)or(B and C)or(C and A) is a necessary and
" sufficient CONDITION of the ABC class you gave, but it is NOT a
" necessary and sufficient FEATURE of that class. You confused CONDITION
" with FEATURE. Thus the predicate you gave is not relevant to the
" problem of categorization... the example you gave is a disjunctive
" concept and its existence is a powerful argument used by people against
" the classical view, because the second assumption of the classical view
" excludes any disjunctive concept in classical categories. Disjunctive
" concepts can be accounted for by some alternative views of
" categorization such as probabilistic (or prototypic) view and exemplar
" view, but these two views are also under criticism (Medin & Smith)
What is a feature? Is being curved a feature? What about not being
straight? Or not being curved? Or being straight or curved? Would a
feature detector that looked for an even number of limbs be detecting
a feature? How about an uneven number of limbs? Or a prime or uneven
number of limbs? It should be apparent that in any nonarbitrary
definition of "feature" (which, by the way, cannot be made
independently of an implicit notion of a feature detector) any
invariant property of an object, be it monadic, polyadic, relational,
negative, conditional, or disjunctive qualifies as a feature. A feature
is a detectable state of affairs, describable by a predicate; and some
states of affairs are described by disjunctions, negations,
conditionals, relational statements (or even quantitative statements of
degree -- with or without a reliable all-or-none threshold feature).
So I don't know who is the original owner of the "classical view," but
whoever excluded disjunctions of features did so completely
arbitrarily from the standpoint of any theory of categorization. Yet
even prohibiting disjunctive features does not move us toward graded
theories (except in cases where category membership is demonstrably
graded too, as indicated by graded categorization judgments -- NOT
graded typicality judgments). The ongoing rounds of criticism and
counter-criticism that have been set off by the Roschian research (to
which Zhang alludes at the end of the passage I quoted) are, in my
view, simply symptoms of the incoherence of the views that set this
whole bandwagon rolling in the first place. (For an alternative
approach to categorization, see "Categorical Perception: The Groundwork
of Cognition," Cambridge University Press 1987, S. Harnad, Ed.)
∂10-Jan-89 0100 JMC
Arnold Spector
∂10-Jan-89 0933 JK dartmouth
I got Freedman's convocation talk (sept 19 1988). No trace of
silliness in it.
∂10-Jan-89 1019 JK
∂10-Jan-89 0940 JMC re: dartmouth
[In reply to message rcvd 10-Jan-89 09:33-PT.]
That leaves two alternatives.
(1) The conservative source, probably Dartmouth Review distorted matters.
(2) As often happens, the written version differs from the oral.
You should inform su-etc.
----------------------
Probably more appropriate that you did; I'll give Pat
the copy of the speech. It's one of those speeches by A University President
that Don Kennedy, for example, grinds out by the dozen.
Too bad. The credibility of conservatives suffers when there
does not seem to be evidence. Maybe your newsletter knows where
it got it.
∂10-Jan-89 1022 Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu Jan 28th meeting
Received: from FAS.RI.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jan 89 10:22:36 PST
Date: Tuesday, 10 January 1989 13:20:20 EST
From: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu
To: mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Jan 28th meeting
Message-ID: <1989.1.10.18.18.40.Raj.Reddy@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU>
Forwarding your mail message to the correct address.
- - - - Begin forwarded message - - - -
Date: Tuesday, 10 January 1989 12:36:21 EST
From: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu
To: simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu, newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu,
nilsson@score.stanford.edu, mccarthy@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu, browne@cs.utexas.edu,
phw%mit-oz@ai.ai.mit.edu, bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com,
hart@kl.sri.com, buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu, davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
cc: mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: January 28th meeting
Message-ID: <1989.1.10.17.30.55.Raj.Reddy@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU>
Friends,
Plans for the strategic planning meeting for the weekend of Jan 28th
are beginning to take shape. Claudia Mazzetti will be sending you
information on the arrangements.
The goal of the meeting is:
1. To create a list of National Research Initiatives
2. To develop a strategy for promoting them in Washington
3. To discuss whether we should send a "Mr. President"
letter.
I would like to request each of you to send me your favorite list of
new research initiatives which you would like us to discuss at the
28th meeting. I will collate all of these and mail them to all of
you before the meeting.
Please feel free to send me any comments you may have on the other
two items also.
Best Regards,
Raj Reddy
- - - - End forwarded message - - - -
∂10-Jan-89 1052 JK edi
The letter from deputy assistant secretary Mittino refers to a plan of
action; do you have a copy of it?
∂10-Jan-89 1105 winograd@loire.stanford.edu Course on ethics and social responsibility
Received: from loire.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jan 89 11:05:26 PST
Received: by loire.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA06587; Tue, 10 Jan 89 11:03:27 PDT
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 11:03:27 PDT
Message-Id: <8901101903.AA06587@loire.stanford.edu>
From: Winograd@csli.stanford.edu
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Course on ethics and social responsibility
The following describes what we are doing, and what you could provide. I
am also putting a packet in your box of readings on other such courses.
How about Monday Jan 23rd or Feb 6. --t
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEMINAR ON COMPUTERS, ETHICS, and SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Winter Quarter 1988-89
Helen Nissenbaum and Terry Winograd
Mondays 1:15-3:15 -- FIRST MEETING JANUARY 9
Margaret Jacks Hall Room 460-252
During the coming quarter we will be holding a weekly seminar on the
teaching of ethics and social responsibility topics to computer science
students. The major focus will be on the preparation of an
undergraduate course which will be offered beginning this Spring by
Computer Science, Symbolic Systems and VTSS. The development of that
course is being sponsored by a special grant from the Dean of
Undergraduate Studies and by the CS Department and Symbolic Systems
Program. The seminar this quarter will serve both a workshop for
putting together the undergraduate course and as a forum for discussion
of the underlying issues.
In a recent VTSS forum, John McCarthy argued that when technologists
attempt to consider the social and ethical implications of their work,
the material they cover tends to be a matter of fashion, the discussion
ignorant, and the direction politically motivated. This pessimism is
shared by many of our colleagues and students. It may be difficult to
get beyond it, but it is not impossible. The challenge in both the
seminar and the subsequent course is to provide students with skills
and background that will prepare them to consider important and
enduring questions, with informed intelligence, and with a direction
that is political not in the narrow sense of limited ideologies, but in
the broad sense of being concerned with the good of society.
Part of the work will include reading and reporting on available
materials, designing reading sequences, projects and lessons, and
preparing bibliographies. Sessions will presentation by an outside
speaker, with discussion by the participants.
Students interested in participating for credit will be able to sign up
for CS399 (Independent Project). There are also some TA funds
available for students who will take on independent responsibility for
some of the work of organizing for the Spring course.
For more information contact Terry Winograd (winograd@csli.stanford.edu
-- 3-2780) or Helen Nissenbaum (helen@csli.stanford.edu -- 3-4091).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My thinking on speakers was to start them with the following questions:
What should the main goals be in a course on social responsibility
and ethics for computer science students?
What are effective ways to stimulate their thinking and
understanding?
What would it take to make you judge that the course was successful?
With a secondary emphasis on
What topics should be covered?
What materials do you know of that might be useful?
------------------------------------------------------------
--t
∂10-Jan-89 1149 eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu [Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu : January 28th meeting ]
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jan 89 11:45:57 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA05029; Tue, 10 Jan 89 11:45:47 PST
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1989 11:45:44 PST
From: Edward A. Feigenbaum <eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: [Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu : January 28th meeting ]
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.600464744.eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Return-Path: <Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu>
Received: from FAS.RI.CMU.EDU by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA00607; Tue, 10 Jan 89 09:39:35 PST
Date: Tuesday, 10 January 1989 12:36:21 EST
From: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu
To: simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu, newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu,
nilsson@score.stanford.edu, mccarthy@cs.utexas.edu,
amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu, browne@cs.utexas.edu,
phw%mit-oz@ai.ai.mit.edu, bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com,
hart@kl.sri.com, buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu,
davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
Cc: mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: January 28th meeting
Message-Id: <1989.1.10.17.30.55.Raj.Reddy@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU>
Friends,
Plans for the strategic planning meeting for the weekend of Jan 28th
are beginning to take shape. Claudia Mazzetti will be sending you
information on the arrangements.
The goal of the meeting is:
1. To create a list of National Research Initiatives
2. To develop a strategy for promoting them in Washington
3. To discuss whether we should send a "Mr. President"
letter.
I would like to request each of you to send me your favorite list of
new research initiatives which you would like us to discuss at the
28th meeting. I will collate all of these and mail them to all of
you before the meeting.
Please feel free to send me any comments you may have on the other
two items also.
Best Regards,
Raj Reddy
∂10-Jan-89 1145 eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu [ MAILER-DAEMON@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem:
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jan 89 11:45:30 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA04998; Tue, 10 Jan 89 11:45:24 PST
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1989 11:45:20 PST
From: Edward A. Feigenbaum <eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: [ MAILER-DAEMON@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem:
Returned mail: User unknown ]
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.600464720.eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Return-Path: <MAILER-DAEMON@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AB04747; Tue, 10 Jan 89 11:39:56 PST
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 11:39:56 PST
From: MAILER-DAEMON@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Full-Name: Mail Delivery Subsystem
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Message-Id: <8901101939.AB04747@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
----- Transcript of session follows -----
Connected to cs.utexas.edu:
>>> RCPT To:<mccarthy@cs.utexas.edu>
<<< 550 <mccarthy@cs.utexas.edu>... User unknown: Inappropriate ioctl for device
550 mccarthy@cs.utexas.edu... User unknown
421 kl.sri.com: Host kl.sri.com is down, will keep trying for 3 days
----- Unsent message follows -----
Return-Path: <eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA04744; Tue, 10 Jan 89 11:39:56 PST
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1989 11:39:55 PST
From: Edward A. Feigenbaum <eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Cc: simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu, newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu,
nilsson@score.stanford.edu, mccarthy@cs.utexas.edu,
amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu, browne@cs.utexas.edu,
phw%mit-oz@ai.ai.mit.edu, bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com,
hart@kl.sri.com, buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu,
davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu, mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: January 28th meeting
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tuesday, 10 January 1989 12:36:21 EST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.600464395.eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Raj, will you please send to us all the SCHEDULE for the meeting.
Does it start on Friday evening? For dinner? What time?
Ed
∂11-Jan-89 1435 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Phone Call from Pat Simmons
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Jan 89 12:38:54 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA18567; Wed, 11 Jan 89 08:57:46 PDT
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1989 8:57:27 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Phone Call from Pat Simmons
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.600541047.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Pat just called and asked me to send you a message infoming you that she will
not be in today. She isn't feeling well.
∂11-Jan-89 1436 mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu [ MAILER-DAEMON@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem:
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Jan 89 12:39:20 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA28785; Wed, 11 Jan 89 10:15:10 PST
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1989 10:15:09 PST
From: Claudia Mazzetti <mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: [ MAILER-DAEMON@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem:
Returned mail: Host unknown ]
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.600545709.mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Return-Path: <MAILER-DAEMON@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AB27566; Wed, 11 Jan 89 09:36:06 PST
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 09:36:06 PST
From: MAILER-DAEMON@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Full-Name: Mail Delivery Subsystem
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
Message-Id: <8901111736.AB27566@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
----- Transcript of session follows -----
Connected to cs.utexas.edu:
>>> RCPT To:<mccarthy@cs.utexas.edu>
<<< 550 <mccarthy@cs.utexas.edu>... User unknown: Inappropriate ioctl for device
550 mccarthy@cs.utexas.edu... User unknown
421 Host cs.utexasa.edu not found for mailer tcp.
550 bledsoe@cs.utexasa.edu... Host unknown
----- Unsent message follows -----
Return-Path: <mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA27564; Wed, 11 Jan 89 09:36:06 PST
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1989 9:36:05 PST
From: Claudia Mazzetti <mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu, simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu, newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu,
nilsson@score.stanford.edu, mccarthy@cs.utexas.edu,
amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu, browne@cs.utexas.edu,
bledsoe@cs.utexasa.edu, bobrow@xerox.com, hart@kl.sri.com,
buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu, davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
Cc: mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Saturday and Sunday, Jan 28 and 29, 1989
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.600543366.mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
I thought I would review the schedule for our weekend meeting.
Friday, Jan 27 EAST COAST ARRIVALS; NO DINNER OR RECEPTION IS PLANNED
Saturday, Jan 28
9:00 am Meeting begins in the Conference Room at the Knowledge Systems
Lab in Palo Alto. KSL's address is 701 Welch Rd, Bldg C.
The Conference Room has an outside entrance. As you approach
Building C, you will notice a sign for KSL. Rather than going
up the stairs to enter the main lobby of the lab, please go
down the stairs to the ground level and walk straight ahead.
If you need directions to the lab, give me a ring (415-328-3123
or at home, 415-941-3010)
12:00 pm Lunch break - lunch will be served in the meeting room.
5:30 pm Closure for the day
6:00-7:00 pm Reception in Room 100 at the Stanford Park Hotel
(please invite your spouse or friend to attend)
Sunday, Jan 29
9:00 am Meeting continues in the KSL Conference Room
noon Meeting ends
I have not reserved any block of hotel rooms because I'm assuming that you
can manage your own.
AAAI will reimburse you for your plane and lodgings. Just send me your
receipts after the meeting. If there is still time, please take
advantage of the super saver rates.
See you on the 28th!
Claudia
∂11-Jan-89 2313 M.MACHEFSKY@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU [Ira Machefsky <M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>: Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal]
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Jan 89 23:13:21 PST
Date: Wed 11 Jan 89 23:10:46-PST
From: Ira Machefsky <M.MACHEFSKY@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: [Ira Machefsky <M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>: Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal]
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12461879891.28.M.MACHEFSKY@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
John,
The 20's at LOTS seem to have had some disk problems, so I don't know if
you ever got back to me with a final time for a meeting. If your colleagues
can't make it, we'll also settle for just you. Please let me know.
Regards,
Ira
---------------
Mail-From: M.MACHEFSKY created at 5-Jan-89 17:07:36
Date: Thu 5 Jan 89 17:07:36-PST
From: Ira Machefsky <M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: m.machefsky@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12460240914.77.M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
John,
I work for DEC's External Research Program (ERP). Although I have
resided on campus for several years, I've never had the opportunity to
meet you professionally. (Actually, we did meet once at a child-birth
class at the YMCA, but I don't know if you remember that.) Eliot
Levinthal forwarded me a copy of the above proposal. I was interested
in it and wondered if we might meet sometime next week to discuss it
and your other current research. My group manager, Jean Bonney, will
be here from Maynard, and she would like to talk to you, too. We are
free on Thurs. Jan 12 from 3:00-5:00, and on Friday Jan. 13 from
11:30-3:00. Would it be possible to meet with you during that time?
regards,
Ira
-------
-------
∂12-Jan-89 1212 air@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU epistemic proposal to Air Force
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jan 89 12:12:47 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02879; Thu, 12 Jan 89 12:09:44 PST
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 12:09:44 PST
From: Arkady Rabinov <air@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901122009.AA02879@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: epistemic proposal to Air Force
Unfortunately, last Friday was a deadline.
Arkady
∂12-Jan-89 1323 M.MACHEFSKY@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Re: meeting
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jan 89 13:23:23 PST
Date: Thu 12 Jan 89 13:20:46-PST
From: Ira Machefsky <M.MACHEFSKY@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: meeting
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <v#DPN@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12462034628.32.M.MACHEFSKY@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Ok, we'll see you in MJH 356 at 1:30 tomorrow.
Regards,
Ira
-------
∂12-Jan-89 1355 harnad@Princeton.EDU Categorization update
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jan 89 13:55:04 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/1.93)
id AA28561; Thu, 12 Jan 89 16:50:50 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.68)
id AA06690; Thu, 12 Jan 89 16:46:30 EST
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 16:46:30 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8901122146.AA06690@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: kay@cogsci.berkeley.edu
Subject: Categorization update
From: harnad@confidence
In Article 3140 of comp.ai, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee)
of University of Hawaii asks:
" Why does T presuppose a mechanism for C?
Because to judge how typical an X an X is I must first be able to judge
that it's an X.
" If 40%-X and 89%-X are grades, then so is 100%-X a grade.
" If you have T, C can be described as a special case of it.
40% what? 89% what? If you don't have a 100% category in the first
place for whatever you have a graded quantity of, you have an
incoherent concept or an infinite regress. Suppose gold was, by its
nature, an alloy, i.e., K% lead and (100 - k)% "gold." Now what was
that SECOND stuff I just mentioned? (Once you have C, T can be described
as a special case of it, not vice versa.)
" if a feature is any function whatever of perceptible things in the
" input (past and present), including perhaps disjunctions, weightings,
" etc., then you could say that since someone performed a categorization,
" there must have been some things he noticed, a "feature", that allowed
" him to do so. This empty argument might reasonably be taken to be a
" reductio ad absurdum for allowing anything at all to count as a feature.
On the contrary, I think it's a QED, and one that those who have been
caught up in the Roschian view ought to take a careful look at (when
the categorization is reliable rather than just a lucky guess).
__________
From: Rochel Gelman <Gelman@CIS.UPENN.EDU>
Thanks for posting this missive. Add to the debate the following:
Who said the classical theory requires that the primitives have to be stated
in terms of features. The issue is whether there is a definition that will
encompass the extension of the concept. It is hard to imagine what counts as
features for an odd number. Yet there is a clear definition. Rochel Gelman.
__________
To: Rochel Gelman
Rochel,
Your point about the category "odd number" is valid, but it runs into
what I've dubbed the "Entry Point Problem" for concept representation:
It seems to me that one can't step into a conceptual network at an
arbitrary point and expect the representation of a given concept at
that point to be autonomous, or even representative of the way concepts
are represented in general. Some abstract concepts may indeed be
definition-dependent, and the terms of the definition may themselves be
more such abstract concepts. But unless there is to be an infinite
regress (which I've dubbed the "Chinese-Chinese Dictionary-Go-Round
Problem," in which you're supposed to understand Chinese with nothing
but a Chinese-Chinese dictionary to go by), the buck has to stop
somewhere. I think that that somewhere is concrete concepts, grounded in
perceptual categories (categorical perception). And this is indeed
based on detecting invariant features in the sensory input.
So the concept of odd number may not be based directly on
detecting sensory features, but it must ultimately be based on
concepts that are based on concepts.... that are based directly on
detecting sensory features. (There are of course abstract
necessary/sufficient conditions for being an odd number, as any number
theorist will tell you. What I've dubbed "the symbol grounding problem"
then concerns how such rules defined on symbols can be grounded in
something other than just more symbols.)
Cheers, Stevan
__________
turney@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Jenn Turney) of
Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY wrote:
" Deriving concept membership (categorization) from typicality ratings is
" not automatic. It is entirely possible for something to receive a
" typicality rating for a category without any knowledge about whether it
" actually belongs to the category.
No one said it was automatically derivable. I even denied it was
derivable at all. I said it was simply PRESUPPOSED (taken for granted)
by the typicality theorist that there WERE categories that the
typicality ratings reflected the typicality OF. I also denied that much
can be learned about category representation from typicality ratings;
it's simply a different problem. And of course I agree that there can
be spurious typicality ratings, dissociated from knowledge about
categories. That's why I think I think that typicality ratings are
about as informative about category representation as Osgood's
"semantic differential" is about meaning (and for just about the same
reason)!
" It may still be possible to derive C from typicality ratings...
" Perhaps all instances with typicality ratings higher than 15% are
" members of the category.
"C" referred to how the category was represented in the head. I deny
that you can derive (or infer or reconstruct) this from typicality
ratings. All you can get out of typicality ratings is what goes into
them, and they are not judgments about membership, they are judgments
about "degree of membership." (Perhaps instances with typicality ratings
higher than 15% ARE members of the category; perhaps not. So what?
What we need to know is what the category-detecting representation
that does the correct, reliable, all-or-none categorizing is.)
" As regards the statement that categories are either 100% or incoherent...
No one made such a statement. First, I said that, besides the reliable,
all-or-none categories that we can sort correctly (virtually) 100% of
the time (like bird), there are graded categories too (like big). What
I said was incoherent was the idea that one could derive category
representations (the ones that subserve our all-or-none categorization
performance) from typicality judgments and nearness-to-prototype
notions. The reverse derivation may well be possible, though.
__________
From: Stevan Harnad
reiter@babbage.harvard.edu (Ehud Reiter) of Aiken Computation Lab
Harvard, Cambridge, MA wrote:
" the only reason *I* categorize a penguin as a bird is that I was taught
" this in school. I doubt I would have put penguins in the same category
" as robins if I had made up my own categories... biologists themselves
" are debating what the "correct" taxonomic categories should be...
" "bird" is a culturally defined and perhaps somewhat artificial
" category, and may not have a simple definition as a set of features.
Some categories are indeed arbitrary (such as "things bigger than a
breadbox," "things I like to wear on Tuesdays," "the three most
similar grapheme strings on the prior line," or "things I call 'throg'
because the spirit moves me") but not the interesting and important
ones, such as penguin or bird. Our nonarbitrary categorizations are
constrained by their consequences -- the consequences of
MIScategorizing. In practical cases like (edible) mushroom vs. (poisonous)
toadstool, the consequences are obvious. In empirical science the
consequences are subtler, but there (e.g., electron vs positron). In
taxonomy, too, there are consequences of miscategorizing (failed
predictions), and to the extent that there are no empirical
consequences, there might indeed be an element of arbitrariness in
taxonomy.
You were taught that a penguin is a bird for reasons that you must
study zoology, morphology and evolution to understand fully. Perhaps
at the fuzzy frontiers of taxonomy, as elsewhere in science, there is
still uncertainty. It still makes no difference what your layman's
inclinations are when it comes to sorting birds. In a prescientific
culture, this, like sorting the "elements," may have been an arbitrary
cultural matter, but not once one is better informed. Nor is a bird
an artificial category (like walking-stick): It is a natural kind,
whose nature is to be discovered, not stipulated. And that nature
(insofar as it has palpable or measurable consequences) will always
constrain our categorizations.
" there is a lot more to how categories are defined and used than
" perceptual features... I also doubt *I* have a definition of "penguin"
" as a set of perceptual features. All the penguins I have ever seen have
" been in zoos, with signs telling me that they were penguins. I doubt I
" could reliably identify an animal as a penguin without the presence of
" those handy signs... I can still use categorization information, even
" if I cannot define that category in terms of perceptual features. This
" is even more true for abstract categories - what set of perceptual
" features identify Republicans? Lawyers? Widows?
I think you (and most of us) could reliably identify a penguin without
the help of a sign (though the sign might have been helpful feedback
when we first learned to identify them). You may not have a
DEFINITION, but you can certainly pick 'em out; it's hence reasonable to
conclude that something in your head is successfully detecting them
on the basis of reliable features in the sensory representation that
you cannot verbalize (or have not yet learned to).
Regarding abstract categories: As I suggested in my original posting, I
think they are GROUNDED in concrete categories (and in the book I sketch
a symbol grounding model that accomplishes this). The perceptual
representations in which they are grounded, like their sensory
features, may not be available to introspection. Moreover, there may be
abstract, symbolic rules guiding our abstract categorizations
that are likewise not introspectively obvious or accessible, yet
reliably guiding our categorizations. That's just an inference, of
course, but a pretty reasonable one; the alternative is either the
incoherent Roschian view (which purports to get all-or-none
categorization performance from models for graded typicality judgments)
or else just plain magic.
" should we put red pandas and giant pandas into their own
" class, "panda"? As language users, the choice is ours - but whatever
" choice we make, it will be something that has to be taught, not
" something that is intuitively obvious. And if another culture makes a
" different choice than we do, we would not be justified in saying they
" were "wrong" and we were "right".
As I suggested, the taxonomy of natural kinds -- to the extent that it
is empirical (with testable consequences arising from
MIScategorization) rather than hermeneutic (i.e., just a matter of
interpretation, subjective similarity, or arbitrary convention) IS a
matter of "right" vs. "wrong." I'd like to account for our ability to
categorize birds, penguins and electrons reliably and correctly. I'll
leave the hermeneutics to the Roschians.
[I have made a distinction between two kinds of categorization and
categorization task that might be instructive here: "ad lib" vs. "imposed"
categorization. In an ad lib categorization task (as used by Tversky
and others who investigate similarity), instances are presented to the
subject, who is then to sort them as he sees fit. In "imposed"
categorization, there is feedback as to whether the categorization is
correct or incorrect (this is also called "supervised learning"):
Miscategorization has consequences in imposed categorization, but not
in ad lib categorization (which I just consider to be a form of
impressionistic similarity judgment). Typicality judgments are really
just similarity judgments too; similarity is, by nature, graded,
continuous, and a matter of degree. Categorization, on the other hand,
is discrete, categorical and all-or-none. I think that imposed
categorization tasks are the right ones to look at in modeling
categorization, along with their feedback from miscategorization. They
are representative of reality and the constraints it imposes on how we
sort things. Ad lib categorization is not really categorization AT ALL,
but just subjective similarity judgments based on the default similarity
structure of the set of inputs, as dictated either by our sensory
systems, our prior (imposed) categories, or both.]
__________
From: wlp@calmasd.GE.COM (Walter L. Peterson, Jr.)
GE-Calma, San Diego R & D, Object and Data Management Group
" Actually, the categorization of penguins and all other birds is quite
" easy. Unlike most other taxonomic categories, biologist are in
" agreement as to what creatures are members of the Class Aves. All
" animals that have feathers are birds and all birds have feathers.
" This is not just a "cultural bias" nor is it an arbitrary rule.
__________
∂12-Jan-89 1601 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
ON THE RELATION BETWEEN AUTOEPISTEMIC LOGIC AND CIRCUMSCRIPTION
Kurt Konolige
Center for the Study of Language and Information
SRI International
Friday, January 13, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Circumscription on the one hand and autoepistemic and default logics on
the other seem to have quite different characteristics as formal
systems, which makes it difficult to compare them as formalizations of
defeasible commonsense reasoning. In this talk we accomplish two
tasks: (1) we extend the original semantics of autoepistemic logic to a
language which includes variables quantified into the context of the
autoepistemic operator, and (2) we show that a certain class of
autoepistemic theories in the extended language has a minimal-model
semantics corresponding to circumscription. We conclude that all of the
first-order consequences of parallel predicate circumscription can be
obtained from this class of autoepistemic theories. The correspondence
we construct also sheds light on the problematic treatment of equality
in circumscription.
∂12-Jan-89 2000 JMC
Kraus and perlis
∂12-Jan-89 2123 dill@amadeus.Stanford.EDU re: Broadcast of courses on SUNet
Received: from amadeus.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jan 89 21:22:55 PST
Received: by amadeus.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.0)
id AA06865; Thu, 12 Jan 89 21:22:33 PDT
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 21:22:33 PDT
From: dill@amadeus.Stanford.EDU (David Dill)
Message-Id: <8901130522.AA06865@amadeus.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, allison@SHASTA.STANFORD.EDU, csd@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
eyal@COYOTE.STANFORD.EDU, faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: re: Broadcast of courses on SUNet
Cc: tajnai@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
I vehemently oppose live on-campus broadcasts of my lectures. It seems
to me that the reasonable thing is for SITN to respect the preferences
of the individual lecturers. If my classes were broadcast last year
on campus, no one asked me about it, or even told me about it. I
would resent this if it were true.
∂12-Jan-89 2249 JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU videotapes
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jan 89 22:49:34 PST
Date: Thu 12 Jan 89 22:48:26-PST
From: "H. Roy Jones" <JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: videotapes
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12462137968.10.JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John,
I'm glad to see someone else is in favor of giving the students as much
flexibility as possible in receiving their education. It looks like
there will be a fair amount of resistance, but I'm going to try and
convince Nils that this should be the department's policy.
Roy
-------
∂13-Jan-89 1413 rpg@lucid.com Parallel Lisp Workshop Attendees Update
Received: from lucid.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jan 89 14:13:20 PST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA02382g; Fri, 13 Jan 89 14:09:06 PST
Received: by challenger id AA06032g; Fri, 13 Jan 89 14:04:35 PST
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 89 14:04:35 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8901132204.AA06032@challenger>
To: ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, jsw@sail.stanford.edu, arg@challenger,
rhh@ai.ai.mit.edu, ran@vx.lcs.mit.edu, tk@ai.ai.mit.edu,
Kessler@cs.utah.edu, pierson@multimax.arpa, kranz@wheaties.ai.mit.edu,
jmiller@cs.brandeis.edu, katz@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Parallel Lisp Workshop Attendees Update
David Kranz and Randy Osborne from MIT are definitely coming and would
like to have their Japan travel supported. Dan Pierson will very
likely attend.
-rpg-
∂13-Jan-89 1459 bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: broadcasting classes
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jan 89 14:58:58 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04541; Fri, 13 Jan 89 14:58:19 PDT
Message-Id: <8901132258.AA04541@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: broadcasting classes
In-Reply-To: Your message of 13 Jan 89 14:50:00 -0800.
<d$s2l@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 89 14:58:18 -0800
From: bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU
John-
I'm sure it was just an oversight, but if you "hope students will
comment on the utility to them of listening to classes remotely" then
perhaps you should send your message to csd@score, where they will have
a chance to read it, and read the csd bboard, where they will likely
reply.
-Barry
∂14-Jan-89 1742 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jan 89 17:42:22 PST
Date: Sat 14 Jan 89 17:39:19-PST
From: Why Von El <L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: The Sesame influence
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: ilan@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <v$DA1@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12462605985.78.L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
The intention of Sesame Street was to allow underpriviledged children
to catch up with those from more priviledged backgrounds. Instead,
it intensified the difference.
When something has the reverse effect of its intended goal, I call that
unfortunate. What do you call it, John?
-------
∂14-Jan-89 1956 harnad@Princeton.EDU Measuring Animal Suffering: BBS Call for Commentators
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jan 89 19:56:09 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/1.97)
id AA10469; Sat, 14 Jan 89 22:52:03 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.68)
id AA09265; Sat, 14 Jan 89 22:17:10 EST
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 89 22:17:10 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8901150317.AA09265@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: brain-database@athena.mit.edu,
epsynet%uhupvm1.bitnet@confidence.Princeton.EDU
Subject: Measuring Animal Suffering: BBS Call for Commentators
Below is the abstract of a forthcoming target article to appear in
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), an international,
interdisciplinary journal that provides Open Peer Commentary on important
and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive
sciences. Commentators must be current BBS Associates or nominated by a
current BBS Associate. To be considered as a commentator on this article,
to suggest other appropriate commentators, or for information about how
to become a BBS Associate, please send email to:
harnad@confidence.princeton.edu or write to:
BBS, 20 Nassau Street, #240, Princeton NJ 08542 [tel: 609-921-7771]
____________________________________________________________________
FROM AN ANIMAL'S POINT OF VIEW:
MOTIVATION, FITNESS AND ANIMAL WELFARE
Marion Stamp Dawkins
Department of Zoology
University of Oxford
KEYWORDS: animal welfare; motivation; operant conditioning; ethics;
behavioral ecology; inelastic demand; objective indicators of suffering
ABSTRACT: To study animal welfare scientifically we need an objective
basis for deciding when an animal is suffering. Suffering includes a
wide range of unpleasant motivational states such as fear, boredom,
pain, hunger, etc. Suffering has evolved as a mechanism for avoiding
sources of danger and threats to fitness. In captive animals suffering
often occurs in situations in which they are prevented from doing
something they are highly motivated to do. The "price" an animal is
prepared to pay to obtain or escape a given environmental situation is
an index of how the animal "feels" about that situation. Witholding
conditions or commodities for which an animal shows "inelastic demand"
(i.e., for which it continues to work despite increasing costs) is very
likely to cause suffering. In designing environments for animals in
zoos, farms and laboratories priority should be given to features for
which the animal shows inelastic demand. The care of animals can
thereby be based on an animal-centred assessment of their needs.
∂14-Jan-89 2112 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jan 89 21:12:03 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04802; Sat, 14 Jan 89 21:08:43 PST
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 89 21:08:43 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901150508.AA04802@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: "Fully parallelized" file systems
Message-ID: <8760@alice.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jan 89 19:57:09 GMT
References: <262@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 9
In article <262@microsoft.UUCP>, w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes:
> I saw in the Jan. 1 Computer Design that Encore 'unveiled the first "fully
> parallelized" file system for the Mach operating system.'
I suppose the code for this file system
was written in a strongly hyped language.
--
--Andrew Koenig
ark@europa.att.com
∂14-Jan-89 2118 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jan 89 21:18:37 PST
Date: Sat 14 Jan 89 21:15:50-PST
From: Why Von El <L.LEE-Y@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: The Sesame influence
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: ilan@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <L$$vE@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12462645400.2.L.LEE-Y@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
What good is helping poor children become literate if the minimum
literacy standard is increased to such a degree that they are worse
off than they were in the past? Literacy has some value in and of
itself, but its greatest value is that of providing opportunity. If
the knowledge gap is accelerated, opportunity is decreased (exponentially,
I think).
Anyway, I need to review the literature to see whether Sesame Street is,
in fact, one of the programs designed to help the poor that only ended
up exacerbating the problem. I know Project Head Start had this problem,
and I think there are a few other projects designed to help the poor
that had the same problem.
-------
∂15-Jan-89 1008 Allen.Newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu Retransmission of re: jan 28th meeting
Received: from CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Jan 89 10:08:31 PST
Received: from CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU by CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jan 89 10:23:04 EST
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Retransmission of re: jan 28th meeting
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 89 10:23:03 EST
Message-ID: <3470.600880983@CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU>
From: Allen.Newell@CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU
------- Forwarded Message
To: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu
cc: simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu, feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu, nilsson@score.stanford.edu,
mccarthy@cs.utexas.edu, amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu,
browne@cs.utexas.edu, phw%mit-oz@ai.ai.mit.edu,
bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com, hart@kl.sri.com,
buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu, davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu,
mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: January 28th meeting
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 10 Jan 89 12:36:21 -0500.
<1989.1.10.17.30.55.Raj.Reddy@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 89 01:24:59 EST
Message-ID: <2199.600848699@CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU>
From: Allen.Newell@CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU
Raj and AAAI-folk. It seems unlikely at the moment that I can get out there
for the meeting at the end of Jan. So here are some thoughts on the issues
that Raj raises (which I will relabel A, B and C), though mostly on A.
Cheers, AN
Endnote: The message got long, as it often does. Sorry. But one effect is
that I refuse to read it to shake out bugs and infelicities.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. TO CREATE A LIST OF NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVES (NRI)
A1. I am dubious about whether the present time is propitious for an
AI-oriented National Research Initiative.
However, I don't want to actually take a postion on the issue, since that
is for the meeting to do, and shouldn't be pre-empted. Instead, I'll try
some analysis.
A2. The first requirement for such an initiative is *not* that the funding
situation is bleak, or chaotic, or less than desirable, or falling when we
think it should be rising, etc. The first requirement is a state that
might be called NRI-readiness, in analogy to reading-readiness. Here is
my (not very well thought out) conjecture about the CONDITIONS that produce
NRI-readiness:
A2.1. THE TECHNICAL INGREDIENTS. A set of technical results, techniques,
etc., that are well enough established in themselves to be sources
of reliable technical power.
A2.2. THE EXCITEMENT. One or two really exciting things that have
happened recently that give to the area an aura of being on a
technical roll.
A2.3. THE VISION. Some new concrete thing (the objective of the NRI) that
prima facie to all -- scientists, government, public -- will make a
*big* difference to the nation if the nation were to have it.
There is a lot of freedom in inventing the "new thing" and what sort
of big difference it makes and to whom.
However, *concreteness* is an essential feature. However much it
embodies general scientific advance and capability, in must, of
itself, take up space, have mass and occur on a given date.
A2.4. THE ASSESSMENT. The belief on a key segment of the technical
community that THE TECHNICAL INGREDIENTS are just below the flash
point for producing THE VISION.
A2.5. THE WILLINGNESS. The willingness on the part of the larger
technical community (those deemed competent by society to pronounce
on THE VISION) to rally round both THE VISION and THE ASSESSMENT.
A3. Most of the NRIs in the past that I occur to me fit these considerations,
but I am probably being selective.
A3.1. The Genome Project. However, it wobbled on THE WILLINGNESS.
A3.2. The superconducting-supercollider.
A3.3. The Atom Bomb (the original president's letter project). Secrecy
was an essential feature here.
A3.4. Mohole, which came close but failed (I think because of THE
WILLINGNESS).
A3.5. The War on Cancer = A cure for cancer. It misses on some
CONDITIONS, but it had/has an independent political and emotional
base.
A3.6. SDI (Star Wars). This was clearly not hatched by the technical
community, but by government (although one scientist, Teller,
was involved).
A3.7. The Orient Air Express. (?? In fact, I don't know this story
at all.)
A3.8. A Man to the Moon. Again, I believe this was not an NRI by a
technical community, but I could be wrong.
A3.9. Strategic Computing. This was an AI NRI, initiated by Kahn and
Cooper in DARPA. It actually was missing THE VISION, and had to
improvise at the last minute (the three applied tasks), with
some modestly disasterous consquences.
A4. It is a side effect of an NRI that it generates support for the science
generally. It does so through many indirect channels.
A4.1. Worries always exist that funding is zero sum, so that what is spent
on an NRI will be taken away from the basic research. I think this
is simply wrong.
A4.2. An NRI *cannot* be generated because funding for the field is
needed or desirable. The causal arrow goes from the NRI to field
funding, and the NRI has to independently satisfy the CONDITIONS.
A5. Here is my assessement of the CONDITIONS that do not depend directly on
the choice of THE VISION:
A5.1. THE TECHNICAL INGREDIENTS. I think we can make a fair case for this.
Expert systems for small tasks. Machine learning. Basic search.
Some general ability to formalize. Vision, NL, speech and robotics
all at some interesting level and improving proportional to inputs
of funds. Connectionism is not on my list of technical ingredients;
it is too premature or, where not, too special. The hardware,
software and interface infrastructure is basically in good shape and
AI can ride it as well as anyone, maybe better.
A5.2. THE EXCITEMENT. We are a little thin here. I think of learning, in
part because the wider world responds to it. Expert systems are
five years old, and a new EXCITEMENT hasn't been born around them,
nor is it likely. A big negative is that one major EXCITEMENT
is connectionism (independent of what one thinks of it technically).
A5.3. THE VISION. (Open: We are trying to invent this.)
A5.4. THE ASSESSMENT. (Open: We are the assessing group or a surrogate for
it. Presumably we won't go ahead unless the ASSESSMENT is positive.
A5.5. THE WILLINGNESS. Here there are difficulties again. The field is no
longer coherent. The split between the logicists and the
experimentalists is real, although I think it is small potatoes.
The big split is with the connectionists. The point is that they
have a revolutionary stance vis a vis traditional AI and
*importantly* take themselves as part of the relevant technical
community, so their voices count, just as the rest of them. There
is not way that I know of to discount their voices or exclude them.
It is easy to give chapter and verse here. Jack Schwartz has
several times demured to statements by traditional AI types (e.g.,
Simon, Mitchell, ...) on the grounds that our own field is
contentious on that and we do not have to be believed.
A6. We have had a some suggestions for what NRIs (or surrogates) might be.
These should just be taken as initial input re Raj's request, but it
is perhaps useful to remark on them.
A6.1. John McC and Nils N both plumped for advances of the science.
Consonant with research the analysis here, that led them to doubt
that this was NRI stuff.
A6.2. Saul A suggested computer aided productivity and computer-aided
education/training. Both of these seem to be suitable general
targets, but they lack the *concreteness* needed for a national
initiative, and thus, in my estimation, still require an act of
invention.
I can see that there can/ will be contention on this issue -- that
one should not be any more definite that that AI will be the basis
for a national thrust in manufacturing productivity or white collar
productivity. But I think this confounds *our* view of the right
level of specificity from what it takes to have a successful NRI
(or even to get an ultimately unsuccessful one adopted by the
nation).
A7. My own position on specific NRI (since I should not shy from making them).
A7.1. I think Saul A's productivity is a good candidates domain.
Unfortunately, the manufacturing area has been a NRI trying to
get off the ground for about 5 years now. The best that can be
said, I think, is that it is not failing.
A7.2. I have my own candidate for a NRI, but I don't expect any of you
to buy into it. I should hardly have to tell you about it. It is
the NRI follow on to the conversion of cognitive psychology to
a real science.
I should not, and will not, predict that it will be Soar as a
unified theory of cognition. But I will predict that we are only
about two more (major) revolutions of the cognitive wheel away from
a potent cognitive science.
Unfortunately, that is somewhere between five and eight years, with
a major factor being how deep is the valley of connectionsism through
which we must pass. The real effect of this is not the results of
connectionists studies, which I believe will generally be positive,
it is the capture of the minds of a generation of cognitive
scientists. Not only will there be less cognitive scientists around
to do the real work that need to be done, but (gasp!) we may find
the current generation is fundamentally uneducated with respect to
all of symbolic cognitive science. That will cost the field at
least three years, and maybe more.
So my suggestion for an NRI is premature for this time by a few
years. But when it comes, then I am with Saul A again, namely
that education/training is the place. But note that I really
don't think AI can support an NRI now in education, because that
presumes that it doesn't need psychology. But it does. To wit,
it is not AI's to suggest a NRI in education, any more that it
can suggest an NRI in say genetic engineering.
B. TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR PROMOTING THEM IN WASHINGTON.
B1. I guess my thoughts are this are covered by A and C.
C. TO DISCUSS WHETHER WE SHOULD SEND A "MR. PRESIDENT" LETTER.
C1. This is exactly the wrong time to be sending such a letter. For one,
the new president's mail box has been filled to overflowing. We will
not be heard. I'll bet we can not even get the attention of any
postman.
C2. This is doubly the wrong time because the new science apparatus is
not in place. That issue is a very iffy one, as far as I can see,
with nothing assured about it. But the games that are being played
now are all at this procedural level. One could not even find anyone
in Washington at the moment to attention to a NRI.
Existing NRI of course (Genome Project, SuperconductingSuperconllider)
are already on the agenda and will muddle and suffer through this
period.
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂15-Jan-89 1321 coraki!pratt@Sun.COM Re: SITN
Received: from Sun.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Jan 89 13:21:16 PST
Received: from sun.Sun.COM (sun-bb.sun.com) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.0)
id AA24038; Sun, 15 Jan 89 13:21:25 PST
Received: from coraki.UUCP by sun.Sun.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA25427; Sun, 15 Jan 89 13:18:58 PST
From: coraki!pratt@Sun.COM
Received: from localhost by (4.0/SMI-4.0Beta)
id AA25092; Sun, 15 Jan 89 13:01:09 PST
Message-Id: <8901152101.AA25092@>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: faculty@score.stanford.edu, csd@score.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: SITN
In-Reply-To: Your message of 13 Jan 89 1656 PST.
<10$ti7@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 15 Jan 89 13:01:07 PST (Sun)
I don't understand any sentence beginning "There is no doubt in my
mind that we cheat students by allowing them to ...". Could you
explain the general principle of such sentences?
How about the principle that learning requires discipline, some of
which may need to come from the teacher? Students typically don't feel
cheated at the time, the reaction can be delayed by years.
-v
∂16-Jan-89 1031 C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Proper Use of the Overflow Room
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jan 89 10:31:51 PST
Date: Mon 16 Jan 89 10:28:57-PST
From: George Cole <C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Proper Use of the Overflow Room
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12463051925.1.C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
I can think of two proper uses of an overflow room when the regular room is
not filled:
(1) the student has to leave early, for a reason other than personal
preference (e.g. a doctor's appt. at Cowell) and does not wish to
disturb the main class
(2) the student is either to sick, sleepy, or ill-prepared such that
his presence (and sub-standard performance) will be disruptive in
the main classroom. Even if no active performance is required, it
is a breach of etiquette, and annoying to the instructor, to fall
asleep in class. Nevertheless the student wants to minimize the
degree to which he falls behind, or his loss of instruction. (I
argue there is a loss between the overflow room and a videotape.)
In these circumstances the student's use is an acknowledgement of
his or her substandard behavior -- even for those who are "lazy"
and do not want to participate. That does leave the main room for
those who are more interested (or awake), and makes for a better
leavening.
Since the circumstances causing either (1) or (2) are beyond the
instructor's control, and may even be beyond the student's control, having
an overflow room available and its use beyond the instructor's control seems
fair.
I can think of one other reason -- when the instructor is so poor that
the overflow room gives a better education. Yet I can think of only two
professors (both at the U. Mich. Law School) for whom this applied. Our only
means of protest was to drop the class (since it was required, this was hardly
a feasible option) or take it pass--no-credit, which a small fraction could not
do and still graduate. 96% of the students took that class pass--no-credit that
year, and the administration did get the message. The professor had tenure, so
he could not be dismissed; but he did a much better job the next year.
George
-------
∂16-Jan-89 1234 hayes@arisia.xerox.com SITN
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jan 89 12:34:23 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA04335; Mon, 16 Jan 89 12:32:51 PST
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 12:32:51 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8901162032.AA04335@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: ungar@SELF.STANFORD.EDU, faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
csd@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 13 Jan 89 16:56 PST <10$ti7@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: SITN
Surely, its fairly straightforward. We cheat some kids of a full life
by allowing them to buy crack cheaply in the streets. The basic
premis is that "we" know more about some of what is good for "them"
than they do. This is a dangerous idea, admittedly, but isnt an
outrageous premis to apply to University education: I dont have
trouble with the idea that Faculty know more about the efficacy of
some forms of education than most Students do, if only because theyve
been around longer.
Pat
∂16-Jan-89 1244 hayes@arisia.xerox.com More on the TV question
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jan 89 12:44:20 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA04386; Mon, 16 Jan 89 12:42:48 PST
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 12:42:48 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8901162042.AA04386@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: allison@SHASTA.STANFORD.EDU, faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
csd@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 14 Jan 89 00:35 PST <L$PQs@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: More on the TV question
Tapes do not have to be professionally produced to be saleable. The
Linguistics Institute held at Stanford 2 summers ago taped several of
its lectures and is now offering them for sale, and expects to make a
bundle of money. They are quite awfully produced: I know, I am in one
of them. ( A decision I now bitterly regret, not because of the money I
lost, but because they arent very good but will be for many
people their only evidence of my lecturing style. This illustrates
one of my own chief worries about lecturing to a camera, by the way. Maybe
this is mere ego, of course.)
Pat
∂16-Jan-89 1309 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jan 89 13:09:06 PST
Date: Mon 16 Jan 89 13:05:56-PST
From: Yvonne Lee <L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: The Sesame influence
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: ilan@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <v$cT3@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12463080504.81.L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
so, you're saying the poor should only be able to work at MacDonald's or
drive a truck?
-------
∂16-Jan-89 1325 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jan 89 13:25:05 PST
Date: Mon 16 Jan 89 13:21:55-PST
From: Yvonne Lee <L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: The Sesame influence
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: ilan@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <v$cT3@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12463083413.81.L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Christopher's comparison of US and Japanese companies illustrates my point.
JMC seems to be arguing that there is nothing wrong with a program that
exacerbates the difference between rich and poor, as long as someone is
benefitting. My point is not that Sesame Street is bad or that it should
be discontinued. It is simply that it is unfortunate that a program
ultimately ends up hurting the very people it was designed to help.
Further, I think that this country needs to demonstrate a greater concern
for that "bottom half" of society.
-------
∂16-Jan-89 1351 pullen@vax.darpa.mil [clayton@morgul.psc.edu: Call for Participation]
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jan 89 13:51:33 PST
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA14086; Mon, 16 Jan 89 16:17:49 EST
Posted-Date: Mon 16 Jan 89 16:31:26-EST
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA07212; Mon, 16 Jan 89 16:31:27 EST
Date: Mon 16 Jan 89 16:31:26-EST
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: [clayton@morgul.psc.edu: Call for Participation]
To: ARCH-PI@vax.darpa.mil, DPSYS-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <600989486.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Dear Parallel Computing PI,
I am forwarding a Call for Participation in Supercomputing '89.
In the past this conference appeared to have as its primary
focus traditional (Cray-style) supercomputing. Ron Bailey tells
me this is changing, and indeed the Call explicitly requests
participation in the area of high-performance parallel computing.
I view this as a healthy trend, and would like to encourage
DARPA researchers in parallel computing to participate.
Mark Pullen
---------------
Posted-Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:00:26 est
Received-Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:00:40 EST
Received: from MORGUL.PSC.EDU by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA09089; Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:00:40 EST
Return-Path: <clayton@morgul.psc.edu>
Received: by morgul.psc.edu (1.2/PSC-smtp/mail11 v1.1)
id AA03756; Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:00:26 est
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:00:26 est
From: clayton@morgul.psc.edu
Message-Id: <8901062000.AA03756@morgul.psc.edu>
To: cpittman%nasamail@ames.arc.nasa.gov, phillips%src@relay.cs.net,
plouffe@ibm.com, poore%utenn@relay.cs.net, postel@venera.isi.edu,
pullen@vax.darpa.mil
Subject: Call for Participation
S U P E R C O M P U T I N G ' 89
C A L L F O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N
Supercomputing '89 continues the tradition established at the '88 Conference
and will bring together supercomputing system researchers, designers, managers,
and computational scientists and engineers to report advances and experiences,
state needs, suggest future directions and exchange information. It will
include a technical program of invited and contributed papers, tutorials,
poster sessions, vendor and research exhibits, and product briefings and
demonstrations.
NOVEMBER 13-17, 1989
RENO/SPARKS CONVENTION CENTER
RENO, NEVADA
Sponsored by: ACM SIGARCH and Computer Society of the IEEE
In cooperation with: Argonne National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NASA Ames Research Center, National
Center for Atmospheric Research, National Science Foundation, SIAM Activity
Group on Supercomputing, and the Supercomputing Research Center
Topics of Interest
Examples include, but are not limited to, the following:
computational science and engineering applications, parallel
and distributed processing, the impact of new technology on the
future of supercomputing, supercomputing environment, high
performance architectures, supercomputing systems evaluation,
systems software and languages, supercomputing management
issues, technical aspects of products, user experiences.
Papers Authors are invited to submit papers which report concrete
results and experiences. Papers reporting important negative
results are also encouraged. Referee's selection criteria will
include originality, clarity, and relevance.
Requirements
Papers must be original material not previously published.
Papers must be submitted without conditions; authors must
obtain any necessary approvals and/or clearances prior to
submission. Copyright release will be required. Authors of
accepted papers will be responsible for retyping corrected
papers on special forms to be provided and for preparing visual
material for their presentations using guidelines to be
provided. Camera-ready copy is due August 15, 1989.
Instructions
Submit five copies to the Program Chairperson by May 1, 1989.
Papers must be in English, typed double-spaced, and not exceed
25 pages (about 5,000 words). Papers must have: a title page
that lists the name, mailing and electronic address, and
telephone number for each author, an abstract, keywords and the
presentation media requirements. For multiple author papers,
identify the corresponding author and the presenting author.
Posters Authors who prefer an informal environment that fosters
interaction with the conference attendees are encouraged to
submit poster proposals. A book of abstracts of poster
presentations will be available at the conference.
Requirements
concise statement of the problem and the results should be a
conspicuous part of the display. Authors will be expected to
make themselves available to the audience for approximately two
hours, during which time they explain their work and discuss it
in depth. Authors of accepted posters will be responsible for
supplying a camera-ready abstract (not to exceed 100 words) by
August 15, 1989.
Instructions
Submit five copies of the poster proposal to the Program
Chairperson by June 1, 1989. The proposal should not exceed
five pages (about 1,000 words). Other aspects of the proposal
should conform to the instructions for submission of papers, as
listed above.
Vendor Exhibits An opportunity exists for vendors to exhibit their
supercomputing technology during three days of Supercomputing
'89. Interested parties should contact the Exhibits
Chairperson as soon as possible to arrange for floor space.
Research Exhibits
A limited amount of space will be set aside at Supercomputing
'89 to allow researchers to set up and exhibit or demonstrate
their work. Research exhibits will provide a joint
opportunity--an opportunity for the researcher to demonstrate
his or her work to a broader audience of potentially interested
users and an opportunity for the conference attendees to see a
broad range ofsupercomputing-oriented research which represents
some of the important technical directions of the future. The
possibility exists that, by special arrangement, research
exhibitors may be able to make use of equipment on display at
the vendor exhibit.)
Requirements
Research exhibitors should provide a description of their
exhibit/demonstration including: the type of audience
expected; required facilities; organizational affiliation of
exhibitors and acknowledgement of research sponsors;
acknowledgement of responsibility for (a) staffing the exhibit
during conference hours (unless the exhibit is totally static
and self-explanatory) and (b) transportation of the exhibit to
and from the conference, as well as all expenses associated
with setup and teardown.
Instructions
Submit a brief proposal to the Exhibits Chairperson as soon as
possible, but not later than March 31, 1989.
Tutorials The traditional half-day or full-day lecture style presentation
with view-graphs distributed to attendees.
Instructions
Submit proposal by February 28, 1989 to Tutorials
Chairperson.Include a succinct description of intended
audience, abstract and lecture outline with view-graphs (if not
yet available, state when will be available), and vita with
three references who are familiar with your lecturing ability.
Extended Tutorials
Provide an opportunity for a mini-course introduction to a
topic. The course begins before the conference with advanced
mailing of course material. The organizer will receive a list
of attendees and their biographies ahead of time and have an
opportunity to "tune" the course to their needs. This is
intended to be a long day of intense learning and
ex↔plo↔ra↔tion.
Instructions
Submit proposal by February 28, 1989 to Tutorials Chairperson.
Include succinct course objectives, targeted participants
characteristics, references to be distributed, vita and related
teaching experience of organizer.
Workshops Workshops are of the "birds-of-a-feather" variety, where
registrants participate in an interactive workshop environment.
The organizer is a participant/facilitator rather than a
lecturer.
Instructions
Submit proposal by April 30, 1989 to Tutorials Chairperson.
Include a sampling of co-workers in their field, suggestions
for invitees, organizers, contributions/role in the field and
vita.
Committee Chairpersons:
General Chairperson
F. Ron Bailey
Mail Stop 258-5
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035
415/694-4500
rbailey@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov
Program Chairperson
Gary Johnson
San Diego Supercomputer Center
P. O. Box 85608
San Diego, CA 92138
619/534-5181
garyj@sds.sdsc.edu
Tutorials Chairperson
John Riganati
Supercomputing Research Center
4380 Forbes Boulevard
Lanham, MD 20706
301/731-3741
riganati%super.org@sh.cs.net
Exhibits Chairperson
Howard Johnson
15694 East Chenango
Aurora, CO 80015
303/693-8291
howardj%csugreen.bitnet
@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Registration Chairperson
Lyz Dunham
Mail Stop 258-6
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035
415/694-4370
dunham@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov
Finance Chairperson
Ray L. Elliott
P. O. Box 1663
Los Alamos, NM 87545
505/667-1449
rle%a@lanl.gov
Publications Chairperson
Lt. Col. C. Edward Oliver
Chief Scientist
Air Force Weapons Laboratory
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-6008
505/844-9856
oliver@lbl-csam.arpa
Publicity Chairperson
Beverly C. Clayton
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
4400 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412/268-4960
clayton@morgul.psc.edu
-------
-------
∂16-Jan-89 1407 JSW TEXIT
The program that I wrote (in September 85) is called TEXIT. It will
cause the output to be printed in the fixed-width font with the SAIL
character set, but I think this should be sufficient for someone to
use as input for a journal.
∂16-Jan-89 1427 VAL Nonmonotonic Seminar: meeting time
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
We are considering the possibility of moving the nonmonotonic seminar to
Monday, 3:15 or 4:15, to avoid the conflict with the database research
seminar. If you STRONGLY support or oppose this idea, please send me a
message by Thursday, January 19.
--Vladimir Lifschitz (VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU)
∂16-Jan-89 1442 pullen@vax.darpa.mil [clayton@morgul.psc.edu: Call for Participation]
Received: from vax.darpa.mil ([192.5.18.99]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jan 89 14:42:10 PST
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA14086; Mon, 16 Jan 89 16:17:49 EST
Posted-Date: Mon 16 Jan 89 16:31:26-EST
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA07212; Mon, 16 Jan 89 16:31:27 EST
Date: Mon 16 Jan 89 16:31:26-EST
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: [clayton@morgul.psc.edu: Call for Participation]
To: ARCH-PI@vax.darpa.mil, DPSYS-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <600989486.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Dear Parallel Computing PI,
I am forwarding a Call for Participation in Supercomputing '89.
In the past this conference appeared to have as its primary
focus traditional (Cray-style) supercomputing. Ron Bailey tells
me this is changing, and indeed the Call explicitly requests
participation in the area of high-performance parallel computing.
I view this as a healthy trend, and would like to encourage
DARPA researchers in parallel computing to participate.
Mark Pullen
---------------
Posted-Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:00:26 est
Received-Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:00:40 EST
Received: from MORGUL.PSC.EDU by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA09089; Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:00:40 EST
Return-Path: <clayton@morgul.psc.edu>
Received: by morgul.psc.edu (1.2/PSC-smtp/mail11 v1.1)
id AA03756; Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:00:26 est
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:00:26 est
From: clayton@morgul.psc.edu
Message-Id: <8901062000.AA03756@morgul.psc.edu>
To: cpittman%nasamail@ames.arc.nasa.gov, phillips%src@relay.cs.net,
plouffe@ibm.com, poore%utenn@relay.cs.net, postel@venera.isi.edu,
pullen@vax.darpa.mil
Subject: Call for Participation
S U P E R C O M P U T I N G ' 89
C A L L F O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N
Supercomputing '89 continues the tradition established at the '88 Conference
and will bring together supercomputing system researchers, designers, managers,
and computational scientists and engineers to report advances and experiences,
state needs, suggest future directions and exchange information. It will
include a technical program of invited and contributed papers, tutorials,
poster sessions, vendor and research exhibits, and product briefings and
demonstrations.
NOVEMBER 13-17, 1989
RENO/SPARKS CONVENTION CENTER
RENO, NEVADA
Sponsored by: ACM SIGARCH and Computer Society of the IEEE
In cooperation with: Argonne National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NASA Ames Research Center, National
Center for Atmospheric Research, National Science Foundation, SIAM Activity
Group on Supercomputing, and the Supercomputing Research Center
Topics of Interest
Examples include, but are not limited to, the following:
computational science and engineering applications, parallel
and distributed processing, the impact of new technology on the
future of supercomputing, supercomputing environment, high
performance architectures, supercomputing systems evaluation,
systems software and languages, supercomputing management
issues, technical aspects of products, user experiences.
Papers Authors are invited to submit papers which report concrete
results and experiences. Papers reporting important negative
results are also encouraged. Referee's selection criteria will
include originality, clarity, and relevance.
Requirements
Papers must be original material not previously published.
Papers must be submitted without conditions; authors must
obtain any necessary approvals and/or clearances prior to
submission. Copyright release will be required. Authors of
accepted papers will be responsible for retyping corrected
papers on special forms to be provided and for preparing visual
material for their presentations using guidelines to be
provided. Camera-ready copy is due August 15, 1989.
Instructions
Submit five copies to the Program Chairperson by May 1, 1989.
Papers must be in English, typed double-spaced, and not exceed
25 pages (about 5,000 words). Papers must have: a title page
that lists the name, mailing and electronic address, and
telephone number for each author, an abstract, keywords and the
presentation media requirements. For multiple author papers,
identify the corresponding author and the presenting author.
Posters Authors who prefer an informal environment that fosters
interaction with the conference attendees are encouraged to
submit poster proposals. A book of abstracts of poster
presentations will be available at the conference.
Requirements
concise statement of the problem and the results should be a
conspicuous part of the display. Authors will be expected to
make themselves available to the audience for approximately two
hours, during which time they explain their work and discuss it
in depth. Authors of accepted posters will be responsible for
supplying a camera-ready abstract (not to exceed 100 words) by
August 15, 1989.
Instructions
Submit five copies of the poster proposal to the Program
Chairperson by June 1, 1989. The proposal should not exceed
five pages (about 1,000 words). Other aspects of the proposal
should conform to the instructions for submission of papers, as
listed above.
Vendor Exhibits An opportunity exists for vendors to exhibit their
supercomputing technology during three days of Supercomputing
'89. Interested parties should contact the Exhibits
Chairperson as soon as possible to arrange for floor space.
Research Exhibits
A limited amount of space will be set aside at Supercomputing
'89 to allow researchers to set up and exhibit or demonstrate
their work. Research exhibits will provide a joint
opportunity--an opportunity for the researcher to demonstrate
his or her work to a broader audience of potentially interested
users and an opportunity for the conference attendees to see a
broad range ofsupercomputing-oriented research which represents
some of the important technical directions of the future. The
possibility exists that, by special arrangement, research
exhibitors may be able to make use of equipment on display at
the vendor exhibit.)
Requirements
Research exhibitors should provide a description of their
exhibit/demonstration including: the type of audience
expected; required facilities; organizational affiliation of
exhibitors and acknowledgement of research sponsors;
acknowledgement of responsibility for (a) staffing the exhibit
during conference hours (unless the exhibit is totally static
and self-explanatory) and (b) transportation of the exhibit to
and from the conference, as well as all expenses associated
with setup and teardown.
Instructions
Submit a brief proposal to the Exhibits Chairperson as soon as
possible, but not later than March 31, 1989.
Tutorials The traditional half-day or full-day lecture style presentation
with view-graphs distributed to attendees.
Instructions
Submit proposal by February 28, 1989 to Tutorials
Chairperson.Include a succinct description of intended
audience, abstract and lecture outline with view-graphs (if not
yet available, state when will be available), and vita with
three references who are familiar with your lecturing ability.
Extended Tutorials
Provide an opportunity for a mini-course introduction to a
topic. The course begins before the conference with advanced
mailing of course material. The organizer will receive a list
of attendees and their biographies ahead of time and have an
opportunity to "tune" the course to their needs. This is
intended to be a long day of intense learning and
ex↔plo↔ra↔tion.
Instructions
Submit proposal by February 28, 1989 to Tutorials Chairperson.
Include succinct course objectives, targeted participants
characteristics, references to be distributed, vita and related
teaching experience of organizer.
Workshops Workshops are of the "birds-of-a-feather" variety, where
registrants participate in an interactive workshop environment.
The organizer is a participant/facilitator rather than a
lecturer.
Instructions
Submit proposal by April 30, 1989 to Tutorials Chairperson.
Include a sampling of co-workers in their field, suggestions
for invitees, organizers, contributions/role in the field and
vita.
Committee Chairpersons:
General Chairperson
F. Ron Bailey
Mail Stop 258-5
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035
415/694-4500
rbailey@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov
Program Chairperson
Gary Johnson
San Diego Supercomputer Center
P. O. Box 85608
San Diego, CA 92138
619/534-5181
garyj@sds.sdsc.edu
Tutorials Chairperson
John Riganati
Supercomputing Research Center
4380 Forbes Boulevard
Lanham, MD 20706
301/731-3741
riganati%super.org@sh.cs.net
Exhibits Chairperson
Howard Johnson
15694 East Chenango
Aurora, CO 80015
303/693-8291
howardj%csugreen.bitnet
@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Registration Chairperson
Lyz Dunham
Mail Stop 258-6
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035
415/694-4370
dunham@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov
Finance Chairperson
Ray L. Elliott
P. O. Box 1663
Los Alamos, NM 87545
505/667-1449
rle%a@lanl.gov
Publications Chairperson
Lt. Col. C. Edward Oliver
Chief Scientist
Air Force Weapons Laboratory
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-6008
505/844-9856
oliver@lbl-csam.arpa
Publicity Chairperson
Beverly C. Clayton
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
4400 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412/268-4960
clayton@morgul.psc.edu
-------
-------
∂16-Jan-89 1550 ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com CS323
Received: from aai0 ([128.18.4.90]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jan 89 15:50:29 PST
Received: from localhost by aai0 (3.2/5.00)
id AA03802 for jmc@sail.stanford.edu; Mon, 16 Jan 89 15:50:28 PST
Message-Id: <8901162350.AA03802@aai0>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com
Reply-To: ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com
Organization: SRI International
Subject: CS323
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 15:50:26 PST
From: Charles Ortiz <ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com>
Professor McCarthy,
I am in your CS323 class and have two questions:
1. I will not be able to attend Thursday's class and was wondering if
there were particular papers I should read in addition to the two you
have already mentioned in class? (I will catch a replay on TV
Monday).
2. Will there be an opportunity to do a little research for this
class? If so, I am interested in questions related to the level of
abstraction or the granularity of a representation. For example, in
your "walkable" example it is clear that there will always be
exceptions to objects that are viewed as "walkable." For example, a
park near my house can be thought of as walkable in a gross sense.
However, if there is a small lake in the middle then at a finer level
of granularity the park certainly isn't walkable. If I make my
representation more fine grained and split the park into, say, four
areas then I can once again say that the park is walkable. Unless I
discover a small shack in the corner of one of the sub-areas, then I
will have to walk around that, and so on....
Would there be an opportunity for me to get my feet wet and do a
little research and write a paper in an area such as this in your
class?
Thanks.
Charlie Ortiz
∂16-Jan-89 1626 C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Proper Use of the Overflow Room
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jan 89 16:26:33 PST
Date: Mon 16 Jan 89 16:23:33-PST
From: George Cole <C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Proper Use of the Overflow Room
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <laZP4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12463116479.2.C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
I'm also surprised at the emotion attached to this issue. I believe that a deal
of it is ego-related, on both sides; students who don't wish to take
responsibility for their lack of preparation, and instructors who worry about
the lack of "popularity" affecting attendance.
I appreciate a prepared instructor, and a prepared (and responsive)
class. The jolting shock of having to be prepared before the first class (cases
read and digested, and ready to answer a question in the first minute) at law
school is quite real and different from Stanford's rather lackadasical "two
week whimsy". I've also had extremely astute instructors (alas, Prof. L.H.
Wright is now dead) who recognized that I was not able to answer but that this
was an extraordinary occurrence. I could take notes, but that morning was
essentially asleep. Still, that was better than the time I broke off a fine
discussion about Antitrust Law with the professor by waking up (a truly
nightmarish experience then, humerous now).
There is one other reason to have on-campus broadcasts which has not
been raised, probably because most overflow rooms are located adjacent to the
main room: class schedules, or physical handicaps, may make attending the
remote overflow room feasible, while the main class is too far away to reach
before the lecture starts.
-------
∂16-Jan-89 1845 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jan 89 18:45:25 PST
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA04162; Mon, 16 Jan 89 18:43:48 PDT
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 18:43:48 PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8901170243.AA04162@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 16 Jan 89 1733 PST <xa#KF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
No, I don't know of an AI faculty mailing list. As the so-called
"spokesperson" for AI, Jean-Claude Latombe might have assembled
one. -Nils
∂17-Jan-89 0910 CN.MCS@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 89 09:10:05 PST
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 09:08:53 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Rebecca Lasher" <CN.MCS@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
January 17, 1989
Computer Science Department Faculty:
MATHEMATICAL AND COMPUTER SCIENCES LIBRARY
KNOWLEDGE INDEX SERVICES PROVIDED
We will:
1. Perform searches for you or your graduate students after
6 pm to get the lower rates, and charge the search to your
Stanford account. Results will be sent to you via e-mail.
2. Set up a profile of your research interests and run the
searches once a month when the database is updated. Results
will be sent to you via e-mail.
3. Consult with you about databases and search strategy for
running searches on your own KI account.
4. Provide free hands-on instruction to use Knowledge Index.
Please send your queries to Rebecca Lasher (lasher@score or
723-0864) for questions or information about the above.
∂17-Jan-89 1025 CLT approval of expenses
To: "@JMC.DIS[1,CLT]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Recently Darpa has gotten rather finicky about
approving travel and other expenses.
They recently rejected two requests for travel expenses.
In the future in order to have expenses reimbursed it
will be necessary to have the expenses approved in advance.
This applies to foreign travel, paying visitors expenses, etc.
If there is any question its best to check in advance.
∂17-Jan-89 1255 BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Task 17, CPL
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 89 12:55:28 PST
Date: Tue 17 Jan 89 12:53:53-PST
From: Sharon Bergman <BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Task 17, CPL
To: clt@Sail.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: rpg@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12463340456.44.BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John, SPO called to inform us that an increment of $220K has arrived
for Task 17, CPL. This extends the performance period to 9/30/89.
-Sharon Bergman
-------
∂17-Jan-89 1420 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil FAST RESPONSE NEEDED
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 89 14:18:36 PST
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA18194; Tue, 17 Jan 89 16:46:20 EST
Posted-Date: Tue 17 Jan 89 16:58:09-EST
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA11277; Tue, 17 Jan 89 16:58:11 EST
Date: Tue 17 Jan 89 16:58:09-EST
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: FAST RESPONSE NEEDED
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <601077489.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
We are preparing briefing material that will eventually go to Congress
to help them understand what we have been accomplishing with our
investment in computing technology research. I need some help from
you in doing this. Specifically, could you please send me a few (one
to three) phrases describing your most major DARPA-sponsored research
accomplishments in the past year or so. Also, provide a few (one to
three) phrases describing your major goals for the next two years.
Describe each in generic terms that our friends on capitol hill (and
elsewhere in DoD) can likely understand, while remaining honest,
factual, and specific. Avoid use of acronyms or system names except
those that are known to all computer people. (E.g., "Ada" and "Unix"
are ok to mention without definition, but not "Mach" or "Anna".)
Please respond as soon as possible. We are on a short deadline, and I
need a response by 2pm Wednesday (this Wednesday, alas) if at all
possible. If you have nothing that you feel is worthy of mention for
the past year or two, say so.
Anything having to do with congressional reviews seems to have short
deadlines. Sorry about that.
Bill
-------
∂17-Jan-89 1459 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Posting SU.ETC messages on other networks
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 89 14:59:37 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03482; Tue, 17 Jan 89 14:58:32 PDT
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 14:58:32 PDT
From: Andy Freeman <andy@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901172258.AA03482@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, cooley@unix.sri.com
Subject: Posting SU.ETC messages on other networks
Don Cooley reposted one of JMC's su.etc postings on sci.environment.
I wonder if he had the courtesy to inform JMC of this so that JMC
could choose to reply to DC's rejoinder in that forum....
BTW - The su groups are not part of the rest of usenet and that usenet
rules do not apply to them.
-andy
∂17-Jan-89 1504 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Correction: Posting SU.ETC messages on other networks
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 89 15:04:40 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03936; Tue, 17 Jan 89 15:03:17 PDT
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 15:03:17 PDT
From: Andy Freeman <andy@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901172303.AA03936@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, cooley@unix.sri.com
Subject: Correction: Posting SU.ETC messages on other networks
I wrote:
>Don Cooley reposted one of JMC's su.etc postings on sci.environment.
Oops, DC reposted JMC's article to ca.environment.
-andy
∂17-Jan-89 1551 @IU.AI.SRI.COM,@peabody.teleos.com:leslie@teleos.com Algorithm Help
Received: from IU.AI.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 89 15:51:52 PST
Received: from peabody.teleos.com by IU.AI.SRI.COM via SMTP with TCP;
Tue, 17 Jan 89 15:49:37-PST
Received: by peabody.teleos.com (3.2/4.16) id AA08107 for
jmc@sail.stanford.edu; Tue, 17 Jan 89 15:28:30 PST
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 15:28:30 PST
From: Leslie Kaelbling <leslie@teleos.com>
Message-Id: <8901172328.AA08107@peabody.teleos.com>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Algorithm Help
Reply-To: leslie%teleos.com@ai.sri.com
I've been working on the analysis of a simple learning algorithm, but have
gotten stuck on a recurrence relation that I cannot solve. I expect my
difficulties are due to insufficient background in AA rather than the
hardness of the problem, but after a fair amount of studying I still can't
get it. Who would be an appropriate person to ask for help?
- Leslie
∂17-Jan-89 1619 @IU.AI.SRI.COM,@peabody.teleos.com:leslie@teleos.com Algorithm Help
Received: from IU.AI.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 89 16:19:18 PST
Received: from peabody.teleos.com by IU.AI.SRI.COM via SMTP with TCP;
Tue, 17 Jan 89 16:17:49-PST
Received: by peabody.teleos.com (3.2/4.16) id AA08135 for
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 17 Jan 89 15:56:35 PST
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 15:56:35 PST
From: Leslie Kaelbling <leslie@teleos.com>
Message-Id: <8901172356.AA08135@peabody.teleos.com>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 17 Jan 89 1615 PST
<1TbtBd@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Algorithm Help
Reply-To: leslie%teleos.com@ai.sri.com
Thanks. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to them for help.
- L
∂17-Jan-89 1718 betsy@russell.Stanford.EDU Re: heat on weekends
Received: from russell.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 89 17:18:53 PST
Received: by russell.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA27243; Tue, 17 Jan 89 17:20:59 PST
Date: Tue 17 Jan 89 17:20:58-PST
From: Betsy Macken <BETSY@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: heat on weekends
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <601089658.0.BETSY@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <8atqL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Yes, we've made arrangements for heat on weekends -- it should be warm
on weekends beginning with this coming Saturday. Let me know if
it isn't.
Betsy
-------
∂17-Jan-89 1832 harnad@Princeton.EDU Categorization: Last Installment
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 89 18:30:19 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/1.98)
id AA08501; Tue, 17 Jan 89 21:26:45 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.68)
id AA11874; Tue, 17 Jan 89 21:24:16 EST
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 21:24:16 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8901180224.AA11874@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: lakoff@cogsci.berkeley.edu
Subject: Categorization: Last Installment
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) of University of Hawaii writes:
" We thought [Harnad] was defending his theory when he was actually just
" reiterating it... He proposes that all-or-none categories are in
" people's heads and that typicality judgements are made with reference
" to these. *If* that's so, then typicality judgements obviously
" presuppose all-or-none categories... [but if not...]
No, I OBSERVE from people's performance data that (1) they can reliably
sort certain instances into all-or-none categories such as "bird."
I infer that (2) something in their heads is responsible for their
success. I read that (3) people can also make judgments of how typical
these instances are OF THE CATEGORIES OF WHICH THEY SUCCESSFULLY JUDGE
THEM TO BE MEMBERS, such as "bird." I note that (3) presupposes (1) and
hence conclude that (3) too depends on (2).
But if any of this sounds implausible, I'm open to alternative proposals...
__________
reiter@harvard.UUCP (Ehud Reiter) Aiken Computation Lab Harvard,
Cambridge, MA wrote:
" Biological categories are a lot more arbitrary than many people seem to
" realize... there is no direct experimental test that determines whether
" or not a group of individuals belongs to the same genera, class, or
" whatever. At least in this sense, higher classifications (e.g. "bird",
" "penguin", "mammal", etc) are human inventions, not distinctions that
" are mandated by nature. To quote Mayr, pg 98
"
" "...the major function of a classification [is] to be useful.
" A classification is a communication system, and the best one is
" that which combines greatest information content with greatest
" ease of information retrieval."
"Information content" depends on resolving uncertainty. Objective
uncertainty is a function of objective consequences: It matters
whether this is a "mushroom" or a "toadstool," because if I miscategorize,
I may die. To the extent that categorization is guided by objective
consequences, it is nonarbitrary. Subjective uncertainty is another
matter. I may put some objects together purely because they look
prettier to me that way ("ad lib" categorization). That's truly
arbitrary. To the extent that taxonomy is constrained by the first kind
of uncertainty-reduction, it is empirical and informative. To the
extent that it is guided by the latter, it is arbitrary and subjective
(or "intersubjective," if most or all people happen to think things
look prettier that way).
" Obviously, doing the clustering requires deciding which physiological
" properties are important, and we can well imagine a different culture
" deciding that "having feathers" was a less important property than
" "being able to fly"
What does "important" mean? Again, if the decision is guided by
objective consequences, it is nonarbitrary; if subjective only, it's
arbitrary. Social constraints are a special case. Humans are, after
all, natural kinds. So the kinds of sanctions they impose on one
another are "natural" too. Hence if my speech community tells me that
"being able to fly" picks out an important category X, and they test me
on it in school, etc., then objective consequences dictate that I
better get it right. [Recall that the original issue here was whether
or not "classical" features underlie our categorizations, not whether
the features (or categories) are chosen for nonsocial or social
reasons; it is the objective, external existence of those features that
the classicist must be prepared to defend, not the basis for their
selection.]
" higher-order classifications like "bird" are human creations, not
" directly observable distinctions that are mandated by nature.
They may or may not be human creations, but they must be based on
objectively observable features if they are to be reliably picked out
(as they are).
" I doubt I could identify, say, a platypus from sight alone. Yet, that
" doesn't stop me from knowing things about platypuses... I'm not
" restricted to making categorization decisions from sense data alone - I
" have the capability to use language, and to know that object X is a
" platypus because I was explicitly told that object X is a platypus.
I'm nowhere suggesting that all categorization is restricted to "sense
data" alone but rather that it is GROUNDED in sensory features. Once
grounded, a symbol system is free to rise to ever higher levels of
abstraction. I need never have seen a platypus to know and speak about
them. But I do need to have grounded categories for "bills," "fur,"
"egg-laying," and whatever other features pick out the platypus (or
grounded categories for whatever features pick out those features,
or...etc.). That's exactly the capability that a grounded symbol system
for making propositions about category membership (language) gives
you. But this capability cannot be taken for granted either, any more
than the ability to categorize can; it must be explained (and my symbol
grounding theory is one candidate explanation).
" One definition of "bird" is all animals that have feathers (another is
" all descendants of Archaeopteryx). But the fact that the category is
" well-defined does not mean it is not arbitrary.
Two different senses of arbitrary seem to be at issue here, but only
one is relevant to the problem of the internal representation of
categories: The reason we single out a given feature and sort objects in
the world according to it may be arbitrary: A dictator may have decreed
that we must worship all creatures that exceed his own weight; if he
has the power to enforce his decree, then there are dire consequences
for us if we fail to detect and act according to this feature. Such a
category would be arbitrary in the sense that it did not really pick
out a natural kind (since there is nothing special about the dictator's
weight or about objects that exceed it), but it would nevertheless be
an all-or-none category with perfectly "classical" features (within the
limits of our senses and weighing instruments). [The dictator might also
have decreed that we must worship creatures that exceed his height OR
weight: This too would be a perfectly classical category, with all
members sharing the property of exceeding either the dictator's height
or his weight.]
With nonarbitrary categories, nature is the dictator. Apart from that,
there is no difference between categories that are "arbitrary" and
"nonarbitrary" in this first sense (at least not for the cognitive
theorist concerned with explaining how categorization is accomplished
by the head; there may be a difference for the ontologist or the
physicist, but their concerns should not be conflated with the
epistemic concerns of the cognitive theorist).
The second sense of arbitrary would be one in which there really were
no objective features subserving an all-or-none distinction -- no
objective consequences whatsoever arising from miscategorization: Humpty
Dumpty's dictum that words mean what I want them to mean. Or an "X" is
whatever I say is an X. It is only arbitrary subjective categories of
the latter kind (what I've called "ad lib" categories) that might truly
lack classical features. And although it is not their intention, I
believe that the incoherent sort of category representation recommended
to us by those who think categories are represented nonclassically
would be arbitrary in this second sense.
__________
zhang@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jiajie Zhang) of Institute for Cognitive Science,
UC San Diego writes:
" I agree that judgements of typicality can't provide us much
" information about the underlying mechanism of categorization...
" [but] our ability to perform categorization is just one of several
" important aspects of categorization...
In this passage Zhang agrees with most of the points I have been making
in these postings, so I cannot disagree, but I would say that our
ability to perform categorizations is by far the most important aspect
of categorization; the rest is little more than fine tuning once you
solve that problem.
Among the other aspects of categorization Zhang cites:
" (1) Descriptive analyses of categories... (e.g., biological taxonomy,
" Keil's ontological categories.)
Biological taxonomy is probably best left to biologists. What can
psychologists and computer scientists offer to the specialists here?
The same is true for ontology. (And Keil, by the way, is not doing
ontology, even if he says so: He is studying the development of
ontological concepts -- concepts of what there is.) On the other hand,
one is free to gather one's insights where one may, and if biology or
ontology give someone an idea about how we manage to categorize, fine.
And, human categorization PERFORMANCE in any domain, including biology
and ontology, certainly counts as data.
" (2) Internal representations of categories... A theory of
" categorization should not only answer the question of what are the
" structures of internal representation of categories but also the
" question of HOW human beings actually DO the categorization. It should
" also be able to explain empirical data, such as prototypical effects.
" Connectionism, in my opinion, might be the best tool (so far) to study
" categorization...
For me, the question of how categories are internally represented and
the question of how we do categorization are the same question (the
basic question mentioned at the outset). The internal representation is
the mechanism subserving the categorization performance. I agree that
connectionism might be a candidate mechanism, particularly for category
learning and feature detection.
Prototype effects should certainly be explained, but categorization
itself must be explained first; once it is, I predict that prototype
effects will turn out to be a minor side-effect. I certainly wouldn't
"constrain" my categorization models at this stage to conform to
prototype effects -- any more than I would constrain them to conform to
reaction time, brain-damage effects or our foggy knowledge of brain
function. Let models achieve success at lifesize categorization
any-which-way first and then let's worry about fine-tuning them to
exhibit those extra frills. On the other hand, as suggested before, we
are free to gather INSIGHTs wherever we may; so if prototype effects,
brain-damage data or neurobiological data inspire anyone to a successful
categorization model, bravo! But the only CONSTRAINT we need on the
project is provided by the evidence of our actual categorization
performance capacity itself.
" (3) Origin of categories, both ontogenetically and phylogenetically.
" Do categories exist objectively out there and wait for
" human beings to find the regularities and pick them up? To what
" extent are categories artificial, that is, to what extent do human
" beings impose artificial categories on nature? Learning
" categories through schooling is different from that through
" discovering, and that through creating.
Developmental data on categorization performance are of course
important, because they provide some insight into the all-important
process of the acquisition of categories (including MIScategorization
and the input needed to correct it). Comparative data on other species
are of course relevant too. On the other hand, as I suggested, I think
cognitive scientists would do better to avoid the minefields of
ontology -- at least if they are not prepared first to arm themselves with
two millenia of philosophy. This much, however, looks as if it can be
said with some confidence: Objective categories -- i.e., those for which
there are objective consequences arising from miscategorizations -- must
have a basis in objective, discernible external features. Why we PICK
OUT those categories and those features may sometimes be socially
determined, but that does not make the features any less external.
I agree that learning categories from cases is importantly different
from learning them through instruction; and that the "creation" of
categories is yet another relevant aspect of performance. My own theory
addresses all of these cases explicitly.
" (4) Why do human beings categorize things? I think this might be
" related to what Harnad called miscategorization. Personally, I think
" this is a question about cognitive cost.
Categorization is merely a special form of differential responding to
input. Differential responding is guided by its consequences. We
must categorize things because there is a cost (in survival or
well-being) to miscategorizing them. I don't know what "cognitive
cost" means, but I think miscategorization is all-important because
that is what provides the feedback that makes it possible for us to
converge on the features that eventually allow us to get the
categorization right. And if there is no right or wrong to a category,
as I said in another posting, then all we have is subjective similarity
judgment.
" (5) Relation between performance and competence of categorization
Our category competence is our capacity to categorize as we do, given
the inputs we get, and the feedback from the consequences of our
attempts. And just as in the linguistic competence/performance
distinction, there are performance details (such as prototype effects
and introspections about features) that are not central to the basic
problem of modeling the competence. (When I say "categorization
performance capacity" I mean category competence, not performance.)
__________
∂17-Jan-89 2036 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jan 89 20:36:05 PST
Date: Tue 17 Jan 89 20:34:01-PST
From: Yvonne Lee <L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: The Sesame influence
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <$axkc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12463424219.12.L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
If what you say is true, why is the disparity between rich and poor
greater in the U.S. than in any other developed country?
-------
∂18-Jan-89 1041 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU [COOLEY@unix.SRI.COM: Re: Posting SU.ETC messages on other networks]
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 10:41:32 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA12027; Wed, 18 Jan 89 10:41:05 PDT
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 10:41:05 PDT
From: Andy Freeman <andy@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901181841.AA12027@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: [COOLEY@unix.SRI.COM: Re: Posting SU.ETC messages on other networks]
He's having trouble with mail and asked me to forward this to you.
He asked me to reply to cooley@kl.sri.com.
BTW - I didn't mention that he edited your message so that it
referred to ca.environment instead of su.etc, without mentioning
this. (The sentence was something like "I advise su.etc readers
to not give to <nature groups>.")
-andy
Return-Path: <cooley@unix.SRI.COM>
Date: Wed 18 Jan 89 08:32:38-PST
From: Donald W. Cooley <COOLEY@unix.SRI.COM>
Subject: Re: Posting SU.ETC messages on other networks
To: andy@polya.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: <8901172258.AA03482@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <PYRAMID-MM(205)+TOPSLIB(126)@UNIX.SRI.COM>
I tried to send a message, but do to a typo the message didn't get through.
I'm totally new to this business, so I didn't realize my message to John
had not made it to him until after my postings to ca.environment. Thanks
for bringing this to my attention, I apologize to John for not making
sure about this. In the future, I plan not to cross post responses.
-------
∂18-Jan-89 1117 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 11:17:45 PST
Date: Wed 18 Jan 89 11:15:31-PST
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: The Sesame influence
To: L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
cc: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
s.salut@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12463424219.12.L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-ID: <12463584692.12.S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
> why is the disparity between rich and poor
> greater in the U.S. than in any other developed country?
For crying out loud, DISPARITY is not inherently bad! This is the old
leftist tirade that I heard for ever back in Europe... Assume that
happiness is measured on a scale of 1 (very bad) to 10 (very good).
Assume that you have 10 people around, with the following happiness-ratings:
- Situation 1: All people rate between 1 and 3.
Disparity measure: 2
- Situation 2: 1 person rates 1, 1 rates 2, 1 rates 3,..., 1 rates 10.
Disparity measure: 9
Where are the people BETTER OFF? Equality alone as a goal is stupid,
(and has no moral basis either). Even Gorbacheff has figured that out;
take the hint!
Alex
-------
∂18-Jan-89 1242 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil FAST RESPONSE
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 12:42:00 PST
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA23410; Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:09:41 EST
Posted-Date: Wed 18 Jan 89 15:23:45-EST
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA12383; Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:23:47 EST
Date: Wed 18 Jan 89 15:23:45-EST
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: FAST RESPONSE
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <601158225.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Thanks for the help! The responses I've received are very helpful.
Bill
-------
∂18-Jan-89 1509 COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM My Apology
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 15:08:58 PST
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:07:18 PST
From: Donald W. Cooley <COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: My Apology
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <12463626885.20.COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM>
John, I'm guilty of doing you a disservice. I recently discovered
a bulletin board called ca.environment. In my excitement
I posted my article about TIME magazine that you responded
to on su-etc. I then posted my response to your response
as one posting, first your words then mine. I tried
to send you a copy asking your permission, but because
I'm very new to this machine I didn't get a response from you,
evidently because I did something wrong. When I didn't hear back I
assumed you didn't care if I posted. I realize now that was wrong
of me, I will never do this again unless I get permission first.
I honestly meant no harm and believed you wouldn't mind.
I thought your response was excellent, I have different
opinions on nuclear power than you , but you made excellent
points for your opinion. I honestly felt I was just giving
equal time to an opposing viewpoint. I only changed the words
"su-etc" to "ca.environment," everything else is the same.
(I spelled out WWF as World Wildlife Fund in your quote of
my original message.I afraid I also spelled your last name
wrong, it should be McCarthy.)
I hope my apology helps. If there is something more I can do
to correct this wrong let me know.
I can assure you this will never happen again!
-Don <cooley@kl.sri.com>
Here is the posting on ca.environment exactly as it appeared:
-------
∂18-Jan-89 1511 COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM My Posting on ca.environment
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 15:11:36 PST
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:09:53 PST
From: Donald W. Cooley <COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: My Posting on ca.environment
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <12463627356.20.COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM>
John, here is my posting on ca.environment
John McCarty <jmc@sail.stanford.edu> writes in response to
my <cooley@kl.sri.com> posting about TIME magazine
naming the "endangered earth" as planet of the year:
>>Your posting, and I presume TIME itself, are pussyfooting on the issue
>>of nuclear energy. This is because the "worthy" organizations you
>>list are part of the problem - not part of the solution. Present
>>style nuclear power plants are the only readily expandable form of energy
>>generation that doesn't put CO2 in the atmosphere. After 15 years
>>solar energy is still a small scale special purpose thing, even after
>>many governments of put money into it. In contrast France now generates
>>75 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants and Japan 30 percent,
>>both having started long after the U.S. However, the long term problem
>>is to use nuclear energy for other uses than present uses of electricity.
>>The largest problem is to power cars with liquid hydrogen or with
>>electric batteries that give range and performance comparable to
>>gasoline powered cars.
>>Safer nuclear plants are possible and should be developed, but I'll
>>bet TIME fails to compute how much CO2 Seabrook and Shoreham will
>>save putting in the atmosphere. Some previously anti-nuclear
>>environmentalists, e.g. Sen. Wirthlin of Colorado, are beginning
>>to see the light, but Nader remains fanatical, and so, I believe,
>>does the Sierra Club. These outfits regard their alliances with
>>each other and with politicians as more precious than saving the
>>world from the greenhouse effect.
>>Until they face the harm they have done, they are only posturing.
>>I urge ca.environment readers not to send donations to any of the
>>outfits mentioned in the message, except possibly the Nature
>>Conservancy, which buys land for refuges. The others all
>>do more harm than good. There are more reasons than their
>>anti-nuclear position why this is so.
>>Here they are again: Greenpeace,World Wildlife Fund,Sierra Club,
>>Cousteau Society, Friends of the Earth, Rainforest Action Network,
>>Natural Resources Defense Council,The Nature Conservatory,Wilderness
>>Society.
-----------------------------------------------
My response:
John,
I am puzzled by your response. You mainly seem upset about
the stance Greenpeace and some other nature groups have taken
on the nuclear industry in this country, but you hint there
are other reasons also. (I'd be interested to know what they are.)
But back to the nuclear industry. I agree better,safer nuclear
reactors are possible and research in this area should be funded.
(This is TIME's response also, see p.41 of their Jan 2, 1989 issue.)
However, safety should come first. And the question of what to do
with nuclear wastes continues to be a problem. Again, I believe
more research in this area is needed. ( None of the States seem
to want the stuff, even Nevadans are reluctant to have more radioactive
wastes stored in their state. ) This is not even to mention the
problems associated with our nuclear weapons plants. So although I'm
optimistic about the future of nuclear power, I think its past
(and present) can be fairly critized.
What upsets me about your response is that you have let one issue
blind you to the good the environmental movement is doing. It is
clear to me that overpopulation and a much too fast rate of population
growth are the root cause of most of the environmental problems
we face now and in the future. According to TIME (p.29), 40,000
babies starve to death each day. (This is almost the equivalent
of one Armenian earthquake every other day!) I wished TIME had
been stronger in their recommendations in this area. I wish
the environmental groups I mentioned did more in this area also.
But, at least they are trying to deal with the environmental
consequences of this population explosion before its too late.
And I don't think thousands of nuclear reactors placed in every
country is the solution to all these problems!
I hope these comments don't polarize you and others who agree
with you even further. We all have alot more to gain by comprimizing in
areas where we disagree and taking action before it's too late.
We are diving 100 species of plants and animals to extinction
every day (on the average). This is 1000 times the rate that
has prevailed since prehistory.(TIME, p.32.) While we debate
the virtues of nuclear power, whole ecosystems are being
destroyed (the Rainforests) at a alarming rate.
- Don Cooley <cooley@kl.sri.com>
-------
-------
∂18-Jan-89 1634 MPS A. Spector
FAX from A. Spector. It was read to me over the phone.
Dear JMC
Sorry I was not in when you telephoned. Would you FAX
your message to me. Thank you.
91 515 2105
They are mailing a copy from Forsythe.
Pat
∂18-Jan-89 1638 John.Reynolds@proof.ergo.cs.cmu.edu Re: FAST RESPONSE NEEDED
Received: from vax.darpa.mil ([192.5.18.99]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 16:38:38 PST
Posted-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 13:14:26 EST
Received: from PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA24510; Wed, 18 Jan 89 19:12:00 EST
Received: from PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU by PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jan 89 13:14:33 EST
To: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Cc: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil, John.Reynolds@proof.ergo.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: FAST RESPONSE NEEDED
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 17 Jan 89 16:58:09 -0500.
<601077489.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 13:14:26 EST
Message-Id: <2413.601150466@PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU>
From: John.Reynolds@proof.ergo.cs.cmu.edu
I have nothing worthy of reporting to Congress -- John Reynolds
∂18-Jan-89 1640 pullen@vax.darpa.mil [Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>: DARPA BAA 89-05]
Received: from vax.darpa.mil ([192.5.18.99]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 16:40:40 PST
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA24170; Wed, 18 Jan 89 18:05:25 EST
Posted-Date: Wed 18 Jan 89 18:18:49-EST
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA09518; Wed, 18 Jan 89 18:18:51 EST
Date: Wed 18 Jan 89 18:18:49-EST
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: [Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>: DARPA BAA 89-05]
To: ISTO-PI-LIST@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <601168729.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Apparently the text of the the following message did not
reach some addressees. Here it is again.
The "official" postal mailing has gone out, should reach you
this week.
---------------
Received-Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 13:38:39 EST
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA22423; Mon, 9 Jan 89 13:38:39 EST
Posted-Date: Mon 9 Jan 89 13:52:22-EST
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA06281; Mon, 9 Jan 89 13:52:24 EST
Date: Mon 9 Jan 89 13:52:22-EST
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: DARPA BAA 89-05
To: ISTO-PI-LIST
Cc: pullen, ISTO-AGENTS
Message-Id: <600375142.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
The following is the text of the BAA, advertized in synopsis in
the Commerce Business Daily of 28 December 1988. A brochure
containing the "official" copy of this BAA is being mailed
and should reach you within 8 to 10 days.
While this email version is not the "official" BAA, it should
help you in planning proposal submissions. Please note that
we are inviting white paper "Abstract Proposals" for review
by the end of January. The intention is to provide a means
for you to get feedback on your ideas without the large
investment of your writing time (and our reading time) that
accompanies a full proposal.
=======================================================================
Broad Agency Announcement DARPA
Research in Information Science and Technology
ADVANCED COMPUTING SYSTEMS.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting
proposals for research in the area of information science and technology
in support of the DARPA Basic Research Program and the DARPA Strategic
Computing program.
Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches and techniques
that lead to or enable revolutionary advances in the state of the
art. Specifically excluded is research which primarily results in
evolutionary improvement to the existing state of practice. When appropriate,
new concepts are to be demonstrated by means of systems prototypes.
Topics to be considered include, but are not limited to:
a. PARALLEL COMPUTING ARCHITECTURES: Advances in the state of scalable
parallel systems leading to the goal of teraop computational systems;
software and application support and implementation facilities for
parallel architectures; processing elements, memory systems, input/output
interfaces, mass storage systems, and facilities for interconnecting
them; and high speed networking support to allow access to computational
results over national networks. An intent in this area is to provide
advanced symbolic and numeric computational systems facilitating work
on problems not feasibly addressed using conventional systems. The
subject systems should be accessible via a distributed system of advanced
workstations attached to a local area network, permitting access to
a variety of servers. Designs should support the Internet suite of
protocols with the intent of allowing transparent access from remote
sites attached to the Internet. Prototype developments leading to
commercial products should be performed in cooperation with industry,
on a cost-sharing basis. Technical contact is Major J. Mark Pullen,
phone (202)694-5051, electronic mail pullen@vax.darpa.mil.
b. MICROSYSTEM DESIGN AND PROTOTYPING: Advanced computer-aided-design
technologies, methods, and tools which support component, subsystem,
and architectural design for both analog and digital systems. Specific
targeted application demonstrations should be included for tools,
techniques and methods proposed. Novel, cost-effective approaches
to applying existing or new technologies leading to rapid prototyping
of components and modules; new fundamental technologies supporting
rapid prototyping; research and applications supporting computerized
commerce and automated logistics of components; key infrastructure
activities supporting VLSI, advanced packaging, or subsystem design.
Extremely high performance analog and digital VLSI computational accelerators
which interface to evolving parallel computing environments. Advanced
and novel measurement techniques or methods leading to innovations
in VLSI manufacturing methods, standards, or practice; new approaches
applying information sciences to VLSI manufacturing to include, but not
limited to, computer aided manufacturing, process flow descriptions,
equipment characterization and simulation. Technical contact is
Major John C. Toole, phone (202)694-5800, electronic mail toole@vax.darpa.mil.
c. SOFTWARE: Proposals for basic software technology research in
the following specific areas: environments and very high level language
to support prototyping; persistent object management and typing; advanced
program analysis techniques; formal methods for trust, safety, and
security; representation and management of software design information;
advanced languages and tools for parallel systems; activity coordination
and configuration management; visualization of and interaction with
complex conceptual objects; program manipulation and transformation
techniques; open architecture formal reasoning systems; and generic
systems components and integration technology for advanced environment
prototypes. Cooperative research involving multiple organizations
is encouraged. Proposals that enable or accelerate the development
of common abstract interfaces are encouraged. Technical contact is
Dr. William Scherlis, phone (202)694-5800, electronic mail
scherlis@vax.darpa.mil.
d. NETWORKING/COMMAND,CONTROL and COMMUNICATIONS: Advances in the
state of display technology; integrated multi-media interfaces; trusted
computing environments and operating systems for large-scale distributed
and parallel systems, including real-time systems; application independent
process distribution; software tools for creation of distributed systems;
high performance distributed data bases; very high speed networking;
multi-media robust networks; non-terrestrial networks; network-based
distributed simulation and wargaming systems for brigade/wing/battle
groups and above; and low-cost network-based combat workstations,
simulators, and subsystems such as computer image generation. Technical
contact is Lt Col Peter Sowa, phone (202)694-5800, electronic mail
sowa@vax.darpa.mil.
e. MACHINE INTELLIGENCE: The Machine Intelligence research program
is exploring new fundamental areas of problem solving and automated
reasoning in Artificial Intelligence where the current limits of KBS
technology prevent full application to support defense and commercial
needs. The program includes, but is not limited to, work on spoken
language systems, including basic research on speech recognition and
natural language, image understanding, autonomous outdoor navigation,
interaction support systems, AI and database integration, adaptive
planning, machine learning, use of AI in design and manufacturing
tasks, frameworks for KBSs, distributed/parallel problem solving architectures,
and the use of advanced machine architectures to support real-time
processing requirements. Large-scale projects are expected to develop
prototype systems which embody machine intelligence in a cost-effective
form with industrial cooperation. Technical contacts are Lt Col Robert
L. Simpson, Jr., phone (202)694-4002, electronic mail
simpson@vax.darpa.mil, and Mr. Charles L. Wayne, phone (202)694-5921,
electronic mail wayne@vax.darpa.mil.
f. MANUFACTURING: CAD/CAM FOR MECHANICAL PARTS AND ASSEMBLIES:
This program seeks to establish the technology base necessary to advance
the U.S. level of preparedness with respect to rapid, automated production
of mechanical parts and assemblies, including rapid production of
prototypes and spare parts in small numbers. In particular, these
efforts address the problem of providing better tools for designing
and fabricating mechanical piece-parts, recording and inspecting designs,
and designing mechanical systems with a view towards optimizing life-cycle
cost. Partnerships are encouraged among universities and manufacturers.
The intent is to leverage the past and future results of ongoing related
research efforts, especially those efforts concerned with integrating
CAD & CAM for mechanical and eloctromechanical systems. The program
seeks to accelerate the production of prototypes of dies, molds,
mechanical parts, design of assembly systems, and development of
systems for fabricating advanced composites needed for manufacturing.
The expected end results include but are not limited to unique facilities
for making fast physical prototypes; and systems for real-time simulation
of manufacturing procedures including process validation prior to
production. Technical contact is Dr. William E. Isler, phone (202)694-4001,
electronic mail isler@vax.darpa.mil.
GENERAL GUIDELINES
Unless the nature of the research precludes such, the work is
expected to produce experimental prototypes that can be distributed
to the research community for evaluation and use. This will normally
require the delivery of products such as prototype software and/or
hardware, designs, and other associated systems that embody results
of the research.
Proposals must provide specific details concerning technology transition,
both within the research community and into industrial application.
In order to encourage and facilitate technology transfer, software
and systems interfaces should be designed to anticipate future standards.
All prototype deliverables should be documented appropriately, and
examples and tutorial material should be provided when necessary.
Use of programming languages Common Lisp and Ada is encouraged wherever
applicable.
Sources for research will be selected by a formal technical/scientific/business
decision process. Individual proposal evaluations will be based on
acceptability or unacceptability without regard to other proposals
submitted under the announcement. Evaluation of proposals will be
performed using the following criteria which are listed in order of
priority:
FIRST PRIORITY:
a. Quality. Overall scientific, technical, and socio-economic
merit of the proposal.
b. Relevance. Potential contributions of the effort
to the agency's specific mission, including military
relevance and contribution to the national technology base. This
includes the offeror's plans and capability to appropriately transition
the technology to the research and industrial communities (including
defense industry), in such a way that U.S. defense and industrial
competitiveness is enhanced.
c. Personnel. The qualifications, capabilities, and
experience of the proposed principal investigator, team leader, and
key personnel who are critical in achieving proposal objectives.
2. SECOND PRIORITY:
d. Related Experience. The offeror's qualifications,
capabilities, and experience in related technical areas.
e. Capability. The offeror's facilities and demonstrated
ability for achieving the proposal objectives. For
proposals involving prototype development this will include availability
(either in-house, through subcontract, or through industrial
affiliates) of design and manufacturing tools appropriate to
the proposed prototype.
3. THIRD PRIORITY:
f. Cost. Realism and amount of the proposed cost,
and cost sharing.
Principal funding for proposals selected under this announcement will
begin in Fiscal Year 1990 with some modest initial efforts in Fiscal
Year 1989. It is anticipated that at least twenty million dollars
in funding will be available to support proposals in this area for
Fiscal Year 1990. However, proposals will be evaluated within technical
program areas and must compete for limited funds available in those
areas.
Proposals submitted may be evaluated as they are received, or they
may be collected and reviewed periodically.
Prospective proposers are encouraged to submit a proposal abstract
consisting of sections A through E, a one-page abstract of section
H focusing on the technical approach, and section I, of Volume I,
as described below, by 30 January 1989. DARPA/ISTO intends to respond
to such abstracts within 30 days of receipt, providing an assessment
of the likely viability of a full proposal. This procedure is intended
to minimize unnecessary effort in proposal preparation and review,
and is not a requirement for submission or selection of proposals.
Proposal abstracts should be clearly marked as such on the cover page.
Proposals can range from small-scale efforts that are primarily theoretical
in nature, to medium-scale experimental and prototyping efforts of
hardware and/or software, to larger-scale integrated systems efforts
which include industrial cooperation and cost sharing.
Five copies of each full and abbreviated Proposal are to be submitted.
Full proposals shall consist of two volumes: Vol I shall provide the
technical proposal, and Vol II shall address the management and cost
portions of the proposal.
Volume I should be about 40 pages in length, but not exceeding 50
pages in length, and shall include the following sections, each starting
on a new page (a page" shall be no greater than 9 1/2 inches
by 11 inches in type not smaller than 12 pitch; overlength proposals,
both full and abbreviated, will be rejected without review):
A. A cover page including title, technical points of contact, and
administrative points of contact, including telephone number and electronic
mail address, if available. The cover page should indicate in which
category (a through f above) the proposal is intended to fall.
B. A one-page summary of the innovative claims for the proposed research.
C. A one-page summary of the deliverables associated with the proposed
research.
D. A one-page summary of the schedule and milestones for the proposed
research, including estimates of cost in each year of the effort and
total cost.
E. One-page summary of any proprietary claims to results, prototypes,
or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research,
results and/or prototype. (The Government may be willing to waive
portions of its data rights in cases where significant cost sharing
and/or cost savings on commercial products derived from the research
are offered.) If there are no proprietary claims, this section should
consist of a statement to the effect.
F. A Statement of Work (SOW) not more than 3 pages, detailing the
scope of the effort and specific contractor requirements.
G. A description, no more than 5 pages long, of the results, products,
and transferable technology from a prospective user's point of view
expected from the project.
H. A technical rationale paper of no more than 20 pages which includes
technical arguments that substantiate claims made in Section B, a
technical approach description consistent with Sections C and D, and a
comparison with other ongoing research indicating advantages and
disadvantages of proposed effort.
I. A discussion of no more than 10 pages giving previous accomplishments
and work in this or closely related research areas and the qualifications
of the investigators.
J. A bibliography of relevant technical papers and research notes
(published and unpublished) which document the technical ideas upon
which the proposal is based. This section is not subject to the page
count restriction. Copies of not more than 5 relevant papers can
be included in the submission.
Volume IIA shall be no more than 10 pages. It should describe the
overall approach to the management of this effort, including brief
discussions on total organization, use of personnel, project/function/subcontra
ctor relationships, technology transition plans, and planning, scheduling
and control practices. Principal Investigators and key personnel
must provide a list of current and proposed sources of research support.
Volume IIB shall include a one-page cost summary and an SF 1411 (Contract
Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet, available from the Government Printing
Office) for the effort (inclusive of options), or similar format where
fully justified. Supporting pages shall provide detailed breakdowns
of labor hours by labor category and task/subtasks, materials by vendor
quotes and purchase history, travel, computer and other direct costs
and indirect costs. Where the research consists of multiple portions
which may reasonably be partitioned for purposes of funding, offerors
are encouraged to identify these as contract options and provide separate
cost estimates for each portion. An explanation of any estimating
factors including their derivation and application shall be provided.
Details of any cost sharing to be undertaken by the offeror should
be included in the cost proposal. To minimize built-in cost growth,
the government intends to evaluate the realism of the offeror's proposed
cost in terms of the offeror's proposed approach. The offeror is responsible
to justify the realism of the proposed costs. Offerors are required
to furnish the procedures and rationale used in compiling proposed
costs. All information such as IR&D parallel effort, etc., must be
disclosed. An offeror's proposal is presumed to represent the best
efforts to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency whether
real or apparent between promised performance and cost should be explained
in the proposal. For example, if the intended use of new and innovative
production techniques is the basis for an abnormally low estimate,
the nature of these techniques and their impact on cost should be
explained; or, if a corporate policy decision has been made to absorb
a portion of the estimated capital cost, that should be stated in
the proposal. The burden of proof as to cost credibility rests with
the offeror.
This announcement will remain in effect until 1 May 1989. Responses
should be addressed to: DARPA/ISTO (ATTN: BAA), 1400 Wilson Blvd.,
Arlington, VA 22209-2308.
This constitutes the entire Broad Agency Announcement and contains
all proposal requirements.
Inquiries of a technical nature may be directed to persons named in
technical topic areas above. Inquiries of a contractual nature may
be directed to Mr. Ron Register at (202) 694-1771.
-------
-------
-------
∂18-Jan-89 2039 GLB
To: der@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU, sf@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, jcm@Polya.Stanford.EDU,
CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
It looks like the certificate of my orals never reached
the Central Bureaucracy. I'll go around and collect the
signatures again.
∂18-Jan-89 2256 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 22:56:07 PST
Date: Wed 18 Jan 89 22:53:51-PST
From: Yvonne Lee <L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: The Sesame influence
To: S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
cc: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12463584692.12.S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-ID: <12463711819.14.L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
it's easy to say that disparity is good when you're one of the haves.
-------
∂18-Jan-89 2318 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jan 89 23:18:02 PST
Date: Wed 18 Jan 89 23:15:50-PST
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: The Sesame influence
To: L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
cc: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12463711819.14.L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-ID: <12463715821.17.S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
That's the standard answer in the dialog... "You're rich, so you can't
possibly understand the poor".
Wrong:
1) you don't know if I'm rich.
2) being rich does not necessarily fry your brain, or rid you of all
moral values.
Forget who I am (and other ad-hominem arguments) and try to reason about
what I said. Warning: old positions adhered to for your entire lifetime
may fall apart; this is unpleasant.
Alex
-------
∂19-Jan-89 0633 Mailer Re: Democracy in China
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 06:33:39 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 06:31:54 PST
From: Richard Steinberger <STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: Re: Democracy in China
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Lc2X1@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12463795206.11.STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM>
Since you support Fang Lizhi's suggested reforms in China, how would you feel
about supporting similar reforms in South Africa or El Salvador?
It seems to me that there is room for glasnost in rightist as well as leftist
regimes.
-Ric Steinberger
-------
∂19-Jan-89 0944 COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM re: My Posting on ca.environment
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 09:43:56 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 09:42:11 PST
From: Donald W. Cooley <COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: re: My Posting on ca.environment
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <vbaEw@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12463829844.17.COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM>
Thanks for your kind reply. Yes, I agree it was very wrong of me
to change any of your words, as I said I for one will never do
this again. Thanks for your permission to cross-post your su-etc
postings to ca.environment, but I prefer not to. Since you
are aware of ca.environment, I'll let you post your comments
yourself. I encourage you to do so, I think readers of that
bulletin board could use some articulate rebuttals to some of their
ideas. I'm very sorry I got off to such a poor start with bulletin
boards and with you. I plan to do better from this point on.
-Don
-------
∂19-Jan-89 1021 JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU 6th DKBS Workshop - Arnold Spector, Sunderland Polytechnic, UK.
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 10:21:15 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 19 Jan 89 10:20:03 PST
Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer X1.25) with BSMTP id 2967; Thu,
19 Jan 89 15:25:21 GMT
Received:
Via: UK.AC.RL.IB; 19 JAN 89 15:25:19 GMT
Message-ID: <19 Jan 1989, 15:25:11 JWS@uk.ac.rl.ib>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 15:25:11 GMT
From: "J W T Smith" (JWS AT UKACRL) <JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: 6th DKBS Workshop - Arnold Spector, Sunderland Polytechnic, UK.
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Oxfordshire, UK. 0235 21900 Ext 6487
To: Prof. John MacCarthy, Stanford University, USA.
I'm sending this note at the request of Arnold Spector of Sunderland
Polytechnic (he currently does not have access to e-mail facilities). He is
concerned because he received a message that you had telephoned but does not
know why. Are the arrangements for the DKBS Workshop on 29-31 March still OK?
If you prefer to use e-mail please reply to me and I will pass your message
on.
John Smith.
∂19-Jan-89 1205 COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM re: My Posting on ca.environment
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 12:05:40 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 12:02:42 PST
From: Donald W. Cooley <COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: re: My Posting on ca.environment
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Lc9WL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12463855426.13.COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM>
ca.environment (and sci.environment) are on USENET. I use an
SRI computer (unix.sri.com) to access ca.environment, I'm not
sure which computer at Stanford has access to the USENET bulletin
boards. Andy Freeman <andy@polya.stanford.edu> may know, he read
my posting on ca.environment. Perhaps he can help you. Good-luck.
-Don
-------
∂19-Jan-89 1226 S.SEOWON@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: western culture
Received: from LEAR.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 12:26:32 PST
Date: Thu 19 Jan 89 12:24:26-PST
From: SEOWON CHOI <S.SEOWON@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: western culture
To: su-etc@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU, jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12463859382.142.S.SEOWON@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Cultures in western hemisphere in the past two centuries have evolved through
heavy interactions. Greco-Roman culture was one of the late starters, and
in the beginning adopted most of its elements from Egyptian and Phoenician.
Later it made progress mainly through acquisition of other cultures like
Gaulic, Spanish, German, and through interactions with Persians and Chinese.
Even after Rome, Europeans were in contacts with Arabians, Indians, and
Chinese constantly.
I don't think anybody knows how to define western culture in such a fashion
that its influence amonge contemporary cultures can be identified uniquely,
not to mention how to teach such a culture (if there is one) outside the
context of other cultures. I am puzzled as to why some people want to defend
cultural purity when there is no pure culture to begin with.
Young generation should be exposed to history based on the fact that any
significant culture has originated from many other preceding it and is
constantly evolving through interactions, so that they can improve the
reality by new ideas fitting their times, not by choosing among old ideas.
seowon
-------
∂19-Jan-89 1233 Mailer re: Democracy in China
Received: from uwavm.acs.washington.edu (oly.acs.washington.edu) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 12:33:52 PST
Received: from Tomobiki-Cho.acs.washington.edu by uwavm.acs.washington.edu ; Thu, 19 Jan 89 12:31:11 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1989 12:24:57 PST
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Democracy in China
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
cc: su-etc@sail.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: <Lc2X1@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <MS-C.601244697.2035015474.mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
One thing that JMC didn't mention is that although Fang Lizhi was
expelled from the Communist Party for his actions, no civil or criminal action
has been taken against him. An article in the official "Beijing Review"
explained that Fang had violated party regulations and could not remain a
party member, but had not violated any state laws. Fang still has his job, is
still allowed to publish scientific papers, and is still allowed to travel
overseas.
I wonder if China will be able to maintain this separation of party and
state. If so, it is a major advance. The fact that Fang's article has been
published is an encouraging sign. Perhaps the Chinese leadership is
recognizing the value of the gadfly.
Another interesting article in "Beijing Review" is about the Chinese
reassessment of Western European and American capitalism. It explains why all
the dire predictions of classical Marxism (and Maoism) about capitalism have
not come to pass -- specifically, that since the "era of imperialism" (which
is held to have ended at the end of WWII) capitalism has evolved into "social
capitalism", an advanced form of capitalism that will transform peacefully
into socialism.
-------
∂19-Jan-89 1250 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU,@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU:lusk@antares.mcs.anl.gov North American Conference on Logic Programming, call for papers
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 12:50:03 PST
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 19 Jan 89 12:47:52-PST
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (CHAOS 3131) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 19 Jan 89 15:48:05 EST
Received: from XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (CHAOS 2420) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 19 Jan 89 14:16:00 EST
Received: from antares.mcs.anl.gov by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP/SMTP; Thu 19 Jan 89 13:44:01-EST
Received: from donner ([192.5.196.129]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA02316; Thu, 19 Jan 89 12:36:18 CST
Received: by donner (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA20898; Thu, 19 Jan 89 12:38:28 CST
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 12:38:28 CST
From: lusk%antares@antares.mcs.anl.gov
Message-Id: <8901191838.AA20898@donner>
To: aiout@antares.mcs.anl.gov
Subject: North American Conference on Logic Programming, call for papers
Call for Papers
North American Conference on Logic Programming
Cleveland, Ohio, October 16-19, 1989
The Symposium on Logic Programming has been renamed the
North American Conference on Logic Programming. Beginning
this year, it will be sponsored by the Association for Logic
Programming. We are soliciting papers in the following gen-
eral areas of research:
Applications of Logic Programming
Logic Programming and Databases
Theory of Logic and Functional Programming
Parallel Execution of Logic Programs
Implementation of Logic Programming Systems
Inference Machines
General Chairman: Leon Sterling
Program Chairmen: Ewing L. Lusk and Ross A. Overbeek
Howard Blair Ken Kunen
M. Bruynooghe Catherine Lassez
Saumya Debray M. Martelli
Doug DeGroot C. Mellish
Al Despain Richard O'Keefe
Ian Foster R. Ramakrishnan
Susan Gerhart Vijay Saraswat
Joxan Jaffar Peter Szeredi
Ken Kahn Akikazu Takeuchi
L. V. Kale Hidehiko Tanaka
Paris Kanellakis R. Topor
Robert Kowalski David S. Warren
Vipin Kumar
Authors should send five copies of their manuscripts to:
Ewing L. Lusk
Mathematics and Computer Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, Illinois 60439
U. S. A.
Papers are restricted to 20 double-spaced pages, including
figures. Papers must be received by March 31, 1989.
Authors will be notified of acceptance by June 10, 1989.
Camera-ready copy will be due at MIT Press by July 15.
Authors should include electronic mail addresses if possible.
This conference is sponsored by the Association for Logic
Programming.
∂19-Jan-89 1429 B.BILLY-B@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU research assistantships
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 14:29:47 PST
Date: Thu 19 Jan 89 14:27:33-PST
From: Al Sargent <B.BILLY-B@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: research assistantships
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12463881795.98.B.BILLY-B@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Dear Professor McCarthy,
While talking with Helen Nissenbaum at the symbolic systems office, I heard
you are looking for students to do research. I am a junior in symbolic
systems (AI concentration) and would like to work on a research project during
the spring and summer that involves programming.
I am proficient in Pascal and 68000 Assembly Language, and have had courses in
semantics, pragmatics and logic. I am currently taking classes to learn C,
Ada, Prolog, Lisp, and Smalltalk; as well as syntax and cognitive psychology.
I believe I have the background to be an effective research assistant. I would
greatly apperciate it if you sent me mail describing the positions you have
available.
Thank you for your time.
Al Sargent
sargent@portia
326-4550
-------
∂19-Jan-89 1456 Mailer re: Democracy in China
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Robert W Floyd <RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from JMC sent Thu, 19 Jan 89 06:31:54 PST.]
It seems to me the responses to JMCs message missed the point.
John wasn't bragging that it's great because it's ours. He was
arguing that it became ours, from many sources, because it's
great. It is becoming the culture of many other peoples because
it's great. Now we listen to Yo-Yo Ma and Seiji Ozawa, (as well
as Asian citizens whose names I can't remember at the moment)
playing `our' music. Other countries are looking at the
writings of Locke on representative democracy at a time when
we have forgotten why our founders invented it (as opposed
to direct democracy). Third world people are writing great novels,
using a form invented in the context of western culture (Don
Quixote). Countries like the four Asian tigers (Hong Kong,
Singapore, Taiwan, S. Korea) enter the rich developed world
by their own efforts using the ideas about market economies
invented by western economists from Adam Smith onward, while
many students at Stanford seem to have no idea why other
routes to development are tragically failing.
I love the music of Africa, India, and Japan, but there
is nothing to match the kind of music founded on the
discoveries of Bach, Beethoven, and Bartok. There are
great scientists in many cultures, but science is a
product of western culture that could only have grown
there (again, including participation of Phoenicians,
Arabs, Indians and so on at some historical stages) and that
is a gift of western culture to the world.
Caucasians don't own western culture, though they have
in the past been its caretakers, sometimes at the same
time that they betrayed it in their conduct. All men
are created equal, but all cultures are not. The great
edifices I've mentioned, the Christian turn from tribal
to universal morality (again, betrayed often by its
caretakers), the economic systems that give us `poor'
with cars and TV sets and good food, are to my
knowledge unique in the world cultures.
∂19-Jan-89 1600 JMC
papers to Rota
∂19-Jan-89 1602 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 16:02:03 PST
Date: Thu 19 Jan 89 15:59:45-PST
From: Yvonne Lee <L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: The Sesame influence
To: S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
cc: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12463715821.17.S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-ID: <12463898577.12.L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
No, being rich doesn't fry one's brain, but it does give a person a
different attitude toward disparity. Try being poor for a while. See if
disparity and the inequality of opportunity is so trivial then.
I'm tired of arguing about Sesame Street. Besides, I never siad that it
was BAD, only that it was sad that its original goal was not met.
-------
∂19-Jan-89 1619 Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu Issues for AAAI meeting
Received: from FAS.RI.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 16:19:11 PST
Date: Thursday, 19 January 1989 17:45:55 EST
From: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu
To: newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu
cc: simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu, feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu, nilsson@score.stanford.edu,
mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu, amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu,
phw%mit-oz@ai.ai.mit.edu, bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com,
hart@kl.sri.com, buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu,
davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu, mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Issues for AAAI meeting
Message-ID: <1989.1.19.21.27.38.Raj.Reddy@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU>
Dear Allen,
It's too bad you're not going to be able to be there because you raise a
number of very important issues which need careful deliberation. I'm
sending you this message to provide you with a particular perspective which
might lead to further comments and/or changes of viewpoint. I will number
these using your numbering system.
I hate to add more things to your stack but it certainly will be helpful
to hear your views given these additional clarifications.
Regards, Raj
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Creating a list of National Research Initiatives
A1. The intention was not so much to create a narrow AI-oriented National
Research Initiative but rather to find initiatives of national importance
such as productivity and education within which AI and more broadly
information technology can play a significant role.
A2. I like your list of prerequisites or conditions. We will use them in our
deliberations.
A3. Let me provide you a list of possible National Research Initiatives
starting with Saul Amarel's list.
A3.1. Productivity-based Initiatives
A3.1.1. Productivity in Manufacturing.
E.g. Dual use technologies i.e., factories which can be
used for civilian/defense production purely by change
of software.
A3.1.2. Productivity in Science and Engineering.
E.g. Creating very large knowledge bases and tools
for Discovery (a la Simon and Lenat) and to
demonstrate their usability in a specific area
such as super-conductivity.
A3.1.3. Productivity in White-Collar Workers.
E.g. Improvement of defense procurement process
such as an expert system to support contracting
officers at DARPA.
A3.2. National initiative on educational technology (The goal is
to improve the educational standards in the country.).
A3.2.1. Distributed/personalized educational systems using
satellites, videos, animation, computer-based slide
presentations. The key idea is to get the world's
best teachers to teach students in remote environments
using computer-mediated, human instructor-supported
educational systems.
A3.2.2. National Digital Library.
This is Bob Kahn's idea of how to create a digital
equivalent of the National Library of Congress with
instantaneous accessibility to relevant information
from every home.
A3.2.3. Electronic Laboratories. Use of AI, knowledge bases,
high-speed graphics to simulate experiments in physics,
chemistry, biology, etc.
All of the above are attempts to "focus" on specific initiatives as in the
Genome Project. I'm hoping we'll find many more national initiatives of
this kind which are centered around AI and information technology but not
exclusively AI-based.
A4. I agree with your comments here. A broad-based National Research
Initiative will hopefully lead to significant funding of basic research
and also acts as a justification for basic research. Just saying basic
research must be supported is understood and appreciated but then we have
to compete with all other sciences and justify why investments in our
area are more important.
A5.2 I think the excitement is there not just because of AI but because of
advances in architecture and the speed of next-generation workstations
which in turn makes more exciting AI possible.
A5.3 The vision is directly related to the type of national problems we are
willing to attack and support. Productivity and education are two such.
A6. The list I've given in A3 is an attempt to respond to your concern about
being more focused by instantiating Saul Amarel's suggestions by means
of specific examples.
A7.2 The statement about conversion of cognitive psychology to real science
is not very clear. It would be helpful if you can relate that to
centrality of cognitive science to learning and education and then
derive specific research plans which would lead to the satisfaction
of those goals.
Clearly, there will be many different viewpoints within the community
about different bets about connectionism, etc. But first we must
get some funding allocated to the broad goals of AI and this requires
a concentrated effort by the whole community.
Please note it takes 3-5 years before a program can be initiated from
concept to start of a program. For example, Bob Kahn started the
Strategic Computing Initiative plan in 1979 and it was finally funded
in 1984.
B. Since we're not just talking about AI initiatives but rather broader
national concerns with the help of AI and information technology. I
suspect this needs more discussion of how we should go about it.
C. Again, I was assuming that whatever letter we may send will take many
months to draft and it will probably be of the form that the President
might establish "Department of Information Technology and Industry" on
par with the Dept of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, and Dept of Veteran
Affairs, etc. But it is quite conceivable that we as a group may decide
that it is not our responsibility to do so.
∂19-Jan-89 1650 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Nobody seems to object to the idea of changing the day to Monday. The next
meeting is planned then for January 30, 3:15pm.
--Vladimir Lifschitz
∂19-Jan-89 1657 VAL
Do we have Smirnov's address in Moscow?
∂19-Jan-89 2247 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU exercises - question from students
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jan 89 22:47:54 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 19 Jan 89 22:46:36 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1989 22:46:35 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: exercises - question from students
Cc: alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.601281995.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
I have received inquiries as to whether the exercises you recommended in
class today (Thursday) will have to be turned in. What did you intend?
Alex
∂20-Jan-89 1041 winograd@loire.stanford.edu talking with seminar on ethics
Received: from loire.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jan 89 10:41:01 PST
Received: by loire.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA21410; Fri, 20 Jan 89 10:38:53 PDT
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 10:38:53 PDT
Message-Id: <8901201838.AA21410@loire.stanford.edu>
From: Terry Winograd <Winograd@csli.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: talking with seminar on ethics
I assume you got the materials. We never set a date. How about
Monday Feb 6? --t
∂20-Jan-89 1047 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jan 89 10:47:13 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 20 Jan 89 10:45:53 PST
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1989 10:45:48 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 20 Jan 89 0048 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.601325148.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
What's the deadline? (And I guess that means you'll want me to
grade them, right?)
Alex
∂20-Jan-89 1050 MPS
Judy Bowman, Doug Lenat's office called
512-338-3457
Are you going to attend the CYCL Workshop Jan 30-31.
It will be held in Palo Alto.
Jeannie Treichel, 326-7438, Sutherland Sproull & Asso
called. She called once before and was not sure of the
article she wanted. She has more info now. It appeared
in the 25th anniversary of Communications of ACM 1988
and has to do with "frame problem". I still do not
know what she is talking about, maybe you do. I do
know she wants a copy of whatever it is.
∂20-Jan-89 1122 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU my play
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jan 89 11:22:47 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA26392; Fri, 20 Jan 89 11:22:22 PDT
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 11:22:22 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901201922.AA26392@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: my play
I've left a copy in your pigeonhole. Can you give it back to me when
you're done with it?
Thanks!
Matt
∂20-Jan-89 1245 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU Re: reply to message
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jan 89 12:45:16 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 20 Jan 89 12:43:56 PST
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1989 12:43:54 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: reply to message
In-Reply-To: Your message of 20 Jan 89 1123 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.601332234.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
OK, will do.
Alex
∂20-Jan-89 1259 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jan 89 12:54:55 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA29448; Fri, 20 Jan 89 12:26:05 PST
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 12:26:05 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8901202026.AA29448@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Vladimir Lifschitz's message of 19 Jan 89 16:50 PST <14ctcz@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
Well, that PARTICULAR monday is the first day of a unique meeting
about CYC which is happening here....
Pat
∂20-Jan-89 1435 AI.JUDY@MCC.COM re: CYCL WORSHOP JANUARY 30,31
Received: from MCC.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jan 89 14:35:13 PST
Date: Fri 20 Jan 89 16:24:08-CST
From: Judy Bowman <Ai.Judy@MCC.COM>
Subject: re: CYCL WORSHOP JANUARY 30,31
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <xcxSf@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12464143316.59.AI.JUDY@MCC.COM>
That will never do--you should have it now.
Thanks.
Judy
-------
∂21-Jan-89 0913 CLT house
Anita Laughlin is coming today at 2.
I told her that it would probably be Hazel that
showed her around (which was fine with her).
Her husband came last week and seemed quite interested.
∂21-Jan-89 1316 gio@sumex-aim.stanford.edu CS309 for 1989/1990
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jan 89 13:16:30 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA12161; Sat, 21 Jan 89 13:16:22 PST
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1989 13:16:21 PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <gio@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: CS309 for 1989/1990
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.601420581.gio@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Is it ok to consider rescheduling Litwin for the Fall quarter. It seems
that for that quarter his life will be ok --- family will be back in France.
Gio
∂21-Jan-89 2309 binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU phone call
Received: from Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jan 89 23:09:27 PST
Received: by Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA01392; Sat, 21 Jan 89 23:00:20 PST
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 89 23:00:20 PST
From: binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu (Tom Binford)
Message-Id: <8901220700.AA01392@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: phone call
John
I had a request to send a message to you. Please fax material
to Arnold Spector
Sunderland Polytechnic
091-510-0990 fax number
Best regards
Tom
∂22-Jan-89 0700 JMC
call larry cranberg re nat. assoc. schol.
∂22-Jan-89 0842 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [Alan Bawden: AI:ALAN;PCLSR MEMO]
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jan 89 08:42:29 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00200; Sun, 22 Jan 89 08:44:43 PST
Message-Id: <8901221644.AA00200@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: me@sail, les@sail, jmc@sail
Subject: [Alan Bawden: AI:ALAN;PCLSR MEMO]
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 08:44:41 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
I've put the file described in the following message on PCLSR.MEM[1,JJW].
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:ALAN@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09734; Sun, 22 Jan 89 03:44:44 PST
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jan 89 03:42:08 PST
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 06:38:43 EST
From: Alan Bawden <ALAN@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: AI:ALAN;PCLSR MEMO
To: JJW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, ED@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, GLR@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,
GLS@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, GUMBY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, JNC@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,
JTW@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, KLH@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, MAEDA@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,
MLY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, MOON@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, MRC@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,
PGS@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, RDZ@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, RG@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,
SRA@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, TK@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, ZVONA@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: ALAN@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Message-Id: <524320.890122.ALAN@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Now available for your amusement in ALAN;PCLSR MEMO on AI.AI.MIT.EDU: A
short paper describing what PCLSRing is and how ITS does it. This is
destined to be a chapter in Joe Dempster's PDP-10 history book (assuming
that I haven't missed his deadline). Your comments are solicited.
(Note that the referenced file is ASCII suitable for printing on a
lineprinter, not any of these newfangled formats like like, uh, PRESS.)
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂22-Jan-89 0933 CLT cranberg returned your call
you can call him back around noon to get info requested
∂22-Jan-89 1343 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU cs 323 homework due date
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jan 89 13:42:58 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Sun, 22 Jan 89 13:41:35 PST
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1989 13:41:33 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Cc: alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU
Subject: cs 323 homework due date
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.601508493.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
After looking at my schedule, I realized that making TUESDAYS the
day on which homeworks are due (and returned) would make my job much easier.
(Reason: on Thursdays I have to be at 4:15 somewhere else which prevents me
from staying after class to pick-up or return homework).
So, if you can accomodate this wish, I would be grateful.
Alex
∂22-Jan-89 1403 Mailer re: The Sesame influence / why "reducing disparity" is wrong.
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jan 89 14:03:39 PST
Date: Sun 22 Jan 89 14:01:08-PST
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: The Sesame influence / why "reducing disparity" is wrong.
To: L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
cc: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
s.salut@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12463898577.12.L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-ID: <12464663416.12.S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
My apology for the delay in replying; I had some work to get done.
You say:
> I'm tired of arguing about Sesame Street.
Well, if you had answered my question (about which group of 10 people
is better off, the ones who all rate their happiness between 1 and 3,
and the ones who are linearly spread between 1 and 10) instead of answering
with THREE messages of ad-hominem attacks as to why I wasn't entitled to talk,
then:
- you wouldn't be so tired,
- you might have learned something (by thinking about the issues,
instead of throwing old cliches by rote).
But you also say:
> Besides, I never siad that it
> was BAD, only that it was sad that its original goal was not met.
And you are missing the point again!
- if the original goal was to INCREASE LITERACY among the poor, then clearly
the program has succeeded. If it also helped other kids get more literate,
then more people are better off! Great!
- if the original goal was to REDUCE DISPARITY in literacy, then
- the goal was irrelevent, and it's not sad at all it was not met.
- Sesame Street was an incredibly bad way of achieving that [bad] goal:
Lining up all the kids (rich and poor) and punching their eyes out with a
screwdriver would have REDUCED DISPARITY in literacy much more effectively.
In conclusion, if you are concerned about the poor/illiterate/..., then focus
your efforts (and measure the success of programs) to INCREASE their
wealth/literacy/..., and if it helps other people get better off also, great!
"Reducing disparity" is a RED-HERRING. And a dangerous one at that, because
it leads to such abominations as punching the kids' eyes out, or worse (cf.
Stalin or Pol Pot).
Alex
-------
∂22-Jan-89 1445 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: cs 323 homework due date
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jan 89 14:45:01 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Sun, 22 Jan 89 14:43:39 PST
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1989 14:43:37 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: re: cs 323 homework due date
In-Reply-To: Your message of 22 Jan 89 1425 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.601512217.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Due date: thanks.
Yvonne Lee: I was trained in that sort of dialogue in the "cellule communiste
lyceene" back home; my chance to convince her is 0% although some concepts
might stick in her subconscious and help her 10 years from now. However
even back then I always made sure I had a large of audience of undecided
thinking people (which I think I have on bboard): these are the people I'm
really speaking to, and Yvonne is just helping me along.
Alex
∂22-Jan-89 2324 Allen.Newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
Received: from CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jan 89 23:23:49 PST
Received: from CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU by CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Jan 89 02:20:19 EST
To: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu
cc: simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu, feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu, nilsson@score.stanford.edu,
mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu, amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu,
phw%mit-oz@ai.ai.mit.edu, bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com,
hart@kl.sri.com, buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu,
davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu, mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 02:19:39 EST
Message-ID: <1587.601543179@CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU>
From: Allen.Newell@CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU
Raj: Interesting. I think it does reveal that I was more narrowly focussed
that I perhaps should have been. Let me attempt some comments by interlarding
them in yours by [[AN ...]]. They are a little random, but that's what I'm
capable of at this moment. I wish the session well. Cheers, AN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 19 January 1989 17:45:55 EST
Dear Allen,
It's too bad you're not going to be able to be there because you raise a
number of very important issues which need careful deliberation. I'm
sending you this message to provide you with a particular perspective which
might lead to further comments and/or changes of viewpoint. I will number
these using your numbering system.
I hate to add more things to your stack but it certainly will be helpful
to hear your views given these additional clarifications.
Regards, Raj
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Creating a list of National Research Initiatives
A1. The intention was not so much to create a narrow AI-oriented National
Research Initiative but rather to find initiatives of national importance
such as productivity and education within which AI and more broadly
information technology can play a significant role.
[[AN: That is interesting -- and significant too. You don't say that the
social base of the suggestion should be computer science, rather than
AI, but I think that is what you mean. Since this was bascially the
AAAI presidents, I obviously took it to be AI based -- that is the field
we can speak for. If we think of the issue as CS-with-important-AI-part
then a new intermediate step arises, which is that one must first coopt
CS. We cannot speak for CS, although we can speak within CS to the rest
of CS. By the way, I agree with this position. AI is *not* independent of
CS, but is both enabled by CS and plays its role in CS.]]
A2. I like your list of prerequisites or conditions. We will use them in our
deliberations.
A3. Let me provide you a list of possible National Research Initiatives
starting with Saul Amarel's list.
A3.1. Productivity-based Initiatives
A3.1.1. Productivity in Manufacturing.
E.g. Dual use technologies i.e., factories which can be
used for civilian/defense production purely by change
of software.
[[AN: Here of course we have been watching the nation's technologists -- i.e.,
the folk at NAE and many others -- do their best to create an NRI on
high-tech manufacturing, in which computation is an integral component.
You and Pat Winston have certainly had more association with this than I
have. My impression is that it is really struggling, but is still inching
forward. A characterization of why it is having so much trouble (if it is
-- I may just be focussed wrong) and how long it is taking, would probably
be worth while.]]
A3.1.2. Productivity in Science and Engineering.
E.g. Creating very large knowledge bases and tools
for Discovery (a la Simon and Lenat) and to
demonstrate their usability in a specific area
such as super-conductivity.
A3.1.3. Productivity in White-Collar Workers.
E.g. Improvement of defense procurement process
such as an expert system to support contracting
officers at DARPA.
[[AN: I think the "eg" here is certainly approaches the level of specificity
required. I also think a transformation of the procurement process in a
fundamental way would be a socio-technical miracle worth having. The
"procurement process" is of course an entire social system and not one taht
an expert system touches. I don't think I'm quibbling. The NRIs that I
listed were more significantly more focussed than this. The NRI could of
course gradually be shaped up into something much more like a concrete
proposal. But it would take creative work, not committee work.]]
[[AN: A lot of the A3.1 proposals really look to me like what Bob Kahn has
dedicated himself to -- a national institue to move forward on all such
things.]]
A3.2. National initiative on educational technology (The goal is
to improve the educational standards in the country.).
[[AN: How about "to improve the youth of the country. "Standards" are
just a means, and often a troublesome one when used as a manipulated
social control variable.]]
A3.2.1. Distributed/personalized educational systems using
satellites, videos, animation, computer-based slide
presentations. The key idea is to get the world's
best teachers to teach students in remote environments
using computer-mediated, human instructor-supported
educational systems.
[[AN: My reaction to this is that it won't work without transformations in our
understanding of the psychology of educating. Otherwise, it is too much the
technological fix. But I don't expect people to go along with this.]]
A3.2.2. National Digital Library.
This is Bob Kahn's idea of how to create a digital
equivalent of the National Library of Congress with
instantaneous accessibility to relevant information
from every home.
[[AN: THis is indeed something of the same level of specificity at the Genome
Project or the SSC. It raises, as some of the others do not, the question
of how this will have impacts that are big enough. Most of the others are
at a level where it is obvious that they will, if they succeed. Note that
the Genome Project and the SSC also raise exactly these issues of whether
the impact will be big enough to justify the *big* project character.]]
A3.2.3. Electronic Laboratories. Use of AI, knowledge bases,
high-speed graphics to simulate experiments in physics,
chemistry, biology, etc.
[[AN: This is intresting, in that it makes the reference group, not
AN-CS-Society, but AI-CS-Science-Society. For it is the domain scientists
who "own" the separate sciences, not CS.]]
All of the above are attempts to "focus" on specific initiatives as in the
Genome Project. I'm hoping we'll find many more national initiatives of
this kind which are centered around AI and information technology but not
exclusively AI-based.
A4. I agree with your comments here. A broad-based National Research
Initiative will hopefully lead to significant funding of basic research
and also acts as a justification for basic research. Just saying basic
research must be supported is understood and appreciated but then we have
to compete with all other sciences and justify why investments in our
area are more important.
[[AN: Said perhaps differently than I did originally, if you ask in terms of a
mass noun ("more research") then you get answered in terms of percentage
increases (4% or 5% or 2%). THat is, you get incrementally funded. The
whole idea of a NRI is to produce project-style funding on a large scale,
i.e., where the funds are rationally related to the specific requirements
of the task, not to the past levels of funding. Herb S can talk about this
whole issue in terms of the models that are use for budgeting.]]
A5.2 I think the excitement is there not just because of AI but because of
advances in architecture and the speed of next-generation workstations
which in turn makes more exciting AI possible.
[[AN: This is the AI-is-part-of-CS point, and I agree.]]
A5.3 The vision is directly related to the type of national problems we are
willing to attack and support. Productivity and education are two such.
A6. The list I've given in A3 is an attempt to respond to your concern about
being more focused by instantiating Saul Amarel's suggestions by means
of specific examples.
A7.2 The statement about conversion of cognitive psychology to real science
is not very clear. It would be helpful if you can relate that to
centrality of cognitive science to learning and education and then
derive specific research plans which would lead to the satisfaction
of those goals.
[[AN: I'm running out of gas tonight. It probably is useful to get out
what reactions I've got. I'll have to see if I can find more energy
to do this one task.]]
Clearly, there will be many different viewpoints within the community
about different bets about connectionism, etc. But first we must
get some funding allocated to the broad goals of AI and this requires
a concentrated effort by the whole community.
[[AN: That assumes that you can make common cause with the connectionists.
Maybe it can. Or maybe it can if the time scale stretches out. Much
depends on the strength of their "we can bury you" conviction.]]
Please note it takes 3-5 years before a program can be initiated from
concept to start of a program. For example, Bob Kahn started the
Strategic Computing Initiative plan in 1979 and it was finally funded
in 1984.
[[AN: Well that is also important. And I'm sure your're right.]]
B. Since we're not just talking about AI initiatives but rather broader
national concerns with the help of AI and information technology. I
suspect this needs more discussion of how we should go about it.
[[AN: Yup.]]
C. Again, I was assuming that whatever letter we may send will take many
months to draft and it will probably be of the form that the President
might establish "Department of Information Technology and Industry" on
par with the Dept of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, and Dept of Veteran
Affairs, etc. But it is quite conceivable that we as a group may decide
that it is not our responsibility to do so.
[[AN: Actually, when you go to the level of suggestion of a Department of X,
you have moved to a very different kettle of fish. This is not a
technological thing, but an institutional thing. And the arguments for
it pro and con are very different. It is not an NRI, though it can have
as profound effects. I'm not against it a priori, and indeed one can
argue for it, when one cannot agree how to argue for NRIs.]]
∂23-Jan-89 0832 BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU ["Kathleen Thompson" <AS.KAT@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>: McCarthy/NSF]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jan 89 08:32:33 PST
Date: Mon 23 Jan 89 08:30:52-PST
From: Sharon Bergman <BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: ["Kathleen Thompson" <AS.KAT@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>: McCarthy/NSF]
To: val@Sail.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12464865437.31.BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Vladimir, I am forwarding a message from our Sponsored Projects
Office. As you can see, the NSF proposal ("Basic Research in AI")
was received at NSF.
-Sharon Bergman
---------------
Return-Path: <AS.KAT@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Mon 23 Jan 89 08:14:35-PST
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 08:14:45 PST
To: bergman@score
From: "Kathleen Thompson" <AS.KAT@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: McCarthy/NSF
Hi Sharon,
I finally got in touch with NSF regarding McCarthys proposal for
IRI-8414393, SPO #185. It was received and is going out for review.
Let me know if you need more info.
Kathleen
To: BERGMAN@SCORE
-------
∂23-Jan-89 0930 JMC
Nafeh
∂23-Jan-89 0930 JMC
Mazda
∂23-Jan-89 0930 JMC
Gary
∂23-Jan-89 0944 harnad@Princeton.EDU email address change
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jan 89 09:44:16 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/1.98)
id AA10935; Mon, 23 Jan 89 12:42:05 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.68)
id AA16682; Mon, 23 Jan 89 12:21:56 EST
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 12:21:56 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8901231721.AA16682@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: srh@flash.bellcore.com
Subject: email address change
To: BBS Associates
Please note that mind.princeton.edu no longer exists. Though mail to
mind is supposedly automatically being forwarded, enough mail failures
have reached my attention to suggest that it would be safer to use
one of the following:
INTERNET harnad@confidence.princeton.edu harnad@princeton.edu
srh@flash.bellcore.com harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu
CSNET: harnad%confidence.princeton.edu@relay.cs.net UUCP: harnad@princeton.uucp
BITNET: harnad@pucc.bitnet harnad1@umass.bitnet Phone: (609)-921-7771
∂23-Jan-89 1000 JMC
tracing paper
∂23-Jan-89 1008 AI.JUDY@MCC.COM CYC WORKSHOP -- JAN 30-31.
Received: from MCC.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jan 89 10:06:29 PST
Date: Mon 23 Jan 89 12:03:49-CST
From: Judy Bowman <Ai.Judy@MCC.COM>
Subject: CYC WORKSHOP -- JAN 30-31.
To: WORK: ;
Message-ID: <12464882358.25.AI.JUDY@MCC.COM>
[THIS IS AN ONLINE VERSION OF WHAT YOU WILL RECEIVE IN HARDCOPY
IN A FEW DAYS; A MAP WILL BE INCLUDED WITH THAT VERSION.]
January 19, 1989
Dear CYC Workshop Attendee,
Plans for our end-of-the-month workshop have finalized. As you know,
it will be held in Palo Alto. Specifically, it will be held at the Hartley
Conference Center, in the Mitchell Building, on January 30; and in
Durand 450, on January 31. Both buildings are located on the Stanford
Campus, adjacent to the main Quad; a map is attached, with their
locations marked. The hands-on exposure to CYC will be held at our
CYC-West offices, which are at 1000 Welch Road, Suite 204.
The revised workshop schedule and attendee list is also attached. Note
that meals will be provided, including dinner the first evening at
Magdalena's Restaurant, 544 Emerson St., Palo Alto.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at CYC-West
(415-323-6799), where I'll be from January 20th until the workshop.
See you on the 30th, at the Hartley Conference Center.
Regards,
Doug Lenat
!
CYC Workshop
Agenda
January 30: Hartley Conference Center, Mitchell Building, Stanford University
8:30-11:00 CYC: Mystique or Mistake?
8:30- 9:00 Coffee & doughnuts, greetings, etc.
[This should enable us to start the talks at 9:00 sharp]
9:00- 9:15 What CYC Is
In a nutshell, what is the project all about?
what do we hope it to be? why are we doing this?
how are we doing it?
9:15-10:00 What CYC Isn't
There are many myth conceptions about CYC;
this discusses and (hopefully) clears up each one.
10:00-10:15 Plans & goals for this workshop
10:15-10:45 Discussion: Issues we've missed
10:45-11:00 Break
11:00-2:00 Basic CYC Literacy & Lunch (pizzas brought in)
11:00-11:30 Statics
What we mean by Frames, Slots, SeeUnits, SlotEntryDetails,
Constraints, CertaintyFactors, etc. How they're represented.
Why we have both Frames and a Constraint Language.
11:30-12:30 Kinematics
Inferencing in CYC is organized into a cluster of dozens of
features (inheritance, automatic classification, and so on.)
Without going into too much detail at this point, we will
discuss a few of them, showing that they each have a precisely
defined semantics; that they are defeasable; that they each
occupy a useful inference "niche". Moreover, we have a
concrete protocol to keep the features from inadvertently
interfering with each other. How and why we've unified
TMS and inferencing. Finally, the way that these features
are themselves explicitly represented in the KB, and their
functionality is (mostly) derived from those frames.
12:30- 1:30 Discussion, questions, arguments, and plea-baragaining
1:30- 2:00 Overview of the top-level CYC ontology
What we mean by a collection, a process, an event, an entity,
a substance. Why we need explicitly represented collections
of collections, collections of slots, or collections at all for
that matter. Which individuals, collections and slots are
"at the top"? "most important"? "most interesting"?
2:00-4:00 Representation Issues
2:00- 2:15 Break
2:15- 3:30 Adequate (not perfect) ways of representing...
Time [50 useful interval- and set- based temporal relns;
temporal projection of facts, beliefs, and awareness;
temporally intrinsic slots; processes vs events, etc.]
Objects vs Substances
States of Affairs [the same mechanism is used to represent
physical structures, abstract relationships, and scripts]
Plus a host of small issues [e.g., how interval-based
quantity slots are unified with qualitative values]
3:30- 5:30 Discussion of the above issues
Around 4 pm, you can choose to leave the discussion and go to:
4:00- 5:30 At CYC-West offices: CYC Demo. Everyone is encouraged to attend
today's "condensed demo" (4-5:30 pm), tonight's "long demo"
(8:30pm-midnight), or tomorrow morning's "condensed demo".
6:00- 8:30 Dinner at Magdelana's Restaurant
8:30- 9:00 At CYC-West offices: The Editing/Browsing/Collaborating Tools
9:00-12:00 At CYC-West offices: Hands-on Exercising of CYC
!
January 31: Room 450, Durand Building, Stanford University [beginning 9:30 am]
8:00- 8:30 At CYC-West offices: The Editing/Browsing/Collaborating Tools
8:30- 9:30 At CYC-West offices: Brief Hands-on Exercising of CYC
9:30-10:00 Coffee & Doughnuts at Durand 450
10:00-11:00 What's Hard to Represent, and Why?
E.g., Space.
Making use of simpler ontologies & alternate models
(i.e., representing the ontology of an ES world in CYC)
11:00-12:30 Doing AI Research "on top of CYC"
The "quarks" of Slot-Space
Semantic disambiguation of natural language utterances
Having and using an explicit internal representation of the interface
Applying common sense to (computer system) sizing
Pleas for future help!
12:30- 2:30 Discussion of all the material so far;
feedback; feeding (sandwiches will be brought in)
2:30- 2:45 Break
2:45- 5:00 The CYC Algorithms
Protocols for writing new inference features
Details of the CYC Knowledge Server
Details of the CYC Unit Editor and MUE Browser
Gory details of our TMS algorithms and other features
Final discussion & wrap-up
!
Confirmed Workshop Attendees
Bob Amsler
Jim Bennett
Danny Bobrow
Ron Brachman (maybe)
Mark Burstein
Jaime Carbonnell (maybe)
David Chapman
Paul Cohen
Randy Davis
Mark Derthick
Dick Duda
Bob Engelmore
Ed Feigenbaum
Ken Forbus
Michael Genesereth (maybe)
R. V. Guha
Gumby (David Wallace)
Ken Haase
Peter Hart
Pat Hayes
Will Hill
Jim Hollan
Michael Huhns
David Kirsh
Johan deKleer
Toby LaBonte
Doug Lenat
Hector Levesque (maybe)
Chris Maeda
David Marques
John McCarthy (maybe)
Marvin Minsky
Fanya Montalvo
Bob Moore
Nils Nilsson
Dale Panton
Gene Pierce
Elaine Rich
Stan Rosenschein
Mary Shepherd
Brian Smith
Mark Stefik
Larry Stephens
Devika Subramanian
Roger Wagner
Bob Wing
Greg Wittemore
Bill Woods
-------
-------
∂23-Jan-89 1009 VAL NSF proposal
It has been received and is going out for review.
∂23-Jan-89 1035 LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: request for information
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jan 89 10:35:45 PST
Date: Mon 23 Jan 89 10:34:01-PST
From: Math/Computer Science Library <LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: request for information
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <10e97z@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12464887858.29.LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
The original date of publication of "What computers can't do" was 1972 (Harper
and Row: New York). The revised edition was published in 1979.
Hope this helps.
-------
∂23-Jan-89 1055 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Issues for AAAI meeting
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jan 89 10:55:49 PST
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA08784; Mon, 23 Jan 89 10:49:28 PDT
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 10:49:28 PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8901231849.AA08784@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: Allen.Newell@CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU
Cc: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu, simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu,
mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu, amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu,
phw%mit-oz@ai.ai.mit.edu, bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com,
hart@kl.sri.com, buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu,
davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu, mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: Allen.Newell@CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU's message of Mon, 23 Jan 89 02:19:39 EST <1587.601543179@CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Issues for AAAI meeting
Many of Allen Newell's responses to Raj emphasize a point I made
earlier (perhaps too weakly), namely that we ought to broaden our
considerations from AI-based to CS-based. And, as Allen points out,
to do that we will need broader CS representation. Maybe some part
of our meeting can focus on how we should involve some of the CS
leaders in a possible future meeting. Names like Hopcroft, Tarjan,
Moses, Haberman, Knuth, Wulf, Bell, ... come to mind. -Nils
∂23-Jan-89 1239 VAL Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar--No Meeting
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
There will be no meeting on January 30 because of the CYC workshop.
--Vladimir Lifschitz
∂23-Jan-89 1447 amarel@maestro.rutgers.edu Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
Received: from maestro.rutgers.edu ([128.6.25.6]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jan 89 14:46:55 PST
Received: by maestro.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.1/3.03)
id AA00603; Mon, 23 Jan 89 15:14:54 EST
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 15:14:54 EST
From: amarel@maestro.rutgers.edu
Message-Id: <8901232014.AA00603@maestro.rutgers.edu>
To: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Cc: newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu, simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu,
nilsson@score.stanford.edu, amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu,
mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu, phw%mit-oz@ai.ai.mit.edu,
bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com, hart@kl.sri.com,
buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu, davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu,
mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1989.1.19.21.27.38.Raj.Reddy@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
Raj, I agree with comments made by Allen Newell and Nils Nilsson (and
also by you) re the importance of having a broader view of AI-in-CS.
In connection with this, do you have relevant inputs from CSTB, or
from the CS Research Board? what is CSTB doing about the issues of
concern to the Jan 28 mtg?
Regards, Saul
∂23-Jan-89 1512 luke@glacier.stanford.edu White Trash Cookbook
Received: from glacier.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jan 89 15:12:22 PST
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu; Mon, 23 Jan 89 15:10:55 PST
Date: 23 Jan 1989 1510-PST (Monday)
From: Luke Meisenbach <luke@glacier.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc:
Subject: White Trash Cookbook
Are you done with it yet?? My wife has started to miss it.
Luke
∂23-Jan-89 1545 P.PENSIVE@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jan 89 15:44:57 PST
Date: Mon 23 Jan 89 15:42:25-PST
From: Tom Schutz <P.PENSIVE@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12464943999.16.P.PENSIVE@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
In 3-jan su-etc, you said that several popular environmental
orgs. do more harm than good.
I am interested in getting a round picture of what exactly they
are up to, and the ramifications (what I now know of them comes
only from their own publicity depts.).
Can you suggest any sources? Thanks, p.pensive@hamlet
-------
∂23-Jan-89 1549 eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Jan 89 15:49:37 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA06656; Mon, 23 Jan 89 15:46:44 PST
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1989 15:46:41 PST
From: Edward A. Feigenbaum <eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: amarel@maestro.rutgers.edu
Cc: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu, newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu,
simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu, feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu, nilsson@score.stanford.edu,
amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu, mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu,
phw%mit-oz@ai.ai.mit.edu, bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com,
hart@kl.sri.com, buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu,
davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu, mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 23 Jan 89 15:14:54 EST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.601602401.eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Dear Saul and all,
Saul's questions re CSTB are relevant. If you have sat in on the
meetings of CSTB (as I have for two years), you would see how
frustrating and impotent it is to have a discussion of the "broader
issues" of AI-in-CS or even CS-in-CS! It is almost guaranteed that we will
not be able to meet Newell's preconditions under those circumstances.
Ed
∂23-Jan-89 2000 JMC
White trash cookbook
∂24-Jan-89 0353 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu Re: paper
Received: from CAD.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jan 89 03:53:48 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1989 6:51:59 EST
From: Rich Thomason <thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: thomason
Subject: Re: paper
In-Reply-To: Your message of 24 Jan 89 0214 PST
Message-ID: <CMM.0.88.601645919.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
You are ahead of me. I have been held up by a wave of visitors.
Was going to get comments on context section to you today. But maybe
I'm too late.
My reason for Tex tinkering was to get camera ready copy with
JPL page styles, including running heads. We can discuss how to do that.
The publisher has relaxed the deadline, but I still want to get this done
as soon as I can.
--Rich
∂24-Jan-89 0800 JMC
Oak Tree Mazda and ask for Mike
∂24-Jan-89 0800 JMC
cookbook
∂24-Jan-89 0817 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Igor's stuff
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jan 89 08:16:58 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06107; Tue, 24 Jan 89 08:19:02 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 08:19:02 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901241619.AA06107@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: mps@sail, jmc@sail, clt@sail, sloan@score
Subject: Igor's stuff
Igor says that Pack & Save should come soon (today, hopefully) to pick
up his boxes.
∂24-Jan-89 0900 JMC
camera
∂24-Jan-89 1057 VAL WICS
Joleen Barnhill wants to know whether or not we'd like to teach a
WICS course this year. She told me earlier that she didn't want
to offer our course this time, because in 1988 we attracted few
students, but now she decided maybe the situation changed because
of your prize. What do you think?
Incidentally, I'll be teaching an IJCAI tutorial this summer. But
if you want me to share your WICS course with you as before, I'll
be glad to do that too.
∂24-Jan-89 1450 VAL copyright
Ablex tells us that a copyright permission is required whenever we use a
quotation of 200 words or more. The Mr. Hug story from the New York Times
is in this category. I propose that we ignore this little problem.
∂24-Jan-89 1457 bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
Received: from cs.utexas.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jan 89 14:57:36 PST
Received: from alfalfa.cs.utexas.edu by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.23)
id AA04490; Tue, 24 Jan 89 16:31:55 CST
Posted-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1989 16:29:30 CST
Received: by alfalfa.cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.4-Client)
id AA03956; Tue, 24 Jan 89 16:29:33 CST
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1989 16:29:30 CST
From: Woody Bledsoe <bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu>
To: amarel@maestro.rutgers.edu
Cc: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu, newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu,
simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu, feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu, nilsson@score.stanford.edu,
amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu, mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu,
phw%mit-oz@ai.ai.mit.edu, bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com,
hart@kl.sri.com, buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu,
davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu, mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Issues for AAAI meeting
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 23 Jan 89 15:14:54 EST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.86.601684170.bledsoe@alfalfa.cs.utexas.edu>
Raj,
Have we settled on a schedule for Friday Evening? Where, when, and
what (over dinner?). I might have missed that message.
Hopefully, we can come to grips with the important issues that have
surfaced.
Incidently, I must catch a 5:00 plane on Saturday (from San Jose).
Woody
∂24-Jan-89 1532 VAL
Do I remember correctly that your review of Lighthill hasn't been published?
∂24-Jan-89 1559 amy@Popserver.Stanford.Edu sitn update
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jan 89 15:59:46 PST
Received: from amy@Popserver.Stanford.Edu (36.10.0.89) by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Tue, 24 Jan 89 15:54:54 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 15:54:52 PST
From: amy@Popserver.Stanford.Edu
To: ag@amadeus, BBL@star, binford@whitney, bracewell@star, cleron@score,
daniel@mojave, dill@score, drmac@sierra, ejm@sierra, feigenbaum@sumex,
ferziger@score, franklin@isl, genesereth@sumex, goodman@isl, gray@isl,
guibas@navajo, jmc@sail, kroo@ames-aero, latombe@whitney,
linvill@sierra, M.matheson@macbeth, M@sierra, mitchell@score,
moin@score, nanni@mojave, nix@sierra, pantell@sierra, plummer@sierra,
pmbanks@star, reges@score, reid@score, Reynolds@score, rwf@sail,
spicer@sierra, VVA@isl, w.wlewis@macbeth, wooley@presto
Cc:
Subject: sitn update
Happy New Year and welcome back! We are pleased to be televising your
class this quarter on the Stanford Instructional Television Network.
We have had a recent technical upgrade which the network would like you
to know about. We now have new smaller microphones. These simply clip onto
your tie or shirt and the small power adapter fastens onto your belt. These
microphones look better on television than the larger lavalier microphones
which fastened around the neck.
As we continue to enhance and extend SITN's technical and support
systems, we are encouraging faculty input regarding your in-class
presentation needs.A faculty advisory committee is being established to
address these needs on an ongoing basis.
We are committed to providing you with high quality technical and
teaching support. Please feel free to call me (5-3005) with any suggestions
you have regarding teaching on SITN this quarter.
Sincerely,
Amy Klitsner
Studio Operations Coordinator
∂24-Jan-89 1608 P.PENSIVE@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jan 89 16:08:24 PST
Date: Tue 24 Jan 89 16:05:47-PST
From: Tom Schutz <P.PENSIVE@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <$euLN@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12465210398.17.P.PENSIVE@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Thanks for the extensive bibliography! Much appreciated.
-------
∂24-Jan-89 1630 VAL re: copyright
[In reply to message rcvd 24-Jan-89 16:27-PT.]
They don't know about it, and I'd like to pretend that I didn't notice this
problem.
∂24-Jan-89 1817 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: integral reactor
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jan 89 18:17:00 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA25551; Tue, 24 Jan 89 18:16:38 PDT
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1989 18:16:35 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: integral reactor
In-Reply-To: Your message of 24 Jan 89 1812 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.601697795.alex@polya.stanford.edu>
You may be right. The magazine has a very well written-out "Letters
to the Editor" section. Usually, with informed dialogue taking place there
over weeks. Would you send a copy of the msg you sent me to them? I'm
pretty sure you'd get printed (they like well-known people) and it might
trigger interesting replies.
If you're interested, I'll bring the address with me tomorrow.
Alex
∂24-Jan-89 1857 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com new new-qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jan 89 18:57:22 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00937; Tue, 24 Jan 89 18:59:09 PST
Received: from bhopal ([192.9.200.13]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA00703g; Tue, 24 Jan 89 18:52:10 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA06951g; Tue, 24 Jan 89 18:54:31 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 18:54:31 PST
From: Ron Goldman <arg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8901250254.AA06951@bhopal>
To: qlisp@go4.stanford.edu
Subject: new new-qlisp
There is a new version of new-qlisp that fixes a bug with interrupts & gc.
∂25-Jan-89 0150 harnad@Princeton.EDU Resurgence of Categorization Debate (850 lines)
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jan 89 01:45:04 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/1.98)
id AA15110; Tue, 24 Jan 89 23:18:15 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.68)
id AA18577; Tue, 24 Jan 89 23:12:36 EST
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 23:12:36 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8901250412.AA18577@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: srh@flash.bellcore.com
Subject: Resurgence of Categorization Debate (850 lines)
[The categorization debate has resurged. Please let me know if you
are NOT interested in receiving further updates]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) of Data General, RTP NC. wrote:
" the consequences of not being bigger than a breadbox can be...
" every bit as important... as the distinction among fungi is to *you*...
" So, other than the motives and goals of the categorizer, there is
" nothing to make one categorization more "natural" or "less arbitrary"
" than another. Hence, categorization is inherently subjective,
" not objective.
In my posting I distinguished two senses in which a category might be
arbitrary; the first was because it did not pick out a "natural kind"
[note that this is also a nonstandard sense of "natural kind"]
and the second was because it was merely subjective. I suggested that the
first sense of "arbitrary" was not relevant to the problem of how
categories were internally represented, because a category might be
arbitrary in the first sense, yet still be based on classical
features; the features would then simply be picked out because of
socially imposed consequences rather than nature-imposed ones.
Bigger-than-a-breadbox may be an arbitrary socially imposed distinction
for us and a biological imperative to another organism. The difference
between these two cases does not much matter for the kind of internal
representation you may need to perform this categorization successfully
(except inasmuch as differences in size and sensorimotor equipment may
entail differences in detactability and means of detection).
Subjective categories, on the other hand ("looks pretty to me,"
"reminds me of his sister") are arbitrary in the second sense, in that
there may indeed exist no objective invariant features "out there" whose
presence or absence is guiding the judgment. Under those conditions
there can be no MIScategorization, no feedback, no consequences.
The relevant distinction for modeling category representation, I
suggested, was "imposed" vs "ad lib" categorization. For no matter what the
source of the imposition, the imposed categories that we can successfully
sort must be classical; the ad lib ones need not be. But a model for
ad lib categories is no model for imposed ones.
[Philosophers, by the way, use "natural kind" in a different way; they
would say a natural kind is not merely a category that is picked out
by our sense organs because of its biological consequences for us;
they would say it's something picked out by empirical scientific
inquiry because of its role in a causal theory of the physical world;
this would make only things like matter, energy, electrons, galaxies
proteins, and perhaps species, etc., the candidates for being natural
kinds. Not aspiring to be an ontologist, I am not concerned with this
distinction, but only with the cognitive question of how the
categories that ARE imposed on us, by nature or nurture, are internally
represented so as to allow us to pick them out correctly as we do.]
" [The reason we single out a given feature and sort objects in the world
" according to it] *must* be (not may be) arbitrary. The choice of
" categorization... involves the motives and goals of the categorizer,
" and is thus subjective (and objectively arbitrary).
I really don't know what you mean by "arbitrary." If a starving rat
that has learned to turn right for food in a maze is behaving
arbitrarily, then everything we do is arbitrary and the word loses its
meaning. Nor is the rat behaving "subjectively": It may be behaving
automatically, just like a machine (though I doubt it). But even if it
makes its decision consciously, and hence subjectively, the decision,
because it is based on objective consequences, is not MERELY
subjective, hence not arbitrary in my second sense. (It's not
arbitrary in my first sense either, if nature imposes the maze.)
[One can always substitute such an operant-responding situation for a
categorization problem by the way, because many operants ARE
categorical responses.]
" I fail to see why nature is any less arbitrary than a human dictator.
" In each case, categorization happens relative to features "important"
" to some categorizer. Hence, in this sense, *all* categories are
" arbitrary.
Then what is NOT arbitrary, and why? And what does "arbitrary" mean?
I think that its complement, "nonarbitrary," always has an implicit
user- or task-relativity built into it (just as, in a prior posting,
I noted that "feature" does, namely, it is a detectable state of affairs
-- one that is either directly dectectable by some organism or
instrument, or symbolically describable in terms that are themselves
the names of categories with features that are detectable by some organism or
instrument or ... etc.; this is my "symbol grounding" theory).
When a category-name, such as "arbitrary," is applied to "everything,"
it fails to be informative, for reasons that are deeply related to the
internal representation of categories. (I have discussed this in a
paper called "Uncomplemented Categories." I think it would be equally
uninformative to say that all categories are "metaphorical," for this
simply throws out the literal/figurative distinction and the
(classical) features underlying it, hence it throws out the meaning of
the category "metaphorical.")
" one can use Humpty Dumpty's word as a category marker. "It doesn't
" say Haynes until *Dumpty* says it says Haynes." is just as objectively
" based a category as any other...
For ME it becomes objective then, but not for Humpty Dumpty! I can
pick it out, using the unfailing cue that Dumpty says so. But
Dumpty could be doing it just because of a whim, as the spirit moves
him. But before you hasten to inform me that that makes all categories
"observer relative," hence arbitrary after all, note that Dumpty and I
are not picking out the same categories, even though we're picking out
the same objects! I'm picking out the category "things Dumpty calls X."
Apart from Dumpty's say-so, there may be NOTHING these things have in
common, yet his say-so is enough to make it a classical category for
me. But not for Dumpty! He has no external cue. He's not picking out
the things so-and-so says are X, based reliably and validly on the cue
of so-and-so's say-so. God knows HOW he's picking them out. He's using
some subjective, internal cue; perhaps just a momentary, spontaneous
impulse. That makes it a different category, even though it has the
same members as mine; and a subjective, arbitrary one at that. (I trust
there's no problem with the idea that different categories can have the
same members, as with Frege's morning-star/evening-star/Venus,
or sets in mathematics that differ in their intensions but not
their extensions, etc.)
" no categorizations are arbitrary in [the second] sense.
Humpty Dumpty's, for example, is; or perhaps it's better to say that,
being arbitrary in the second sense, it's not really a category at all.
" it may well be that people in practice don't categorize in order to
" derive "X-is-like-Y" measures, but rather pseudocategorize according to
" these measures.
I can't understand this point. To me, to categorize is to sort
instances in a reliable, correct, objective, all-or-none fashion. If
it's not reliable, correct or all-or-none, it's not categorization (or
not categorical to the degree that it's not reliable, correct or not
all-or-none). If it's not objective, it's subjective; then you can call
it what you like, because I have no idea what's being sorted, and on
what basis.
Stevan Harnad
__________
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Rick Wojcik)
" the discussion is about Lakoff's book [and] can't proceed in an
" intelligent fashion if the participants haven't read the book.
I only joined the exchange to discuss the point that disjunction is not
nonclassical, not to discuss Lakoff's book (which I cannot do,
obviously, because I have not read it). It was unfortunate that the
Lakoff label was not stripped off earlier (as it eventually was).
" Mark virtually admitted this in his posting when he suggested that the
" classicists had maybe forgotten about disjunction too. I am not sure
" that you are defending Mark's original position as much as you think
" you are...
I do consider myself to be defending Mark's original point, since I
happen to have made it myself many times, including in print. I don't
think he gave any ground in saying that the "classicists" may have forgotten
about conjunction. As I said, I have no idea who owns the term, but
there's no nonarbitrary reason I can think of for restricting the word
"feature" to monadic, conjunctive properties. "Any detectable state of
affairs" sounds like a much less arbitrary way of characterizing a
feature. Recall that the philosophers spoke of necessary and sufficient
CONDITIONS, not "necessary and sufficient features" (which is either an
oxymoron or gibberish unless it is construed as "features that provide
necessary and sufficient conditions"). "Conditions" sound to me a lot
like "states-of-affairs," which philosophers have also singled out as
that which is describable by "propositions," or, shorter still, by
"predicates." Now it seems to me that predicates have a perfect right
to be boolean (and quantified, etc.).
" I am confused as to what you think 'typicality' judgments are. I assume
" that C judgments are always 'all-or-nothing' ones. So far, you haven't
" presented any evidence that I can see to show that T and C judgments
" are categorically distinct types of behavior.
A categorical judgment -- i.e., an objective, reliable, correct
judgment that these are X's and those are not -- is by its nature
all-or-none. That's what "categorical" means. If it's unreliable or
incorrect, that means sometimes you don't know or you get it wrong.
If it's graded instead of all-or-none, then again it's not categorical.
("I don't know whether or not this is an X, but it's more X-like than
that one is." Then the question arises whether or not the judgment
"more X-like" is itself a CATEGORICAL judgment... -- Perhaps this is
what you meant in asking whether T and C judgments are "categorically
distinct.") Finally, If sometimes there IS no right or wrong, or it's
not known, then for those cases the judgment is arbitrary in the second
sense I mentioned: It is either indeterminate or merely a subjective
whim.
The typical T judgment is secondary to a C judgment: This is a bird
and that's a bird, but this is a more typical bird than that. Here C
clearly precedes T. I suppose that in principle you could have a
situation where your ability to judge that things were birds was at
chance (i.e., you had no category "bird"), but you could somehow judge
that some things were more birdlike than others. That would be an odd
state of affairs, with bird-likeness completely dissociated from the
ability to categorize birds. But you may then have ANOTHER category,
namely "being more birdlike," whose context of alternatives consists
of, say, pairs of objects, with a classical feature governing your
sorting them into the "more" and "less" category. Or you might be able
to reliably scale single objects for degree of bird-likeness,
assigning them to categories from 0 to, say, 100. It is quite
convoluted to call all these obviously graded and relative judgments
"categorical." Certainly in psychophysics such similarity judgments
are precisely the CONTRAST case for categorical judgements, which are
absolute judgments in which you must identify whether or not an
instance, in isolation, is, say, a bird!
Perhaps somewhat more plausible then this hypohetical case where
bird-judgment was at chance whereas bird-like judgment was graded would
be an in-between case, where the things that looked very birdlike to
you were indeed birds, and the things that looked very unbirdlike were
not birds, so that you could at least sort these two subsets from the
two ends of the continuum in a reliable, correct, all-or-none fashion.
This would leave the third subset in between for which your performance
was less that perfect. Let's agree to exclude unreliable performance,
and call that subset unclassifiable for you. Well then the two subsets
you CAN sort will be classical, even if their only distinctive feature
is a threshold value on some continuous parameter (which is unlikely):
Even thresholds are all-or-none affairs (within the limits of their
reliability and resolving capacity). I suggest, however, that this kind
of internal representation is much more likely to underlie our
judgments of tall/short and intelligent/stupid that bird/nonbird. And
the former are, of course, the extremes of a continua rather than
categories.
" You never discussed the original category--that of being a mother. Can
" you state necessary and sufficient conditions for motherhood such that
" 'C' judgments can be made?
Let's start with the instances of "mother" that we CAN sort reliably
and correctly, those with which which there is a basis for objective
agreement. Those cases will certainly have classical features, although
I may or may not be able to state them (no one promised that
introspection would be any more capable of making us into instant
cognitive theorists in categorization than it is in the case of
perceptual or motor skills).
Now as to the cases like the hypothetical one in which a foetus is
raised inside a man: Can anyone reliably sort these, to say whether
it's a case of "mother" or "father"? Can anyone provide a basis for
deciding whether or not the sorting would be correct? If not, then it
sounds as if the truth isn't that the categorization is being guided by
a nonclassical representation, but rather that there is simply no
categorization going on! No one promised that our categories would be
exhaustive or omniscient. In any case, I think such ambiguous cases are
problems for the relevant experts (in biology, or ontology), not for
the cognitive theorist, who only needs to worry about the
representations underlying the categories we actually HAVE.
(I do think that the problem of category-revision in the face of
anomalies or ambiguities is a problem for the cognitive theorist, but
only when the category is revisable, i.e., when an objective
[classical] basis for successful revision and subsequent
re-establishment of reliable, correct categorization exists and can
be found. I also know, of course, that categorization performance is
often less reliable than 100%, and that categories are often
approximate rather than exact, with regions of uncertainty and anomaly
that approach chance performance. This in no way implies that a
graded or nonclassical representation underlies the performance in the
reliable regions, or that C is anything like T.)
Stevan Harnad
__________
ON COGNITIVE THEORY VS ONTOLOGY
reiter@endor.harvard.edu (Ehud Reiter) of Aiken Computation Lab
Harvard, Cambridge, MA wrote:
" [W]ho makes up the categories? Professional biologists [categories] are
" pretty good at predicting [biological] details, but much less useful at
" predicting more mundane attributes like edibility... [H]ow useful
" modern English biological categories are to the average language user
" (as opposed to the professional biologist) may be questionable.
A persistent misunderstanding (or perhaps a divergence of interest)
seems to be running through some aspects of this discussion. In my view,
cognitive theory is not -- and should not ITSELF aspire to be -- a form
of amateur taxonomy or amateur ontology. Cognitive theorists should be
trying to model how categories are represented in the head by testing
models of how devices manage to categorize as people do. The only
face-valid constraint on this enterprise is the data on human (and
animal) categorization performance capacity: What people can actually
sort and label, and what labels and sortings they produce.
Ordinary language users are people; biologists are people; ontologists
are people; sometimes they happen to be the same people, sometimes not.
Sometimes people's categorization performance is reliable and
all-or-none, sometimes not. Sometimes the reliability is or can be
raised to virtually 100% correct all-or-none performance (this is the
core of our categorization capacity), sometimes not. Sometimes (and this
is important) there is (temporarily or permanently) NO BASIS on which
either people OR cognitive theorists can assess whether or not a
categorization is correct, because no detectable consequences follow
from MIScategorization. This may happen (and often does) in certain
anomalous or fuzzy regions of the sample space; but if it happens for
all or most of a "category," then the "category" in question is simply
NOT a category (or not yet a category).
So it doesn't really matter who makes up the categories. It just matters
that human performance indicates that they are there, and can be
sorted and labeled on the basis of SOMETHING. If the sorting is all-or-none
and reliable (as it is for a vast core of ordinary cognition) then, I
claim, it must have a classical (invariant featural) basis in the input
instances themselves, or, recursively, in whatever the input instances
are GROUNDED in.
And it also matters that the categories (or, more appropriately,
MIScategorization) must have consequences. This is what guides and
constrains both the categorizer and the categorization theorist. The
categories of ordinary folk are typically calibrated by one variety of
consequences (usually related to sustenance and certain [partially
self-imposed] social constraints), whereas the categories of scientists
are calibrated by another: "empiricism," i.e., the consequences of
experimental tests and the internal coherence and implications of
scientists' explanatory theories.
Sometimes folk and scientific categories square with one another,
sometimes they do not. It is not the cognitive theorist's burden to
equate them, just to model them as both being empirical instances of
human categorization performance capacity. Nor does the "English
Language" integrate them; usually lay and scientific categories simply
get different dictionary entries. In a sense, though, the scientist is
closer to having an integrated category, since he presumably has
internal representations of both, with the lay category encoded as a
special case or weaker approximation to the scientific one. (The
factors of approximation, cumulativity and convergence in
categorization are discussed in my book.) And inasmuch as they are
POTENTIAL categories that could be formed by all human beings within
one head, it is of course the burden of the cognitive theorist to model
the cumulative representation too.
The intuitions and introspections of ordinary folk about HOW they
accomplish their categorizations are likely to be of limited usefulness
to the cognitive theorist. The introspections of scientists may be
somewhat more useful, because they tend to be more explicit about the
features they are using, but even here they have no FACE-validity: It's
what Simon DOES that matters, not what Simon SAYS he does. But, in the
end, no "expert" will be able to do the cognitive theorist's work for
him, which is to model the internal representations that will
successfully generate human performance capacity.
" [E]volutionary taxonomists define categories phylogenetically,
" not in terms of observable physiological features...
" Identification procedures that are based on observable features can usually
" be constructed, although these may be based on "family resemblance" ideas.
" Ernst Mayr wrote:
" "A taxon is in fact a group of [evolutionary] relatives, and whether
" "or not they have the same "characters in common" is irrelevant. Many
" "taxa are based on a combination of characters, and frequently not a
" "single one of these characters is present in all members of the
" "taxon... Each species possesses a large (but unspecified) number of
" "the total number of properties of the taxon"
The key here is that "identification procedures based on observable
features can usually be constructed." That seems to give away the store.
No symbol grounding theory (including my own) -- at least no
non-positivistic one -- would require either laymen or scientists to
speak exclusively in an observation language. But their terms must
somehow be GROUNDED in observations, otherwise how is one to say
whether or not the categorization is "correct"? (In fact, how is one
otherwise even to know what the words mean? Unless they are grounded
somehow in something other than just more words, words are merely
meaningless strings of symbols. That's the symbol grounding problem.
And to say that the "solution" is simply to connect the symbols to
objects "in the right way" is simply to beg the question. For the
categorization problem IS the problem of how symbols come to be
connected to objects "in the right way"!)
"Family resemblances" is simply a red herring. Most of this over-rated
pseudoproblem is handled by noting that disjunctive features are
perfectly valid features (which is what launched this whole
discussion). So is a complex "polythetic" rule that says "It's an X if
it has at least K out of M properties." Moreover, "common descent"
(though not always available for observation, obviously) seems a
perfectly classical "feature" even on the arbitrary view that only
shared monadic properties qualify as features.
So taxa too, to the extent that they are reliable, decidable,
all-or-none categories at all, must be decided by their consequences:
The consequences are not based on whether or not the biologist
eats, but on whether or not the taxonomic system is internally coherent and
has testable consequences. [Internal consistency alone, by the way, is
certainly not good enough, as the long history of arbitrary typologies
mankind has come up with testifies (e.g., astrology, yin/yang, and the
many self-fulfilling, ad hoc, AD LIB typologies that psychologists
have proposed to us across time in place of a substantive predictive
theory); see the prior discussion on imposed vs. ad lib categorization.]
" I question whether an average language user is in fact capable of
" always reliably identifying a "bird", a "mammal", or a "fish"...
" I suspect we would fail on unusual cases that are not taught in school
" (e.g. pterodactyls and ichthyosaurs).
It must be repeated that where there is no reliable categorization
performance -- or worse, no objective BASIS for reliable categorization
performance -- there simply IS NO CATEGORY (or not yet a category).
For the cognitive theorist, a category consists of the cases you CAN
sort and label, not those you can't. To ask for more, as I said, is for
cognitive theory to over-reach into the domain of empirical taxonomy or
ontology.
" Hilary Putnam... suggested that definitions can make reference to
" expert knowledge (e.g. "I don't know whether an ichthyosaur is a fish
" or a reptile, but I know who to ask to find out"). This sounds like as
" good a suggestion as any for how the average language user defines
" biological categories.
Putnam is not a cognitive theorist, concerned with how to model the
internal mechanism that allows us to sort and label inputs. He is a
philosopher concerned with (among other things) the philosopher's
problem of how a name "fixes" a referent, in the sense that "what the
elementary particle physicists will say is basic in the year 2000"
seems to "pick out" something "out there" that I already have "in mind"
right now when I refer to "it." And, in a sense, the physicist's future
say-so IS a kind of "feature." But it's more like the "Dumpty-says"
feature discussed in another posting in this discussion. And it's not
much use without the expert oracle. To the cognitive theorist this only
indicates that some categories cannot be sorted without someone else's
help. That's not a very interesting form of internal representation.
On the other hand, this example does bring out some interesting
aspects of the grounding problem: The higher levels of discourse
in a grounded symbol system can be quite abstract and removed
from observation, yet they may still be coherent and even informative.
As long as "fish," "reptile," and, say, "vertebrate," are grounded, I
can go on to talk and learn a lot about "Ichthyosaurus" knowing only
that it's a vertebrate that's either a fish or a reptile, despite
neither having ever seen one nor being able, with my current resources,
to be able to pick one out if I ever did see one (except approximately,
say, as a vertebrate). This is a powerful and remarkable feature of
grounding. But it would be to fall headlong into what I've elsewhere
dubbed the "entry-point problem" for a category modeler merely to step
into the category network at some arbitrary point like this, simply
supposing himself to be the HEIR to all the prior requisite categories
(such as "fish" and "reptile") without ever having worked for them, or
or at least specified how THEY got there -- and instead to go on to
make a claim about category representation IN GENERAL, purely on the
basis of what the category landscape seems to look like from this
arbitrary entry-point (e.g., that category representations need not be
based on classical features)!
So I may defer to expert knowledge in order to talk AT ALL about
some of my vaguer categories, but that's hardly the paradigm for
my categorization performance and its substrates. According to
my grounding theory, I must have done a lot of hard work by direct
acquaintance with sensory categories before I built up the grounded
system that now allows me to rely on experts' say-so. The theorist has
to do a lot of hard work too, before he can help himself to this
derivative high-level capability.
Stevan Harnad
_____________
All Categories Are Provisional and Approximate and Depend on Features
that Reliably Pick them out from their Context of Confusable Alternatives.
arm@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Macalalad) of AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville,
Illinois, wrote:
" there seem to be [claims of] two different types of categorization:
" (1) An "arbitrary" type... in that the same object may be categorized
" one way in one situation [and another way in another,... e.g.,] a kid
" may describe his bike as "big" in comparison to his little sister's
" tricycle, but "small" compared to his big brother's ten speed.
" [And] (2) The "classical" type of categorization, where an object is
" categorized one way, 100% all-or-none...
" (2) would just add unnecessary complexity to any theory of
" categorization,... unless Harnad has some compelling evidence to the
" contrary... (1) is sufficient.
None of the distinctions discussed so far has corresponded to this
"arbitrary"/"classical" distinction, which does not seem to me to be
coherent. Two things seem to be conflated in the above example:
First, it's true for virtually ALL categories that the very same object
can belong to MANY different categories: All birds are vertebrates,
animals, concrete objects, etc. This bird is a pet, Tweety, etc. Nor is
it just a vertical hierarchy that governs all these different names for
the same object. There's what's called in my book "the `context' of
interconfusable alternatives": The purpose of a category name is to
resolve uncertainty among alternatives, i.e., to INFORM; the
uncertainty must be objective, namely, MIScategorizing must have
detectable consequences. So a horizontal context might be that my life
depended on singling out THAT BIRD for someone (without pointing to
it), and the alternatives were: (a) a bird, a stick and a stone
(solution: "the bird"); (b) a robin, a parakeet and a canary (solution:
"the canary"); (c) three canaries (solution: "Tweety" or "the middle
one") etc.
There is nothing arbitrary about this context-dependence of
categorization: It's intrinsic to the informative function of
categorization itself. Nor is it involved only in the USE of existing
categories; even more important, according to my theory, is the fact
that the LEARNING of the categories in the first place is always
context-dependent too. (Q: "What's that? A: "Compared to what?") In my
model, it is the context of confusable alternatives which one samples
and must sort into categories, guided by the consequences of
miscategorizing, that makes it possible to focus the search for the
invariant features that reliably distinguish the inputs one is sorting.
Categorization would never converge if the context were infinite, and
"everything" were potentially confusable with "everything else." (This is
related to what philosophers have called "category errors" or "type
crossings," as well as to the phenomenon of "underdetermination" and
the problem of negative instances.)
The second conflation in the above example concerns what
psychophysicists carefully distinguish as "relative" versus "absolute"
(categorical) judgment. For the context-dependence of categorization
does not make it a mere relative judgment, such as a similarity
judgment, because relative judgments depend on explicit (usually
pairwise) comparisons, with the pair usually jointly present.
"Bigger" vs. "smaller" is a relative judgment. Nobody would say that
there was a category of things called "bigger" things. This kind of
"situation-dependence" is very different from the context-dependence I
described above, for it always depends on two things in particular. If
there is an absolute category here, it is one defined on PAIRS of
objects: the relational property invariantly present in the larger of
the two in any pair (within the same context: I don't have to worry
about whether the smell of mint is "bigger" than the smell of juniper,
or whether goodness is bigger than truth).
"Big," on the other hand, as opposed to "bigger," is indeed a graded
rather than an all-or-none "category," as I indicated in my very first
contribution to this discussion. But I am focusing on all-or-none
categories like "bird" here, which are not to be confused or conflated
with graded ones like "big." Macalalad asks for compelling evidence of
all-or-none categories: I offer "bird" and the myriad other categories
like it that we are perfectly capable of sorting and labeling correctly
and reliably with virtually 100% success. These categories, too, are
context-dependent, in that the features picked out by their
representations are only good enough to tell apart birds from among the
alternatives encountered so far. But this approximation seems pretty
secure for most of the cases most nonbiologists are ever likely to
encounter.
As to whether all-or-none categories "add unnecessary complexity to any
theory of categorization," they no doubt do, but only in the sense that
plants add unnecessary complexity to a theory of botany. What I've
called the "Roschian" tradition -- fueled, perhaps, by a misreading
or misapplication of Wittgenstein -- has simply managed to forget or
ignore what it is that categories, categorization, and modeling their
underlying substrates is all about.
[Here's some food for thought for would-be Wittgensteinians:
I categorically deny that Wittgenstein's paradigmatic example of a
"family resemblance" category, namely, "games," is nonclassical, in the
sense that it lacks underlying invariant features that pick out the
category "games." The features may well include disjunctions,
conditionals, etc., but they will all add up to necessary and
sufficient conditions for what counts as a "game." The fact that
Wittgenstein and others have failed to come up with these necessary and
sufficient conditions by introspection does not impress me; what
impresses me is the vast quantity of candidates that we can all
reliably sort as "games" or "nongames." Underlying these there must be
a classical basis for the sorting, both in the candidates and in their
representations in our heads. There are of course also ambiguous or
uncertain cases that no one can sort, or not everyone agrees on. But
these certainly can't be counted in favor of a nonclassical internal
representation of the category "games," because they're precisely the
cases we CAN'T categorize!]
" categories... are not so much arbitrary as... dependent on the
" situation and the information that they convey... The rules vary with the
" situation. (Note that I'm not suggesting a cognitive theory where we
" actually apply rules for categorization. I'm merely saying that if we
" attempted to come up with a rule for our internal categories, these
" rules would vary with the situation.)
Rules are largely logical operations on strings of features, or on
symbols grounded in features. "Satisfying a rule" thus counts as "being
describable by a predicate," which in turn (as I've argued in earlier
installments) amounts to "having a `feature' (in the general sense of
`a detectable state of affairs')." I think that the reluctance to come out
and say that the features/rules are actually USED (hence internally
represented somehow), even though it is admitted that they exist, may arise
from giving far too much weight to arguments based on the fact that we
do not know what the features are introspectively. Nor (as I suggested
above) does their context-dependence, both in acquisition and use, make
these features/rules any less real. Context-dependence may be one of
the most important properties of categories and category formation.
[Macalalad seems somewhat ambivalent about whether or not rules are
"actually applied." See below.]
" A boy may point to a flying object and say... "Look at that bird."
" Later on, when the object flies closer, he may say, "Oh, that's no
" bird. That's a bat." Under classical categorization, as I understand
" it, the boy committed a miscategorization, which he later corrected.
" However, the boy didn't learn anything new about the category. He was
" just as capable of distinguishing between a bird and a bat before and
" after... [T]he boy was applying two different rules... "If there's a
" " distant flying object that has wings flapping up and down and a head
" and a body, then it's a bird." And presumably the categorization was
" appropriate enough for his friend to recognize what object he was
" talking about. Once the object was closer and provided his senses with
" more detail, he could apply a different rule which yielded more
" information about the object.
This case simply illustrates that, along with being context-dependent,
categories are also always approximate: They are based only on the
features that reliably pick out the category in question from among the
confusable alternatives. Categories and approximations have the virtue
of (in principle) always being amenable to tightening whenever the context
of alternatives (and its corresponding uncertainties) is widened. The
only thing I would add is that the above example happened to be an
example of context widening and category tightening in the USE of
existing categories. Similar effects can also occur in the acquisition
of new categories, as well as in their revision. (Cognitive theorists, as
I've suggested in other postings, must be careful not to fall into an
ontological stance -- concerned with what things "really" are: Their
mission can only be to determine how we reliably sort and label the
actual alternatives we sample.)
Macalalad seems to share with much of the field an ambivalence about
attributing to the internal representation of a category the rules the
subject "applies" in order to accomplish the categorization. I don't
know whether this again arises from a misreading of Wittgenstein (this
time "On Rules") or whether it is just another spin-off of the Roschian
denial of classical features. I for one have no hesitation in
concluding that if an all-or-none categorization of inputs is reliable
and correct, then there must be a classical featural basis for it in
the input, and that whatever that classical featural basis is, it is
actually used and actually internally represented (though not
necessarily as an explicit rule; perhaps as an implicit feature
detector).
" Actually, (2) [all-or-none categories] could be a special case of (1)
" ["situation-dependent" categories], where only one rule is applied in
" every situation. So even if (2) did exist, (1) would still be sufficient.
I trust that this is all straightened out now by the discussion above.
All categories are context-dependent, both in acquisition and use.
There is no contradiction between being context-dependent and being
all-or-none. "Conformity to a rule" is a classical feature, and
categories picked out on that basis are perfectly classical.
Stevan Harnad
_____________
WHY I AM NOT A POSITIVIST
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) of University of Hawaii wrote:
" You underestimate Positivism, of which in fact your theory appears to be
" a species. Here is a passage from Moritz Schlick's "Positivism and
" Realism" (1932/3,in Ayer, _Logical Positivism_): "But when do I
" understand a proposition? When I understand the meanings of the words
" which occur in it? These can be explained by definitions. But in the
" definitions new words appear whose meanings cannot again be described in
" propositions, they must be indicated directly: the meaning of a word
" must in the end be _shown_, it must be _given_. This is done by an act
" of indication, of pointing; and what is pointed at must be given,
" otherwise I cannot be referred to it."
" Except that even Schlick allows grounding in *possible* experiences,
" I see no notable differences from your views. For a recent argument
" against applying this approach to natural language, see Chomsky's
" review of Skinner's _Verbal Behavior_.
Although I do confess to a lingering sympathy for certain perfectly
valid features of positivism (the "P" word), as well as for
verificationism and the 18th century empiricism from which they grew (I
think positivism was rejected by psychologists just as hastily,
superficially, unselectively and uncritically as it was first accepted
by them), I am nevertheless no positivist, as is quite evident from the
representational model I am proposing. Nor am I a behaviorist (as the
above quote also seems to imply).
The positivists were concerned with MEANING (especially the meaning of
scientific statements): What statements are and are not meaningful, and
in what does their meaning consist? I, on the other hand, am concerned
with categorization: How do we SORT and LABEL categories and USE the
category labels in statements about categories? The positivists claimed
that only "observation statements" -- or statements from which
observation statements could be readily derived -- were "meaningful." I
certainly don't say anything of the sort. In fact, I happen to find
most of the very statements that the positivists wished to reject as
meaningless and metaphysical to be perfectly meaningful, with their
terms perfectly well grounded (in MY sense, i.e., consisting of the
labels of categories that were grounded in the labels of categories
that were grounded in... the labels of concrete sensory categories that
we can sort and label directly). Moreover, most of what the positivists
themselves said becomes trivially obvious and no longer "positivistic"
in any substantive sense if restated in terms of categorization rather
than meaning, as the following transcription shows:
"But when can I sort a category described by a label-string? When I can
sort categories for the labels which occur in it? These can be described
by more label-strings. But in the label-strings new labels appear
whose categories cannot again be described by still more label-strings
[on pain of infinite regress]: the members of a category must in the
end be actually sorted."
This is simply a statement of a version of what I've called "the symbol
grounding problem," plus a fairly obvious constraint on its solution in
the case of categorization. That the positivists too noticed this
problem does not mean that all solutions to it are therefore
positivistic. -- Not that the positivists even offered a solution, mind
you, for "pointing" is certainly no solution to a cognitive theorist,
who must provide the underlying causal mechanism that governs the
success of the pointing, i.e., a representational theory! Successful
pointing to the right category members is the behavioral capacity the
cognitivist must explain! The philosopher simple takes it for
granted.
Behaviorism likewise has as little to offer a cognitive theorist as
does positivism. It's not helpful to know that a subject's successful
pointing performance was "shaped" by his reinforcement history: The
cognitive theorist must come up with the internal structures and
processes that were responsible for that success, given those inputs
and that feedback from the consequences of MIScategorization. (To this
extent one can of course agree completely with Chomsky's critique of
Skinner; but the rest of Chomsky's argument against learning and empiricism
-- the celebrated "poverty of the stimulus" argument -- has so far only
been applied to and provisionally supported in the special case of
certain syntactic categories, certainly not categorization in general!)
[Among the objections to positivism was one that was directed at
empiricism as a whole and has lately been championed by Chomskian
nativists like Jerry Fodor: the problem of "abstraction" or "vanishing
intersections" -- the (alleged) fact that one cannot ground abstract
terms such as "goodness" or "truth" in the features shared by concrete
sensory instances (such as "this good boy" or "that true statement")
because NO FEATURE is shared by all the sensory instances: their
intersection is simply empty. I, obviously, am not persuaded by this
claim (or the radical nativism about categories that accepting it would
entail -- what I've dubbed elsewhere the "Big-Bang Theory of the Origin
of Knowledge"). Let me note in passing only that this claim has often
been made, but never tested, because testing whether sensory
intersections actually vanish is not in the philosopher's line of work.
Other reasons for rejecting positivism came from some of the
Wittgensteinian considerations, likewise untested, that have surfaced a
few times in this discussion (e.g., that the category "game" has no
invariant features).]
Finally, about the "possible" experience that my theory supposedly
does not allow: On the contrary, MOST of the grounding in my theory is
based on possible rather than actual direct sorting. In fact, even
categories that are unverifiable in principle may be perfectly
well-represented categories in my theory. As an example, I
will use the category of a "peekaboo unicorn," which should be
meaningless to a verificationist. But first, let me just quickly
sketch the representational theory (for details, see the last chapter
of "Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition"):
There are three kinds of internal representations. "Iconic
Representations" (IRs) are internal analogs of the proximal projections of
objects on the receptor surfaces. IRs subserve relative discrimination,
similarity judgment, and tasks based on continuous analog
transformations of the proximal stimulus; but because they blend
continuously into one another, IRs cannot subserve categorization.
Categorical Representations (CRs) are IRs that have been selectively
filtered and reduced to only the invariant features of the proximal
projection that reliably distinguish members of a category from
whatever the confusable alternatives are in a specific "context" or
sample of alternatives. CRs subserve categorical perception and
object identification.
CRs are also associated with a label, the category name; these
names are directly "grounded" in their IRs and CRs and the
objects these pick out. The labels are also the primitives of a third
kind of representation, Symbolic Representations (SRs). SRs can be
combined and recombined into strings of symbols that form composite SRs
and likewise pick out categories, as grounded in IRs and CRs. CRs pick
out categories by direct perceptual experience; SRs pick them out by
symbolic description, with its primitive terms ultimately grounded in
perceptual representations. SRs subserve natural language.
Here is an example of how my "grounding" scheme would work. The
example is recursive on whatever the primitive categories actually are
(they are certainly not the ones I actually give here):
Suppose the category "horse" ("H") is grounded in the categorizer's
having learned to sort and label horses by direct perceptual
experience, with feedback from mislabeling. IRs have been formed, as
well as CRs that will correctly sort horses and non-horses (within a
sampled context of confusable alternatives).
Suppose the category "having stripes" ("S") is similarly grounded, with IRs
and CRs.
Suppose also that the category "having one horn" ("O") is similarly grounded,
with IRs and CRs.
With the IRs and CRs possessed so far, a categorizer could sort and
label H's, S's and O's from direct experience. Now introduce the
following Symbolic Representation: "Zebra" ("Z") = H & S. It is
evident that, armed only with the IRs and CRs in which "H" and "S" are
grounded, not only WOULD [note the "possible experience"] a categorizer
now be able to sort and label zebras correctly from the very first time he
encountered one (if he were ever to encounter one), but he also now
has a new grounded label "Z" that can henceforth enter into further grounded
SRs, in virtue of the IRs and CRs in which it is grounded.
Let's take yet another nonpositivistic step forward: "Unicorn" ("U") =
H & O. This category, being fictional, will NEVER be encountered, yet
it is perfectly well-grounded. Let's go still further: By similar
means I could define a "Peekaboo Unicorn" which is not only a horse
with one horn, but has the property that it "disappears" whenever any
"sense-organ" or "detecting device" is trained on it (all these
further categories likewise being grounded as above). Hence a
"Peekaboo Unicorn" is a category that is unobservable and unverifiable
IN PRINCIPLE, yet perfectly well-grounded in IRs, CRs, sensory
experience, and actual objects. Such is the power of a viable
grounding scheme.
So do you still think I'm a positivist?
Stevan Harnad
_____________
ON MOTIVES VS FEATURES
throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) of Data General, RTP NC wrote:
" [T]here are no non-arbitrary categorizations... By "categorization", I
" meant the features that pick out a category. By "arbitrary
" categorization" I meant that the features chosen from some set of
" possibilities might seem, to some observers at least, to be chosen
" without motive or "at random"...
" [T]there are no arbitrary categories... By "arbitrary category" I
" meant that the basis for inclusion could not be objectively determined,
" and thus seemed "random".
" [I]t is always possible to "objectify" a category based on subjective
" grounds, by the "inspector 12" method: "It don't say (it's in category
" X) until *I* say it says (it's in category X)."
" I don't see that it makes a fundamental difference whether a particular
" "category detector" such as "this scene is good/bad looking", or this
" "flower smells good/bad" needs a particular person or instrument to act
" as oracle... the person involved may very well be making the judgement
" objectively by criteria that other observers cannot perceive
The first passage is getting too complicated for me. Sounds like it's
saying no category is arbitrary but all features on the basis of which
you pick them out are arbitrary. Seems like a strained form of realism.
Fine. But the trouble is that features are categories too, which makes
the whole thing sound like it's either incoherent or an arbitrary
semantic quibble. Yes, things are what they are irrespective of my
'druthers, but my sorting still either does or does not depend on
something objective and invariant "out there." My *motives*
for picking features are not what's at issue in the debate about
whether or not the "classical" view is correct, but the objective
*existence* and *use* of those (classical) features.
The second point has to do with using another person as your
feature-detecting instrument. Fine. But there's still the question
of whether HIS sorting is based on features he's detecting "out
there" or he's merely listening to some inner voice, which in turn has
no objective external basis. If the latter, then for HIM no objective
miscategorization is possible -- no OBJECTIVE consequences follow from
sorting "incorrectly." Hence the category he is picking out is purely
subjective, and hence arbitrary in the second sense we were discussing.
(This would NOT be like, say, ultraviolet light detection, where your
human oracle/instrument would indeed be using classical features.)
Stevan Harnad
_____________
∂25-Jan-89 0903 mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Jan 28-29, 1988
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jan 89 09:02:59 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA05736; Wed, 25 Jan 89 09:01:45 PST
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1989 9:01:44 PST
From: Claudia Mazzetti <mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu, feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu, nilsson@score.stanford.edu,
mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu, amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu,
browne@cs.utexas.edu, bledsoe@cs.vax.pittsburgh.edu,
davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
Cc: mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Subject: Jan 28-29, 1988
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.601750904.mazzetti@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
This is a second message about the weekend meeting schedule. Below is the
proposed schedule:
Friday, Jan 27 No dinner or reception is planned.
Saturday, Jan 28
9:00 am Meeting begins in the Conference Room at the Knowledge Systems
Lab in Palo Alto (701 Welch Rd, Bldg C). The Conference room
has an outside entrance. As you approach Building C, you notice
a sign for KSL. Rather than going up the stairs into the
lobby of the lab, please go down the stairs to the ground level
and walk straight ahead. If you need directions to the lab, give
me a ring at 415-328-3123 (office) or 415-941-3010 (home).
noon lunch break - lunch will be served in the meeting room
5:30 pm closure for the day
6-7:30 reception in room 100 at the Stanford park Hotel in Menlo Park.
(please invite your spouse or friend to attend)
Sunday, Jan 29
9:00 am meeting resumes in the KSL Conference Room
noon meeting concludes
∂25-Jan-89 1000 JMC
proofs
∂25-Jan-89 1057 BEACH@Score.Stanford.EDU WICS: Knowledge Engineering
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jan 89 10:57:34 PST
Date: Wed 25 Jan 89 10:55:57-PST
From: Sharon S. Beach <BEACH@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: WICS: Knowledge Engineering
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12465416138.31.BEACH@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John,
Would you like to give a lecture in the Knowledge Engineering Lecture
series this year. I didn't ask last year because your course was the
same week.
This would be a day-time lecture, about 2 1/2 hours long. The pay would
be $1000. The week we are probably going to run it is July 31 - Aug. 4.
You could suggest a topic. I would love to have you be part of it.
I guess Joleen has also contacted you about offering Common Sense again.
It's possible that the Lecture Series cut into your enrollments last year.
I hope you will consider that also.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sharon Beach
-------
∂25-Jan-89 1122 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU re: integral reactor
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jan 89 11:22:01 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA25427; Wed, 25 Jan 89 11:21:36 PDT
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1989 11:21:34 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: integral reactor
In-Reply-To: Your message of 24 Jan 89 1851 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.601759294.alex@polya.stanford.edu>
Address:
Insight, Letters Editor
3600 New York Ave. N.E.
Washington DC 20002
And by the way, you were right, it is published by Washington Times Corp.
Alex
∂25-Jan-89 1116 VAL reference
In the Mr Hug paper you mention Robert Moore's MIT Master's thesis, in which
he wrote about the absence of disjunctions in PLANNER. Can we safely assume
that this is identical to his 1975 MIT Tech Report "Reasoning from
incomplete knowledge in a procedural deductive system"?
∂25-Jan-89 1155 MPS
Maarten vanEmden will be at the Stanford Terrace Inn
until Friday noon in Room 226. His number is
857-0333
Professor Alty phoned about the Turing Lecture. He would
like you to present your lecture on Mar 31st. He knows
you will be in Sunderland and thinks this date will be
convenient, besides it appears that the important people
attending will be available on that date. It is only
about 100 miles from Sunderland. He will make arrangements
(transportation) for you. His number is 41 552 1576
∂25-Jan-89 1221 decwrl!decvax!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!utep-vaxa!teodor@labrea.stanford.edu teodor mail
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jan 89 12:21:39 PST
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Wed, 25 Jan 89 12:19:47 PST
Received: from decvax.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
for labrea!sail.stanford.edu!jmc; id AA13249; Wed, 25 Jan 89 12:19:48 PST
Received: from cs.utexas.edu.UUCP with UUCP by gatech.edu (5.58/GATECH-8.6)
id AA04320 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 89 14:26:25 EST
Posted-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 11:50:13 MST
Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.23)
id AA20418; Wed, 25 Jan 89 13:02:14 CST
Received: by utep-vaxa.UUCP (5.51/smail2.2/03-26-87)
id AA02376; Wed, 25 Jan 89 11:50:13 MST
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 11:50:13 MST
From: decwrl!decvax!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!utep-vaxa!teodor@labrea.stanford.edu (teodor%utep.uucp@cs.utexas.edu [Teodor C. Przymusinski])
Message-Id: <8901251850.AA02376@utep-vaxa.UUCP>
To: mcvax.bitnet!apt@cs.utexas.edu, hujics.bitnet!beeri@cs.utexas.edu,
ibm.com!jll@cs.utexas.edu, sail.stanford.edu!jmc@cs.utexas.edu,
e.ms.uky.edu!marek@cs.utexas.edu,
jacksun.cs.umd.edu!minker@cs.utexas.edu,
doc.imperial.ac.uk!rak@cs.utexas.edu,
ai.toronto.edu!reiter@cs.utexas.edu,
sail.stanford.edu!val@cs.utexas.edu
Subject: teodor mail
Thank you again for allowing me to include your name on the list
of my references. I would like you to know that
I greatly appreciate your support.
For your information, I am enclosing a complete list
of my referees. Please, let me know if I can assist you in any
other way.
Regards,
Teodor Przymusinski
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Krzysztof R. Apt Catriel Beeri
Robert Kowalski Jean Louis Lassez
Vladimir Lifschitz Wiktor Marek
John McCarthy Jack Minker
Raymond Reiter John Shepherdson
----------------------------------------------------------------
∂25-Jan-89 1330 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU USENET censorship at Stanford
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jan 89 13:30:17 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01405; Wed, 25 Jan 89 13:32:20 PST
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 13:32:20 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901252132.AA01405@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: USENET censorship at Stanford
You will probably be interested in the following thing that I have
just heard about. (The first few paragraphs of this are background,
since I don't know if you've followed the issue.)
Many Stanford Unix systems subscribe to USENET, a worldwide system of
newsgroups organized by topics. Some of these newsgroups are
"moderated", meaning that an individual in charge of the group is the
only one allowed to post messages; his job is to screen messages
posted by other users.
The most popular moderated group is "rec.humor.funny", which consists
of jokes submitted by readers, and moderated by Brad Templeton.
Templeton is the owner of a private software company, but uses the
facilities of the University of Waterloo in Canada for his connection
to USENET.
A couple of months ago, Jonathon Richmond (who I believe is an
assistant professor at MIT) sent out a message to several USENET
groups, complaining about jokes in rec.humor.funny that he found to be
racist and offensive. He threatened to take some action to stop this
unless Templeton agreed to stop posting such jokes. Templeton refused
to do so, arguing that his main criterion for posting jokes was
whether they were funny. (Jokes that are potentially obscene or
offensive to some groups have always been marked as such in the
headers (allowing people to use software to ignore such messages
without reading them), and a simple encrytion method (adding 13 modulo
26 to each letter) is used for the most offensive jokes.)
A week or so later, Richmond contacted a newspaper in Waterloo and
they wrote a story about the issue, which (in my opinion) was strongly
biased against Templeton and contained major misrepresentations. For
example, its description of one of the offensive jokes was a
paraphrase of the joke, that removed all of the humor. This article
caught the attention of the Univ. of Waterloo administration, and they
cut Templeton off from access to their machines. Within a few days,
his access was restored with some agreement that he would not cause
offensive material to appear on their systems, but in general,
rec.humor.funny's policies have not changed. I think he now has
connections to some other systems in order to submit his jokes to the
network.
The publicity that this received caused some other organizations to
take action to remove rec.humor.funny, or at least its offensive
parts, from their systems. This included several universities. (I'll
try to get more specific information about what actions have been
taken.)
What I have just heard is that today Ralph Gorin instructed the
managers of AIR systems to remove rec.humor.funny from their machines.
I am told that this was not just his decision, but that it came from
Bob Street and possibly other administrators at Stanford (though I
have no actual confirmation of this).
Without any knowledge that this was coming, I have been involved in
planning a change in the distribution of USENET messages at Stanford.
Currently, it is done by CSD, using Labrea, which is not really able
to handle the load. Labrea receives messages from a couple of sites
outside Stanford and passes them to 6 or 7 hosts on campus, which
people then use to read them. Ralph agreed to provide a system at AIR
which would take over Labrea's function. The switchover is ready to
happen immediately, but Dan Kolkowitz and I have decided to wait a
while because of this issue.
I hope I can interest you in attacking the Stanford administration for
this action, and trying to get it reversed. Because the messages in
question are jokes, it may appear fairly frivolous, but it is clear
that this could lead to further censorship of USENET and other
electronic messages. There is other stuff that people will find
offensive and might want to censor. (For instance, the various groups
that contain political discussions.)
One issue that will come up is that of Stanford's liability as a
result of allowing its facilities to be used to post offensive
messages. For instance, could Stanford be sued for libel as a result
of a message appearing on a system here? An opinion that I have seen
stated is that censoring specific groups actually makes liability more
likely for those groups that are not censored, because they have been
implicitly approved. As long as there is no censorship, a "common
carrier" argument may apply, making Stanford not liable for messages
that do not originate here.
There is more to say, but I'll end this message here.
∂25-Jan-89 1421 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Ralph's message
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jan 89 14:20:56 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01582; Wed, 25 Jan 89 14:22:59 PST
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 14:22:59 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901252222.AA01582@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, les@sail
Subject: Ralph's message
To the Stanford community,
In Information Resources, we have been confronted with the existence
of a Usenet (Unix users') bulletin board, rec.humor.funny, that
contains jokes including, among others, jokes based on racial, ethnic,
sexual, religious, and other stereotypes. Jokes based on such
stereotypes perpetuate racism, sexism, and intolerance; they undermine
an important University purpose: our collective search for a better
way, for a truly pluralistic community in which every person is
acknowledged an individual, not a caricature.
We have weighed our love of freedom of expression and the free
exchange of ideas in contrast to our respect for the dignity and
rights of every individual. In this situation we find: this bulletin
board does not serve a University educational purpose; its content is
offensive; it does not, in itself, provide a forum for the examination
and discussion of intolerance, an exchange of views, or the expression
of views of the members of the University community.
Stanford University has no commitment to maintain our computing
facilities as a generalized forum for outsiders' indiscriminate
purposes. We are sensitive to the pain caused by racial, religious,
and sexual affronts. For these reasons, we have decided not to have
that bulletin board file on the computers operated by Information
Resources.
We endorse the continued use of our local, unmoderated computer
bulletin boards by members of the University community for the
discussion of ideas, including those that are unpopular. In such a
forum, ideas are subject to the thoughtful judgement of others.
Ralph Gorin, Director John Sack, Director
Academic Information Resources Stanford Data Center
-------
∂25-Jan-89 1430 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jan 89 14:30:20 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01641; Wed, 25 Jan 89 14:32:18 PST
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 14:32:18 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901252232.AA01641@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, les@sail
Subject: rec.humor.funny
Here is a message sent out regularly by the moderator of
rec.humor.funny. (It contains a subtle joke, by the way: JEDR, his
abbreviation for "Joke Ethnic/Denomination/Race" are also the initials
of his attacker, Jonathon E.D. Richmond.)
From: funny-request@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
Subject: Editorial Policy on Offensive Jokes -- Monthly Posting
Keywords: monthly administrivia
Message-ID: <2628@looking.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 89 03:59:46 GMT
Sender: funny@looking.UUCP
Followup-To: rec.humor.d
Lines: 276
Approved: funny@looking.UUCP
REC.HUMOR.FUNNY
Editorial Policy
On Offensive Jokes
"Rec.humor.funny material is judged on comedic structure
and humour only. The editor does not make judgements on
the content or political correctness of jokes. The editor
is not responsible for the content of jokes in this
newsgroup. Such content, and other non-editorial opinions,
are the responsibility of each joke submitter."
The group rec.humor.funny occasionally contains offensive jokes, and
sometimes people complain. The special category of "stereotype" or
"discriminatory" jokes is discussed below. If you want to complain about
a joke that offended you, consider this -- if I removed every category of
material that somebody on the net complained about as offensive, we soon
wouldn't have a newsgroup left. So, if you must complain, I will note it,
but do not expect me to take action. It's not that I consider your advice
meaningless, it's just that I must take everybody's advice, or nobody's.
I can't take everybody's.
>From time to time, rec.humor.funny (RHF) contains some jokes that some
may consider offensive because they involve stereotypes, particularly
racial, cultural and sexual ones. Some people ask why these jokes are
present in this group. It's a very valid question, since some believe
that these jokes can promote hatred.
There are several answers, and all are important. In brief, the
answers are:
A) The presence of these jokes in RHF actually reduces the
total level of racial material on the net.
B) The level of nasty racial (racist) material is reduced even
further.
C) None of these jokes are posted with hate, prejudice, bigotry
or racism of any kind. The moderator is in fact a noted anti-bigot.
D) The moderator has vowed to be as impartial as possible by
judging jokes on comedic value and structure only, not on
content or "political correctness."
E) The moderator believes that people should be treated as "minds"
rather than bodies, so that genetic background is irrelevant to
judgements of human beings.
F) The moderator views the net as a grand experiment in a mind-based
society, where you usually can't tell a citizen's race, age,
beauty and sometimes sex unless they tell you. Race should not
exist on the net, and so non-malicious racial jokes are no
different from celebrity jokes.
G) Many of these jokes actually laugh at racism, not race.
H) Last, and possibly least, freedom of the press.
To consider these points, we must first consider the 4 main types of race
related humour: (When I say "race" here, I mean "identifiable group.")
1) Jokes written by comedians where a well known stereotype is used for
comedic purposes, without malice, the same way a famous celebrity's
well known trait is used in a celebrity joke.
2) Jokes written by racists, with malice, where comedy is used to
ridicule a race.
3) Jokes that make fun of racism, racist statements and racist
attitudes.
4) "Sick" jokes, which are funny (to some) for their sheer
offensiveness.
As editor of rec.humor.funny, I have not published jokes I believed to
be in category 2, and only used jokes from category 4 when they are
particularly funny. In general, I reject all jokes without sufficient
comedic structure and value. (Note that category 2 jokes sometimes are
done as category 4 jokes. Here it matters who the teller is.)
A) The presence of these jokes in RHF actually reduces the
total level of racial material on the net.
This is perhaps the strongest pragmatic reason for this policy. The
proof is quite simple. In the unrestricted rec.humor, anything can be
posted by anybody at any time. While RHF exists, many people submit
to RHF first. When a rejection is given, most people respect it and
do not post to rec.humor. The math is simple. Without this policy,
ALL discriminatory offensive humour anybody on the net thinks of is
posted. With RHF and this policy, at least some (really quite a lot) is
rejected.
B) The level of nasty racial (racist) material is reduced even
further.
Also important is *what* is rejected. I only take comedy written as
comedy -- the intent must be fun. So while the reduction in total
material that might be considered offensive for discriminatory reasons
may be moderate, the reduction in nasty material of that sort is high.
If I made a policy of accepting no such material, it would *all* go out.
So be warned, that any attempt to force a change in this editorial
policy (as once was done) will be viewed by many as a bigoted act.
C) None of these jokes are posted with hate, prejudice, bigotry
or racism of any kind. The moderator is in fact a noted anti-bigot.
I can't prove that here in writing, but those who have seen my writings on
politics know that I have written out against bigotry on many occasions.
Dozens of people have also testified to the net that they have detected
no evidence of any bigotry in my writings or the jokes I have selected.
D) The moderator has vowed to be as impartial as possible by
judging jokes on comedic value and structure only, not on
content or "political correctness."
This is a very fundamental point. I'm here to judge comedy, not politics.
If I made a policy of judging the political correctness of the jokes, I
would only introduce my own particular biases on what might be offensive
or discriminatory. It's not that I don't trust my judgement on this -- it's
that YOU shouldn't trust my judgement, or anybody elses.
You are trusting my judgement to a small degree when I measure the intent
behind a joke. I'm not perfect, but after passing through 10,000 jokes in
the first 1.5 years of RHF moderation, I'm getting better at it.
E) The moderator believes that people should be treated as "minds"
rather than bodies, so that genetic background is irrelevant to
judgements of human beings.
F) The moderator views the net as a grand experiment in a mind-based
society, where you usually can't tell a citizen's race, age,
beauty and sometimes sex unless they tell you. Race should not
exist on the net, and so non-malicious racial jokes are no
different from celebrity jokes.
To a certain degree, "On the net, people have no colour." This is one
of the world's first experiments in a truly mind-based society. On this
net, you interact with people through their words, only as minds.
While this fails to a degree because one can often judge sex and some
ethnicity from a person's name or nation, the general rule is that nobody
has a race on this network unless they say it themselves.
It is my belief that the root cause of racism is the importance we attach
to our broad genetic backgrounds. To eliminate racism, we must not only
stop others from judging us on our genes, we must learn to ignore them
ourselves. Not only must we become "colourless" to others, we must
get rid of the "us" vs. "them" mentality in our own eyes.
The net is an experiment in that. The downside is that sometimes humanity
disappears along with race. But it's still an amazing thing to watch.
We may argue about the reason, but net-people are more tolerant of
certain things, and less likely to be hurt or affected by the presentation
of stereotypes than other people. This could be because of the new society
the net is pioneering, or it could be simply because it's an extremely
educated community, but the experiment is worth pursuing.
It is important to realize that the ability to hear a joke that stereotypes
your group and laugh at it indicates that you are on the path towards
viewing yourself as an individual and human being first, and a member of
a genetic group last. In time, stereotype jokes can become no different
than celebrity jokes -- they simply play off a famous trait for comedic
purposes.
The net isn't perfect yet, by a long shot, so I take careful steps to
avoid offense in those who still can't take that step. Jokes are categorized,
and discriminatory jokes are encoded with the "rot13" cypher, so that
people only read these jokes if they know they can take them without
offense. (My rot13 policy is described elsewhere.)
G) Many of these jokes actually laugh at racism, not race.
It's sad, but sometimes I get complaints about jokes that actually make
fun of racism, rather than race. Some people confuse anti-racist jokes
with racist jokes because they contain key-phrases that trigger certain
emotions. If you see a joke that bothers you, try to examine what made
you laugh at it, or what might make other educated people laugh at it.
See if it isn't the racism that is silly or extreme, rather than the race.
These jokes are important, and must not be suppressed, even if some people
don't understand them fully.
H) Last, and possibly least, freedom of the press.
You may not agree with any or all that's been written above. If so,
there is a final stand, namely freedom of the (electronic) press. This
is my last stand, since to stand on this would imply that this editorial
policy is reprehensible, and must be protected.
If, however, you think it's reprehensible, you must consider this argument.
Freedom of expression explicitly means protection for ideas you find
objectionable. (Ideas the powerful don't object to don't need protection,
after all.) The problem with censorship is that it desensitizes people
to violence -- censorship IS violence.
The attempt in November/December of 1988 to dictate another editorial policy
through outside forces was a dismal failure and did tremendous damage to
the cause of fighting discrimination on the net. Nowadays, when somebody
shouts "censor the racists" on the net, the bulk of sympathy leaps towards
the alleged racists. It's sad, but a true consequence of that debacle.
The person who initiated the campaign lost all credibility on the net,
and told me that when he passed people in the halls of his own site, they
all glared at him. Known anti-bigots posted that "they would rather stand
with the most disgusting anti-semites than with the censors."
=======================================================================
Now for some questions:
Q: Why not simply replace all identifiable groups with a symbol for
an identifiable group, like a JEDR? (Joke Ethnic/Denomination/Race)
A: In some cases it's obvious why this can't be done. As an old joke
goes, "Wang and Cheung are on the way out of the temple on the way to
a bar mitzvah...." (Yes, I know there are Chinese Jews, get off my case!)
In many cases it's important to remember that a joke isn't funny unless
people "get" it. They must make some connection in their own minds. This
is the function of the stereotype in comedy, and sometimes it can't be
replaced. Comedians often write jokes that use stereotypes with no malice.
They are simply tools, like the fact that Dan Quayle is reputed to be dumb.
Q: Not everybody's as educated as you. Some of these jokes really promote
hatred out there, and the net isn't perfect either.
A: This is an important point. I can simply say that I have made the
judgement that the net experiment is worth that risk, because I have
determined that the level of such nasty sentiments is low. This matter
is certainly a concern, but the other matters above are more important.
While you may not agree with this assessment, you must respect it as
a valid political opinion.
Q: When you judge whether a joke was written for hate or for comedy,
aren't you judging political correctness?
A: That's a tough point. Jokes written for hate (unless they're sick
jokes) are usually funny only to a limited audience that actually
possesses the hate. So it's really a comedy judgement. For example,
in a political race, there are usually lots of "partisan" jokes
which simply draw the laughs they get from the idea that the rival
candidate is "bad" in some way, rather than drawing off a specific
well known characteristic. When I see partisans laugh at these jokes,
I almost feel they're deliberately laughing extra hard because it is
the "right thing." That's not comedy, it's just spite. I try to
shy away from these. (I have been known to do a few during election times,
but I try to balance them.)
Q: When you put warnings on jokes, aren't you making judgements?
A: There I'm making decisions about anything at all that might offend
people out there. These decisions are not based on my own criteria for
offense, but information I have on other people's criteria. So these
are descriptions rather than judgements, and if you view them as
judgements, they are not value judgements, because they do not affect
whether a joke goes out. They are warnings, and often are much stronger
than necessary, just to be safe.
Q: What are the jokes than are in code?
A: These jokes are encrypted as a further protection. You must take
a deliberate step to read on of these jokes, and this protects people
from being offended. I won't tell you how to decrypt, although you can
probably get that information from any experienced local net user.
You decrypt at your own risk!
Q: I have seen you post jokes that I don't think match these policies.
Why is this?
A: Aside from differences of interpretation, I will readily admit I
make mistakes. I only do this as a hobby, after all. In the past year
I must have posted around 500 jokes and processed my way through almost
10,000 of them. I can *guarantee* that I will make at least a dozen
mistakes in many people's eyes after going through that much stuff in
my spare time. If I make a mistake, please be tolerant.
Q: I still want to complain.
A: Well, I can't stop you. But I must warn you that this topic has
been done to death, and I just don't want to pursue it a lot any more.
Unless you really have something new and unique to say, don't expect
that you will attain much by sending me complaints. The correct group
for discussion of issues related to rec.humor.funny is rec.humor.d.
I must warn you that they're pretty tired of the issue there, as well.
∂25-Jan-89 1459 MPS
cate phoned 2:30. 321-1225. I did not get his
first name
∂25-Jan-89 1457 PAF hacking hardware
Assuming that I pass the EE quals, I should be around for another year or two.
Given that, I don't think it will hurt if I do some hardware hacking on the
side, just for fun. So, if you can come up with a funding source for building
the Ultimate Keyboard (money for parts, that is), I'll be happy to kit one up.
-=PAF
∂25-Jan-89 1635 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Recent DARPA BAA
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jan 89 16:35:01 PST
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA19048; Wed, 25 Jan 89 19:08:30 EST
Posted-Date: Wed 25 Jan 89 19:21:32-EST
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA17250; Wed, 25 Jan 89 19:21:36 EST
Date: Wed 25 Jan 89 19:21:32-EST
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Recent DARPA BAA
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <601777292.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Presumably you have all received the BAA by now. This is to inform
you (and you can spread the word) that we will now respond to SOFTWARE
proposal abstracts received by mid-February within 30 days, barring
unusual occurrences here. The original announcement made this promise
only for abstarcts received by the end of January.
Bill
-------
∂25-Jan-89 1759 PAF quals
I'm in EE. Took them yesterday. Won't know for sure if I passed until
a week from Friday. I'm cautiously optomistic at this point...
-=paulf
∂25-Jan-89 1805 wang@coyote.stanford.edu CIE Conference
Received: from coyote.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jan 89 18:05:45 PST
Received: by coyote.stanford.edu; Wed, 25 Jan 89 18:07:44 PST
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 18:07:44 PST
From: Harrison Wang <wang@coyote.stanford.edu>
Subject: CIE Conference
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: wang@coyote.stanford.edu
If you have decided, please let me know your approximate arrival time, are you
staying for dinner, and are you bringing a guest to the Conference on Saturday.
∂25-Jan-89 1942 CLT sarah
would like you to call -- before 10-11 tonight or in the am
∂26-Jan-89 0841 PAF spelling
See what six years of Engineering School does? :-)
When I started out six years ago, my verbal SAT was higher than my math score,
by about 10%. When I finished my undergrad, my math GRE was more than 20%
higher than my verbal ranking.g#
Noisy phone lines today...
Anyway, I need to get together with you again just to nail down a few more
specifics. The DEC vt-(2|3)00 series keyboards would seem to be ideal (lots
of keyswitches and some room in the case for a single chip micro); that would
most likely be the greatest - cost element. I also have an idea for customized
key layouts that could also be exploited as a security feature.
-=PAF
∂26-Jan-89 1027 PAF times
2pm will be fine. I'll drag along a keyboard.
-=PAF
∂26-Jan-89 1114 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU cs 323 lecture this afternoon
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jan 89 11:14:47 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 26 Jan 89 11:13:15 PST
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1989 11:13:14 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: cs 323 lecture this afternoon
Cc: alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.601845194.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
I intend to watch this afternoon's lecture on tape on Sunday. This
is because I am working on a result (proof of a chip) which I would like
to finish before I send a paper to a conference on hardware verification,
and I need to FedX the paper Friday by 6pm.
If you have any objection to that (me not being in the room this
afternoon) please let me know.
By the way, it turns out that I had taken this class from you a
few years back (when it was called "Epistemological Problems of AI") and
so I know a lot more about the stuff than I thought I would...
Alex
∂26-Jan-89 1308 PAF times
2:30 will be fine. I didn't hear about the cutoff of rec.humor.funny until
today (quals-itis). I consider the decision patently offensive; I'll post
to su-etc when I get a chance...
-=
paf
∂26-Jan-89 1313 mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: El Salvador
Received: from june.cs.washington.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jan 89 13:13:33 PST
Received: from tomobiki-cho.acs.washington.edu by june.cs.washington.edu (5.59/6.13+)
id AA21526; Thu, 26 Jan 89 13:12:06 PST
Return-Path: <mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1989 13:14:19 PST
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: El Salvador
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <lfZbd@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <MS-C.601852459.662824084.mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
I would consider it a fair statement of the situation.
-------
∂26-Jan-89 1446 barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU Re: meeting on contexts alias situations
Received: from russell.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jan 89 14:46:17 PST
Received: from localhost by russell.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA07085; Thu, 26 Jan 89 14:48:19 PST
Message-Id: <8901262248.AA07085@russell.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Cc: etch@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: meeting on contexts alias situations
In-Reply-To: Your message of 26 Jan 89 13:10:00 PST.
<lfwUR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Address: CSLI, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 (415) 723-0110
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 14:48:17 PST
From: Jon Barwise <barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU>
John E and I usually meet at 2:45 on Weds. Why don't we all meet then
here at Cordura?
∂26-Jan-89 1723 VAL UC Santa Barbara
Do you know anything about AI there? They advertised two senior positions, and
"machine intelligence" is one of the areas they are interested in. Maybe I
should apply.
∂26-Jan-89 1753 LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: American Mercury
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jan 89 17:53:12 PST
Date: Thu 26 Jan 89 17:51:31-PST
From: Math/Computer Science Library <LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: American Mercury
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <4fzRb@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12465753933.9.LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John,
American Mercury ceased publication in Dec. 1980.
Rebecca
1-26-89
-------
∂26-Jan-89 2131 arean@polya.Stanford.EDU re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jan 89 21:31:43 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA25775; Thu, 26 Jan 89 21:31:05 -0800
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1989 21:31:03 PST
From: "Luis F. Arean" <arean@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
In-Reply-To: Your message of 26 Jan 89 1952 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.601882263.arean@polya.stanford.edu>
Certainly, professor.
Luis
∂27-Jan-89 0128 LES Queries for Gorin
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, RDZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message rcvd 27-Jan-89 01:16-PT.]
Those questions all look good. Depending on the answers, of course,
some follow-up questions will be in order.
More general questions that would be worth asking (though I suspect that
Ralph doen't have answers) are:
7. Who sets general policies for acceptable use of electronic media at Stanford?
8. What are those policies?
9. How can banning just rec.humor.funny be reconciled with those policies?
∂27-Jan-89 0142 LES re: Queries for Gorin
[In reply to message rcvd 27-Jan-89 01:34-PT.]
I agree that you should begin with specific questions, but asking just
those questions is likely to elicit ad hoc answers that fall apart when
the general policy questions are examined. For example, if the ban is
truly based on the alleged offensiveness of rec.humor.funny, why haven't
the unmoderated newsgroups that have even more "offensive" material been
banned?
∂27-Jan-89 0150 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Queries for Gorin
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 01:50:19 PST
Date: Fri 27 Jan 89 01:48:35-PST
From: Ramin Zabih <RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Queries for Gorin
To: LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JJW@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <xg1Cv@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12465840780.9.RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I don't know if you want to bring this issue up, but there's a question as to
why rec.humor.funny was singled out. There are several newsgroups with much
more objectionable material.
Ramin
-------
∂27-Jan-89 0203 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 02:03:25 PST
Date: Fri 27 Jan 89 02:01:40-PST
From: Ramin Zabih <RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: JJW@Sail.Stanford.EDU, les@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <$g1yW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12465843161.9.RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
It seems to me that the Wall Street Journal would be a particularly
effective card to play. It's the sort of thing that they like (i.e.,
"politically correct" censorship at a big-name university), and having
computers involved would make it sexy. I recall a member of the
administration complaining recently about the WSJ's negative view of
Stanford's Western Culture debate; he said that this was particularly
harmful because the Journal is read by so many potential money-donors.
I imagine that a threat to the University's pocketbook might get their
attention.
Ramin
-------
∂27-Jan-89 0211 LES re: Queries for Gorin
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: RDZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message rcvd 27-Jan-89 01:51-PT.]
I suggest using a measured response initially and attempt to get outside
attention only if they stonewall. A rally would be a reasonable undertaking.
As a preface to that, it might be a good idea to prepare a short statement
of position and solicit electronic endorsements. I'll bet that we could
collect several hundred in very short order, then maybe present a copy
to the Daily along with the rally announcement.
∂27-Jan-89 0226 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: reply to message
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 02:26:16 PST
Date: Fri 27 Jan 89 02:24:28-PST
From: Ramin Zabih <RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: reply to message
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: JJW@Sail.Stanford.EDU, LES@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <dg1od@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12465847312.9.RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
No, I don't recall, but I suspect it was in the Campus Report. I don't
think he said anything else interesting.
Ramin
-------
∂27-Jan-89 0643 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Smoking
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 06:43:10 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA07235; Fri, 27 Jan 89 06:42:35 -0800
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1989 6:42:34 PST
From: Oren Patashnik <op@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Smoking
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.601915354.op@polya.stanford.edu>
There's an op-ed column in this morning's NYTimes that you'll like.
--Oren
∂27-Jan-89 0738 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu Comments at last
Received: from CAD.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 07:37:48 PST
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1989 9:14:13 EST
From: Rich Thomason <thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Comments at last
Cc: thomason
Message-ID: <CMM.0.88.601913653.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
Life has been distracting. Sorry to be late with these comments.
Things have been hectic hereabouts.
I have been carrying around a copy of your section with me for
the last week or so, and making notes. I have left one sheet at home,
so some comments will be missing from this message. I'll try to finish
the comments this evening with a short message.
--------------------------------------------------------
I like this version, and have only a couple of comments that
might call for thought. I'll begin with them.
1. Less minor comments
Both of these have to do with the formulas in Section 1,
specifying nonmonotonic inheritance up and down the generality
ordering. Maybe some more explanation would be helpful in both cases.
With respect to the first rule, it's natural to wonder why a
default is required for moving from less to more general contexts.
Here's a simple model of what you're doing. Look at contexts
as partial functions that fix reference of deictic expressions and at
the ordering on contexts as the subset relation (so that f is more
general than g if it is defined on fewer values than g). Suppose you
have a list of all the deictic or context-sensitive basic expressions
that can occur in propositions. You can then say that f specifies p
if it is defined on all the context-sensitive expressions occuring in
p.
Then it looks as if you'd want an axiom
(1) (All c1,c2)(c1 specifies p & c2 specifies p -->
(holds(p,c1) <--> holds(p,c2))
But if we have this monotonic axiom, it looks as if we don't need
your first nonmonotonic rule. If c1 <or= c2 and holds(p,c1), then we
know that holds(p,c2) iff c2 specifies p.
I infer from the fact that you have the first axiom that you
must have in mind more complex cases than the one in which contexts
are modeled as partial assignments of references to expressions. But
the motivating example you give in the paper could be handled this
way. Does this mean that something more needs to be said?
As for the second rule, on the partial functions
interpretation it could be replaced by a nonmonotonic axiom, if (1)
holds. I.e., we have as a corollary of (1)
(All c1,c2)(c1 <or= c2 & holds(p,c1) --> holds(p,c2))
2. Minor comments
1. <will make assertions in a general context called $C0$. However, $C0$>
Here and elsewhere in the same paragraph you use upper case for
contexts (or for the context c0). Elsewhere you use lower case. Is
this intentional?
2.<maximally general context. Every context involves unstated presuppositions>
I' suggest a comma:
maximally general context. Every context involves unstated presuppositions,
3.<proceed are tentative. They are depend on using formalized >
<nonmonotonic reasoning which is also new. In particular, there >
I suggest
proceed are tentative. Moreover, they appeal to recent logical
innovations in the formalization of nonmonotonic reasoning. In
particular, there
4. <which the the subject is asserted to be on the mat is the same>
which the the subject is asserted to be in the car is the same
5. <We can call that context (say) $c5$. We might then have the sentence >
I suggest
We can call that context (say) $c5$. This more general context requires
a more explicit proposition; thus, we would have
6. <are factual. In the above example, who the names refer to are >
<linguistic. The properties of people and cars are factual, e.g. it >
are factual. In the above example, it is a linguistic matter who the
names refer to. The properties of people and cars are factual, e.g.
it
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's mostly it, and it for now.
--Rich
∂27-Jan-89 1038 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU possible CS course to build simulation environment
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 10:38:27 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA16232; Fri, 27 Jan 89 10:36:50 -0800
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 10:36:50 -0800
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901271836.AA16232@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: bhayes-roth@sumex, buckley@score, de2smith@score, fertig@score,
friedland@sumex, genesereth@score, ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU,
jmc@sail, latombe@coyote, lenat@mcc.com, nilsson@score, shoham@score
Subject: possible CS course to build simulation environment
Hi Folks:
David Smith and I are hoping to organize a group of students next
quarter with the aim of developing a simulation environment that could
be used to test architectures for intelligent agents. In addition to
constructing a simulated environment and an interface to it, we would
also like to see one or more agents constructed that function in this
domain by "cheating" (in other words, they might move from A to B by
directly inverting the procedure that executes the movement). These
cheating agents would be modular, so that a researcher who had
developed (for example) a planner could test that planner by using it
to replace the planning component in one of the cheating agents, and
seeing how much the agent's performance was degraded.
The purpose of this message is to solicit your opinions on the
following:
(1) Are there any obvious organizational issues that we have missed?
Dave and I are expecting to run the project as a spring-quarter
course, open to Master's and Ph.D. students. We expect that a Ph.D.
student would be able to fulfill his programming project requirement
by taking the course.
(2) What do you think of this idea? Would you be interested in being
involved? In providing support, perhaps in the form of equipment?
(Nils has suggested that most of the work be done on Polya (presumably
in Common Lisp), with some graphical interface stuff done on his
Symbolics machines.)
(3) What thoughts do you have about the environment that should be
simulated? Dave and I have only two restrictions on it:
(a) It should be rich. The problems encountered by the agent should
be more interesting than those typically investigated by planning and
other systems.
(b) It should be a domain in which the students are already experts.
We do not want them to spend their time understanding a new domain,
but developing a simulation.
So far, the possible domains that we've come up with are (1) a
kitchen, and (2) robots delivering mail in MJH -- perhaps some sort of
simulated world for Jean-Claude's gophers. The first seems a bit
richer at this point.
Matt Ginsberg
∂27-Jan-89 1107 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Index prohibitorum
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 11:07:00 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA18117; Fri, 27 Jan 89 11:06:24 -0800
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 11:06:24 -0800
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901271906.AA18117@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Index prohibitorum
Yes, I'll help -- but as a playwright (!), not an organizer. Will
that be useful? (In other words, if someone says, "write something
with this message and send it to these people," I'll do it. I'll sign
my name and trust the person I send it to to get the rest of the
signatures.)
Matt
∂27-Jan-89 1131 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny jokebook
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 11:31:49 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02106; Fri, 27 Jan 89 11:33:52 PST
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 11:33:52 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901271933.AA02106@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: rec.humor.funny jokebook
I've ordered a copy of the jokebook. When they asked for my address,
etc., they also asked if I was a member of the press. I answered no,
and later asked what they would have done if I had answered yes. He
said they "probably wouldn't ship it" in that case.
∂27-Jan-89 1224 haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Index liber prohibitorum
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 12:24:47 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA23883; Fri, 27 Jan 89 12:24:09 -0800
Message-Id: <8901272024.AA23883@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: Ramsey Haddad <haddad@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Index liber prohibitorum
In-Reply-To: Your message of 27 Jan 89 11:36:00 -0800.
<1dgpre@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department
Phone: (415) 723-1787 [W], 324-3340 [H]
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 12:24:08 -0800
From: Ramsey W Haddad <haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Sure. I'll be at TGIF to help in the planning.
∂27-Jan-89 1427 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU More Account Information
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 14:27:17 PST
Date: Fri 27 Jan 89 14:25:27-PST
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: More Account Information
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12465978563.41.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dr. McCarthy,
You should see more accounting information on the electronic bills for
December. I hope this is more what you needed.
Damon Koronakos
CSD-CF
-------
∂27-Jan-89 1433 G.GORIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Usenet and Racism (rec.humor)
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 14:32:56 PST
Return-Path: <GQ.VVN@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 88 11:28:59 PST
To: g.gorin@macbeth
From: "John Sack" <GQ.VVN@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Usenet and Racism (rec.humor)
ReSent-Date: Fri 27 Jan 89 13:53:56-PST
ReSent-From: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
ReSent-To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
ReSent-Message-ID: <12465972827.83.G.GORIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
IR Directors,
The note that is attached is about the bboard called 'rec.humor'
which is part of the standard bboard distribution. The issue
raised is that some of the contents of that board are offensive to
some because of racial or other types of content, and that such
things ought not take up university resources in their
transmission, storage, etc. The issue is being raised at the
University of Waterloo.
I am raising it for us because 1) we had an incident on this a
number of years ago here at Stanford -- a SPIRES data base of
thousands of jokes had some that could be considered racially
offensive -- that caused University controversy and eventually
national attention; 2) we get this same bboard on campus; 3) there
is a lot of concern on our campus right now about the institution's
(i.e., the authorities, like us) response to racism and other forms
of discrimination.
It is pretty easy for things like this to blow up very fast, and to
become a cause celebre for various groups. I know because I was
the supervisor years ago of the person who 'maintained' the jokes
file. He's still here, but the jokes file is not (to my knowledge)
a University resource any more.
We might want to be aware of this and think some about whether we
have any particular position or action to take at this time.
John
To: S.STREET@MACBETH, G.GORIN@MACBETH, GD.WHY, AU.RMB
FORWARDED MESSAGE 12/01/88 15:00 FROM GA.JRG "June Genis": the JOKES file
lives!
John & John, don't know if you have notived this bit of contoversy
going on in usenet (as you can see I got this from news.misc not the
actual list in question), but I thought that it might bring back
some memories. This article sort of summarizes things but as you
can see from the editorial comments (in []) the submitter doesn't
consider it to be sufficiently balanced. There was a followup item
in news.misc suggesting ways that people might comment back to this
paper. The gory details are all there in show bb but mostly I've
just skimmed the subject fields. Enjoy :-) ! /June
To: GQ.VVN, GQ.JNK
FORWARDED MESSAGE 12/01/88 14:45 FROM GA.JRG "June Genis":
Item: news.misc 2285, 30 Nov 88, 175 lines. (10 items left)
From: funny@looking.UUCP (Funny Guy)
Subject: KW Record Article on Joke Debate
The following article appears today on the *Front Page* of the Kitchener-
Waterloo Record, the major daily in the town in which I live.
It is reproduced *with* permission. (How often do you see that?)
It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
[ In my opinion this is a gross misrepresentation which will possibly
result in not just the downfall of rec.humor.funny, but many other
groups as well. Further comment follows. Don't reply to me, yet.]
The Kitchener-Waterloo Record
225 Fairway Rd.
Kitchener, Ont.
N2G 4E5
1-519-894-2231
Wayne MacDonald, Managing Editor
Story Byline: Luisa D'Amato
===========
Editor's note: As a matter of general policy, the Record does not
publish material judged to be racially offensive. We have made an
exception in this article because the actual jokes and comments
contained within represent the central issue and are the key
elements in aid of full reader understanding and appreciation.
By Luisa D'Amato
Record Staff
Controversial racial jokes are being sent by computer from Waterloo to
about 20,000 people world-wide, using the University of Waterloo
mathematics computer systems as part of the chain of communication.
From California to Massachusetts to Isreal, computer users are bitterly
arguing about Brad Templeton of Waterloo and whether he ought to be
transmitting jokes that some see as offensive and racist.
Templeton, who owns Looking Glass Software in Waterloo, is the editor
of a computer joke exchange that is part of the USENET computer network.
One recent joke depicts a black man, who is dating a gorilla and isn't
allowed to buy it a drink in a bar. He dresses, shaves and puts
makeup on the animal, which is then let into the bar and
is mistaken for an Italian woman.
Another joke describes a Jew who is murdered after he tricks a Scotsman
into buying him dinner.
Officials at UW say they are discussing what to do about the fact the
institution carries Usenet -- including the joke exchange.
Templeton said in an interview that he's edited the joke exchange without
pay, as a hobby, since August of 1987. He said only about 10 per cent
[No, I said 5%] of the jokes he sends out are racially, sexually or
otherwise offensive.
His usual practice with offensive jokes is to put them in code. Then,
the people who want to read it press a couple of keys to decode it.
He receives dozens of jokes each day from readers and sends out about
two a day. He said he doesn't judge the jokes based on their content,
but only their comic value.
"Jokes which offend some people do come through," Templeton said.
"It's my belief that it is better to have a world in which we can
laugh at the evil things that are in the world, than a world where we
must carefully consider whether or not anything can offend someone."
[I doubt my grammar was that bad.]
But others don't agree.
"This sort of thing just enhances stereotypes," said Abyd Karmali, who
graduated this year from UW with a chemical engineering degree. "It
legitimizes having these feelings and sharing them with people. That
can only be damaging."
Karmali now studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He
shares an appartment there with another student, Jonathan Richmond, one
of several people who sent messages objecting to Templeton's judgement.
After lengthy debate on this, Templeton sent a joke, in code, entitled,
"Top 10 reasons not to replace Brad as moderator."
Among the 10 reasons: "Kill six million of 'em, and the rest lose their
sense of humor. Jeez."
Asked about that line, Templeton said, "Mostly I was just making fun there.
That line was sarcasm... A lot of people wrote back to say that line was
tremendously funny.
"The idea is what you're laughing at is the absurdity of the line; the
absurdity of suggesting that killing six million Jews was something to be
taken lightly. That's why the 'Jeez' is there. And so I feel that's
definitely an example of a line where you're laughing at the racist
attitude rather than the race.
Richmond said he sees the joke as an "act of violence" which "defames
the memory" of the Holocaust victims.
"One racist joke disseminates over a network of thousands of people.
It's the promotion of an underground network of bigots," he said.
"People feel that have a different relationship with computers than with
other people," he said. "They feel that can type on to a keyboard what
they might not say to someone's face."
Meanwhile, Karmali, who was a student residence don and president of the
chemical engineering society while at UW, says his alma mater is
"acting as an accessory" in the matter.
UW gets USENET because many of the network's hundreds of different groups
offer "valuable information" on computer software, said Lyn Williams,
executive assistant to the dean of mathematics.
The university sees itself as a "common carrier" of information, with
no mandate to review information passing through its computer system,
she said.
But she said it would be possible for UW to discard the so-called
recreational services in USENET, such as the joke exchange and tips
on sports and leisure activities.
Alan George, UW vice-president academic and provost, said Tuesday that
he hasn't heard about the controversy, but "I'm certainly going to
ask a lot of questions."
"In some way, the university is facilitating this... and I think, as
such, we'll certainly look into it," he said.
"The university generally would be opposed to any ethnic or racially
offensive jokes."
About 180 people at UW regularly read the joke exchange, Templeton said.
And "no one from Waterloo that has contacted me has expressed anything
but support," said Templeton, who was a UW student in the late 1970s and
early 1980s.
Templeton said he believes the controversy arose because the joke about
the Jew and the Scotsman was transmitted close to the 50th anniversary of
Kristallnacht, Nov 9-10, 1938, when Jewish businesses were gutted and
synagogues burned in Germany.
After Richmond complained, Templeton apologized for having neglected to
put the joke in code.
However, Richmond said that doesn't answer his concerns. "It's still
there... He has sent it out with the (descriptive) keyword, 'racist'...
He is an editor. He should not include jokes which are racially offensive.
Richmond, who is Jewish, sent a message to other computer users. He said
he worked in Watts, the black ghetto of Los Angeles, and "I have
many eyewitness accounts of the hurt caused by racial stereotyping and
by the jokes which promote it."
But many users disagreed with him. One message from Tel Aviv University
in Israel asked Richmond: "Maybe you should ask yourself why do you
take it so badly; maybe there is something wrong with your sense of
self-identity?"
Another wrote: "My ultimate goal -- to reply to Jonathan Richmond -- is
the elimination of Jonathan Richmond."
--30--
--
The rec.humor.funny fascist. (Thanks to whoever gave me that title!)
!
To: g.gorin@macbeth
Subject: Deletion of rec.humor
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 88 12:02:14 PST
From: Phil Fernandez <philf@lindy.Stanford.EDU>
Ralph --
This morning, John directed me remove rec.humor (and rec.humor.funny?)
from our News server, and noted that you were under the same direction
for your News servers. I was rather agitated by this decision -- I
think it's ill-informed and arbitrary. John mentioned that you too
had some unease about this decision.
Do you have any intention of trying to continue discussions on the
topic, or do you plan to just do the dirty deed? We might as well
coordinate our organizations' actions, in either event, 'cuz there's
going to be some public flack about this decision, and we both might
as well take it at the same time.
Thoughts?
pmf
!
Date: Tue 6 Dec 88 19:49:56-PST
From: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Deletion of rec.humor
To: philf@LINDY.STANFORD.EDU
cc: g.gorin@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU
As John reported, I too have misgivings. Of course, they run both ways:
damned if we do and damned if we don't.
For the moment, I've asked Kathy Derby to investigate what it will take
to shut off the service, so we'll be ready to act when we decide to
do it. Meanwhile, I'd plead the pressure of other work and plan
to axe it while the students are gone.
I'm certainly going to leave behind traces, perhaps point to bulletin
board in which comments can be gathered. I think we need to discuss
this face to face before we act.
Ralph
-------
!
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 88 19:54:55 PST
From: Kathy Derby <KATH@suWatson.Stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phil Fernandez <philf@lindy.Stanford.EDU>: Deletion of
rec.humor]
To: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@lear.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue 6 Dec 88 19:51:45-PST
Ralph - I discussed this with Terry this morning, after our talk last night.
He can stop the feed of this news group to us from LaBrae without major
difficulty. He says that it would also prevent the feed of the news group
down stream from AIR. However, there is not a simple way to leave notification
of our actions. I am very hesitant to post it as a system message. If we post
it as an entry to rec.humor and rec.humor.funny, everyone in the world is
notified. We are exploring other options.
In a conversation with Dan Kolkowitz this afternoon, he expressed a resounding
concern for Bob's decision. His sentiments echo what Phil stated.
I'm certain that we do not want to get into the censureship business. If we
plug the hole in rec.humor, individuals exposing their racist attitudes will
move the issue to another news group. The problem will end up a moving target.
Kath
!
To: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Deletion of rec.humor
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 88 21:23:59 PST
From: Phil Fernandez <philf@lindy.Stanford.EDU>
I too understand the arguments for deletion. It's a tough issue, but
looks like we don't have much choice. Street is not interested in any
further discussion.
Shall I get us together to discuss implementation? I'll have my AA
call yours.
pmf
!
Mail-From: G.GORIN created at 7-Dec-88 00:36:27
Date: Wed 7 Dec 88 00:36:27-PST
From: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: rec.humor
To: s.street@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
cc: g.gorin@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12452458304.36.G.GORIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Bob,
John McCarthy always warned me about tickling the mule's heel:
usually, it results in being kicked, and it hardly bothers the mule at
all.
I know the removal of the rec.humor bulletin board has been discussed
in the Administrative Council [note: per RLS, it was discussed in
President's Staff]. I also understand the expediency of decisions by
the committee of one. Moreover, I have heard that you consider the
matter closed. I apologize for continuing the discussion: I have to
get my kicks somehow.
Please consider: no positive strokes accrue to us from taking this
action without broader discussion. The communities whose
sensibilities we purport to respect are as yet unaware of any problem.
By acting without the involvement of the affected communities,
we display a thorough disrepect for their abilities and
concerns. They will hardly rush to show appreciation of our
paternalism. Everyone else will be on the freedom of expression
bandwagon. Lots of tar and feathers for everyone in IR. Ugly scene.
I don't know precisely how to do this, but I want to turn this
situation into another occasion for education, in which racism and
other forms of bigotry are once again hauled out into the sunlight,
scrutinized by the community, and recognized for the hateful things
that they are. And then to involve the community in the nub of the
problem, no easy matter: how to balance our abiding concern for human
dignity against the right of free expression that we cherish.
The fact that we're having difficulty with this question, means that
this situation represents a real educational opportunity that can
broadly involve the Stanford community.
I recognize that the discussion I propose will take our energy.
The action we presently intend will ensnare us in a different
discussion, one to which we'll come wearing egg on our face.
I would take responsibility for leading that discussion. I propose to
start in January. Meanwhile, I would counsel that no action be taken
on rec.humor.
I will, of course, do as you direct.
Ralph
-------
∂27-Jan-89 1433 G.GORIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU [Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>: reprieve for rec.humor]
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 14:33:08 PST
Date: Fri 27 Jan 89 13:54:50-PST
From: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: [Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>: reprieve for rec.humor]
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12465972989.83.G.GORIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Mail-From: G.GORIN created at 7-Dec-88 15:37:42
Date: Wed 7 Dec 88 15:37:41-PST
From: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: reprieve for rec.humor
To: gq.vvn@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU, philf@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
cc: gd.why@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU, au.rmb@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU,
g.gorin@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12452622370.151.G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Folks,
I spoke with Bob today and proposed a different strategy for dealing
with this issue. He agreed. For the moment, we need not purge
rec.humor.funny from our computers.
It may be moot. Dan Kolkowitz reports that Labrea isn't getting any
items for that group fed to it.
My message to Bob follows. I apologized in person to Bob for the
implied analogy. But I need to get my kicks.
So that we may progress on this issue, I need someone from the Data
Center to help represent our puzzlement to the campus.
Ralph
[Text of Gorin to Street 7 December 88 0036 PST Omitted]
Return-Path: <philf@lindy.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by LEAR.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Wed 7 Dec 88 17:21:49-PST
Received: from localhost by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Wed, 7 Dec 88 17:22:06 PST
To: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Cc: gq.vvn@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU, gd.why@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU,
au.rmb@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: reprieve for rec.humor
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 07 Dec 88 15:37:41 -0800.
<12452622370.151.G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 88 17:22:05 PST
From: Phil Fernandez <philf@lindy.Stanford.EDU>
Ralph --
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Very well said. Since I've stuck my
head into this pretty far, I'd volunteer with John's approval to help
from the Data Center point of view.
pmf
Mail-From: G.GORIN created at 7-Dec-88 19:52:32
Date: Wed 7 Dec 88 19:52:32-PST
From: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: reprieve for rec.humor
To: philf@LINDY.STANFORD.EDU
cc: g.gorin@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "Phil Fernandez <philf@lindy.Stanford.EDU>" of Wed 7 Dec 88 17:21:50-PST
Message-ID: <12452668763.151.G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Thanks for volunteering. It's so much nicer than having to draft you.
I'm planning to start with a conversation with Michael Jackson and
also with whomever chairs the minority affairs committee (I probably
have the committe name slightly garbled...). Basically, to discuss
the issues and to explore with them appropriate steps to take in January.
Want to join these meetings? They're not calendared yet.
Ralph
-------
Return-Path: <philf@lindy.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by LEAR.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Wed 7 Dec 88 22:58:28-PST
Received: from localhost by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Wed, 7 Dec 88 22:58:45 PST
To: Ralph Gorin <G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: reprieve for rec.humor
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 07 Dec 88 19:52:32 -0800.
<12452668763.151.G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 88 22:58:44 PST
From: Phil Fernandez <philf@lindy.Stanford.EDU>
Yes, I'd like to participate. Thanks, I guess..
pmf
Return-Path: <AU.RMB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by LEAR.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 8 Dec 88 08:03:03-PST
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 88 08:06:10 PST
To: g.gorin@lear.stanford.edu
From: "Rick Biedenweg" <AU.RMB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: reprieve for rec.humor
REPLY TO 12/07/88 15:42 FROM G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU "Ralph Gorin": reprieve
for rec.humor
Thanks Ralph,
I like your position much better!
Rick
Return-Path: <GQ.VVN@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by LEAR.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Thu 8 Dec 88 20:57:09-PST
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 88 21:00:21 PST
To: g.gorin@lear.stanford.edu
From: "John Sack" <GQ.VVN@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: reprieve for rec.humor
REPLY TO 12/07/88 15:42 FROM G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU "Ralph Gorin": reprieve
for rec.humor
Ralph,
Thanks for taking this up. As I hope you heard me say at the VP
staff meeting, even if the decision is already made, discussion of
this kind of topic is really valuable; as you say, it is really
intrinsic to the University.
I've spoken with Don Slaughter (the SDC SAO) about working with you
on this for the SDC. I hired Don because of his background in
community action and employee relations; I think he can contribute
his skills here, as well as his own feelings on the topic. I'm
really pleased to get him involved in this kind of thing. I am
also pleased that Phil has volunteered for this work, and am
looking forward to what you three come up with. Please consult me
as you think it would be helpful to you.
Perhaps we can not only facilitate others learning something here,
but learn something as well ourselves.
John
To: G.GORIN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU
cc: AU.RMB, GG.PMF, GD.WHY
-------
∂27-Jan-89 1445 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Ortega quotes
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 14:45:48 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA01235; Fri, 27 Jan 89 14:09:07 -0800
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 14:09:07 -0800
From: Andy Freeman <andy@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901272209.AA01235@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Ortega quotes
I found this on usenet so I don't know how accurate it is.
From the Boston Globe, 1/17/89, p. 4
Managua threatens crackdown on foes
President Daniel Ortega has threatened policy changes to make the
opposition "go to Miami to seek democracy and ways to get rich" unless
it backs the current political model, the official daily said today.
...
"They do not realize that we have reserves and other options and if we
haven't resorted to them it is because the workers are giving them a
last chance."
∂27-Jan-89 2100 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of December computer charges.
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 21:00:41 PST
Date: Fri 27 Jan 89 20:42:48-PST
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of December computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12466047257.9.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for December.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA807T 100 576.92 26.49 ***.** 21.46 5.00 2634.38
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA807T 100 .00 .00 30.47 .00 5.00 35.47
jmc LABREA 2-DMA807T 100 .00 .00 105.90 .00 5.00 110.90
Total: 576.92 26.49 ***.** 21.46 15.00 2780.75
University budget accounts billed above include the following.
Account Princip Inv Title Comment
2-DMA807 McCarthy N00039-84-C-0211 Task 19, QLISP
The preceding statement is a condensed version of the detailed summary sheet
sent monthly to your department.
Please verify each month that the proper university budget accounts are paying
for your computer usage. Please also check the list of account numbers below
the numeric totals. If the organizations/people associated with that account
number should NOT be paying for your computer time, send mail to BEDIT@SCORE.
Please direct questions/comments to BEDIT@SCORE.
-------
∂27-Jan-89 2336 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU MIT AI Lab
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 23:36:49 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05153; Fri, 27 Jan 89 23:38:50 PST
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 23:38:50 PST
From: Ramin Zabih <rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901280738.AA05153@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: MIT AI Lab
They get rec.humor.funny from a machine which (according to the person
I talked to) only transmits the G-rated version. I didn't verify that
it was actually G-rated, but this suggests that to be the case.
Ramin
P.S. The person at MIT is Jim Bruce. He's Vice President for
Information Systems or some such title, as well as a professor of EE.
∂28-Jan-89 1222 geddis@polya.Stanford.EDU re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jan 89 12:21:57 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA07945; Sat, 28 Jan 89 12:21:21 -0800
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 12:21:21 -0800
From: Donald F. Geddis <geddis@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901282021.AA07945@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
Fortunately, Polya (not being an AIR machine, I suppose), still gets the
feed of the newsgroup.
If you're keeping a list, I'll help with a letter writing campaign, rally,
or anything else for that matter. I'm afraid that I've got more enthusaism
than organization, though.
Any idea what kind of chance we have? I don't recall another posting from
Gorin et. al. since the original one.
-- Don
∂28-Jan-89 1245 latombe@coyote.stanford.edu AI curriculum changes and updates
Received: from coyote.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jan 89 12:45:02 PST
Received: by coyote.stanford.edu; Sat, 28 Jan 89 12:49:23 PST
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 12:49:23 PST
From: Jean-Claude Latombe <latombe@coyote.stanford.edu>
Subject: AI curriculum changes and updates
To: binford@coyote.stanford.edu, feignebaum@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU,
genesereth@score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU,
nilsson@score.Stanford.EDU, shoham@score.Stanford.EDU,
shortliffe@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU, winograd@csli.Stanford.EDU
In order to prepare the 89-90 catalog, Leo G. asked me to make a first pass
over the offering in AI, with the exception of introductory cs courses
(00-109 range). I invite you to send me the desired changes in your
courses (numbering, quarter, title, syllabus, ..) as soon as possible,
and in any case no later than next Wednesday (Feb 1). If I don't hear
from you then I will assume that you offer the same courses as this year.
Jean-Claude L.
∂28-Jan-89 1732 JJW rec.humor.funny
I've begun collecting USENET messages pertaining to the rec.humor.funny
incident. FUNNY.TXT[1,JJW] contains the messages in news.admin and in
rec.humor.funny itself that I think are relevant. I'll have more from
other groups tomorrow.
What I would like to see is information about what other universities
(other than Waterloo) have done. So far I haven't seen anything about
this in these messages. I'm contemplating sending out a request on
USENET for such info, together with an announcement about what happened
here. No one outside Stanford seems to know about it yet.
∂28-Jan-89 1809 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu Residual Context Comments
Received: from CAD.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jan 89 18:09:28 PST
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1989 10:13:10 EST
From: Rich Thomason <thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: thomason
Subject: Residual Context Comments
Message-ID: <CMM.0.88.602003590.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
Here are the residual minor comments.
1. <its dependence on temperature, would have to trigger generalization>
I suggest
its dependence on temperature would have to trigger a process of
generalization
2. <specific John McCarthy, so that the sentence itself would need>
specific John McCarthy, so that even this more explicit sentence would need
3. <or machine may know facts about a context but doesn't ``know the
context''.>
or machine may know facts about a context without ``knowing the context''.
4. <and leave the context $c$. $holds(q,c)$ will itself hold in>
To put u.c. at sentence beginning I suggest
and leave the context $c$. Then $holds(q,c)$ will itself hold in
--Rich
∂29-Jan-89 1048 HK.GRH@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Request to see Don Kennedy
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 10:48:01 PST
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 10:47:10 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "G. Robert Hamrdla" <HK.GRH@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Request to see Don Kennedy
Professor McCarthy,
As you will know from your message tape, I returned your call
Friday afternoon, but you were out. I know from my assistant that
you are interested in seeing President Kennedy; I can tell you that
his schedule is virtually booked on Monday, January 30, and that he
will be out of town for the rest of the week. Should you still want
to see him after his return, I would suggest a note to him outlining
your concerns which can be placed in his mail for his return.
Bob Hamrdla
To: John McCarthy(JMC@SAIL)
∂29-Jan-89 1053 feldman%bimacs.bitnet@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Projects in Stanford for Ph.D. in Cs.
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 10:53:08 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Sun, 29 Jan 89 10:52:17 PST
Received: from bimacs.bitnet (FELDMAN) by VM1.BIU.AC.IL (Mailer R2.02) with
BSMTP id 1484; Sun, 29 Jan 89 17:43:59 O
From: Feldman ronen <feldman%bimacs.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 17:41:08 +0200
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Projects in Stanford for Ph.D. in Cs.
Hello Prof. John McCarthy!
My name is Ronen Feldman. I applied to Stanford for Ph.D studies next year.
Enclosed is a brief curriculum vitae of mine.
I heard about your interests and found them very exciting.
Can you write me about your current projects?
Can I take part in any of your projects next year?
Any help you can give me in the admission process will be appreciated very much.
Thanks very much
Ronen Feldman
current address:
Chissin 10 Tel-Avi
Israel 64284
tel: (03)-284557
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
curriculum vitae
B.sc in Math,Physics,Computer Science
Inst: Hebrew University Jerusalem 1984
Finished : Cum Lauda
M.sc in computer science
Inst: Bar-Ilan University 1988
Finished : with distinction (Thesis graded excellent)
Areas of interest:
1)Learning
2)Automated programming
3)Knowledge representation
Publications:
1) "Interactive Scheduling as a constraint satisfaction problem",
with Prof. M.C. Golumbic
IBM Isreal Techincal Report 88.256 DEC 1988
Also in proceeding of the 4th IAAI conference Ramat-Gan Dec 1987
2) "Optimization algorithms for scheduling via constraint satisfiability "
with Prof M.C. Golumbic
IBM Israel Technical Report Jan 1989
Employment:
1) Israeli Air-Force - Software team manager
(real-time,graphics and expert systems )
1984-1989
2) Bar-Ilan university - teaching assistant
(Automata & formal lang. , logic , Software engineering , logic programming)
1985-1989
Languages:
1)Lisp & Prolog
2)Pascal & Ada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
∂29-Jan-89 1135 LES Censorship stand
[In reply to message rcvd 27-Jan-89 18:31-PT.]
Do you plan to propose a CSD position regarding bboard censorship at the
Tuesday faculty lunch? If so, it would be a good idea to give advance
notice to the prospective participants.
∂29-Jan-89 1317 weening@polya.Stanford.EDU
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 13:17:33 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA04435; Sun, 29 Jan 89 13:16:55 -0800
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 13:16:55 -0800
From: Joe Weening <weening@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901292116.AA04435@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
general Articles that should be read by everyone on your local system
alt.activism Activities for activists.
alt.aquaria The aquarium & related as a hobby.
alt.bbs Computer BBS systems & software.
alt.california Discussion of the state and the state of mind.
alt.config Alternative subnet discussions and connectivity.
alt.cult-movies Movies with a cult following (e.g., Rocky Horror PS)
alt.cyberpunk High-tech low-life.
alt.drugs Recreational pharmaceuticals and related flames.
alt.emusic Exotic music discussions.
alt.fishing Discussion of fishing.
alt.flame Alternative, literate, pithy, succinct screaming.
alt.gourmand Recipes & cooking info. (Moderated)
alt.great-lakes Discussions of the Great Lakes and adjacent places.
alt.hypertext Discussion of hypertext -- uses, transport, etc.
alt.individualism Philosophies where individual rights are paramount.
alt.prose Postings of original essays.
alt.prose.d Discussion of articles in alt.prose.
alt.recovery 12-step groups (such as AA, ACA, GA, etc)
alt.rhode_island Discussion of the great little state.
alt.rock-n-roll Counterpart to alt.sex and alt.drugs....
alt.sca Society for Creative Anachronism
alt.sex Postings of a prurient nature.
alt.slack Posting relating to the Church of the Subgenius.
alt.sources Alternative source code, unmoderated. Caveat Emptor.
alt.sources.amiga Technically-oriented Amiga PC sources. (Moderated)
alt.test Alternative subnetwork testing.
biz.config
biz.control
biz.newgroup
biz.test
biz.comp.hardware
biz.comp.software
biz.comp.software.demos
biz.comp.services
biz.comp.telebit
gnu.announce Status and announcements from the Project. (Moderated)
gnu.config GNU's Not Usenet administration and configuration
gnu.test GNU's Not Usenet alternative sub-network testing
gnu.emacs Editor/development environment and occasional sources
gnu.emacs.bug GNU Emacs bug reports and suggested fixes
gnu.emacs.gnus A GNU Emacs News reader (discussion in English)
gnu.emacs.vms Discussion of the VMS port of GNU Emacs
gnu.emacs.lisp.manual Working group on the GNU Emacs LISP Programmer's Manual
gnu.gdb Discussion of the GNU DeBugger
gnu.gdb.bug GNU DeBugger bug reports and suggested fixes
gnu.gcc Discussion of the GNU C Compiler
gnu.gcc.bug GNU C Compiler bug reports and suggested fixes
gnu.ghostscript.bug GNU Ghostscript interpreter bugs.
gnu.g++ Discussion of the GNU C++ Compiler and GDB+ Debugger
gnu.g++.bug G++ and GDB+ bug reports and suggested fixes
gnu.chess Discussion of the GNU Chess program
gnu.utils.bug Bugs in GNU utility programs (e.g., gnumake)
u3b.config
u3b.misc
u3b.tech
u3b.test
unix-pc.bugs Bug reports, fixes & workarounds.
unix-pc.general General information and discussion.
unix-pc.sources Source code to various programs.
unix-pc.uucp Configuration and management of uucp on Unix-PCs.
unix-pc.test Test group.
ddn.mgt-bulletin Defense Data Network Management Bulletins (Moderated)
ca.driving Discussion of driving in California
ca.environment Environmental issues pertaining to California
ca.general General announcements for California
ca.news Netnews statistics & discussion for California
ca.news.group Netnews newsgroup meta-group
ca.politics California state politics
ca.test California USENET testing
ca.unix California state UNIX discussions (wizardly & novice)
ca.wanted Want Ads (& for sale notices) for California
ba.food Good eating around the SF Bay Area
ba.general General announcements for the SF Bay Area
ba.market Want Ads (& for sale notices) for SF Bay Area
ba.motss SF Bay Area counterpart to soc.motss
ba.mountain-folk Topics of interest to SF Bay Area mountain residents
ba.music SF Bay Area music
ba.news Netnews statistics & discussion
ba.news.config Network configuration changes
ba.news.group Netnews newsgroup meta-group
ba.politics SF Bay Area politics
ba.seminars SF Bay Area meeting, colloquia, & seminar announcements
ba.singles SF Bay Area single people's newsgroup
ba.test SF Bay Area USENET testing
ba.windows.x SF Bay Area discussion of X Window System
su.amiga Discussion of Amiga computers at Stanford
su.class.anthro011 Sex Roles and Society
su.class.cs145 Introduction to Databases
su.class.cs221 Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
su.class.cs306 Recursive Programming and Proving
su.class.cs347 Distributed Databases
su.class.cs378 Phenomenological Foundations of Cognition
su.computers Computer-related questions and comments at Stanford
su.etc Topics not covered by other Stanford newsgroups
su.events Announcements of events inside and outside Stanford
su.gay Discussion of gay and lesbian issues at Stanford
su.jobs Jobs wanted or offered at Stanford
su.macintosh Discussion of Apple Macintosh computers at Stanford
su.market Want Ads (& for sale notices) for Stanford
su.nethax Mailing list for Stanford network hackers
su.news USENET news at Stanford
su.test Stanford test group
su.vaxhax Mailing list for Stanford VAX hackers
cis.bboard Center for Integrated Systems bulletin board
csd.aflb Algorithms For Lunch Bunch mailing list
csd.bboard General messages to the Computer Science Department
csd.building Discussion about the new CSD buildings
csd.new-mscs Things of interest to new Computer Science MSCS students
csd.new-phd Things of interest to new Computer Science PhD students
csd.phd-program Discussion of changes to the Computer Science PhD program
csd.undergrad Things of interest to Computer Science undergraduates
comp.ai Artificial intelligence discussions.
comp.ai.digest Artificial Intelligence discussions. (Moderated)
comp.ai.neural-nets All aspects of neural networks.
comp.ai.nlang-know-rep Natural Language and Knowledge Representation. (Moderated)
comp.arch Computer architecture.
comp.binaries.amiga Encoded public domain programs in binary. (Moderated)
comp.binaries.apple2 Binary-only postings for the Apple II computer.
comp.binaries.atari.st Binary-only postings for the Atari ST. (Moderated)
comp.binaries.hypercard Binary-only postings of Macintosh HyperCard stacks. (Moderated)
comp.binaries.ibm.pc Binary-only postings for IBM PC/MS-DOS. (Moderated)
comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Discussions about IBM/PC binary postings.
comp.binaries.mac Encoded Macintosh programs in binary. (Moderated)
comp.bugs.2bsd Reports of UNIX* version 2BSD related bugs.
comp.bugs.4bsd Reports of UNIX version 4BSD related bugs.
comp.bugs.4bsd.ucb-fixes Bug reports/fixes for BSD Unix. (Moderated)
comp.bugs.misc General UNIX bug reports and fixes (incl V7, uucp)
comp.bugs.sys5 Reports of USG (System III, V, etc.) bugs.
comp.cog-eng Cognitive engineering.
comp.compilers Compiler construction, theory, etc. (Moderated)
comp.databases Database and data management issues and theory.
comp.dcom.lans Local area network hardware and software.
comp.dcom.modems Data communications hardware and software.
comp.dcom.telecom Telecommunications digest. (Moderated)
comp.doc Archived public-domain documentation. (Moderated)
comp.doc.techreports Lists of technical reports. (Moderated)
comp.edu Computer science education.
comp.emacs EMACS editors of different flavors.
comp.fonts Typefonts -- design, conversion, use, etc.
comp.graphics Computer graphics, art, animation, image processing.
comp.graphics.digest Graphics software, hardware, theory, etc. (Moderated)
comp.ivideodisc Interactive videodiscs -- uses, potential, etc.
comp.lang.ada Discussion about Ada*.
comp.lang.apl Discussion about APL.
comp.lang.c Discussion about C.
comp.lang.c++ The object-oriented C++ language.
comp.lang.forth Discussion about Forth.
comp.lang.fortran Discussion about FORTRAN.
comp.lang.lisp Discussion about LISP.
comp.lang.misc Different computer languages not specifically listed.
comp.lang.modula2 Discussion about Modula-2.
comp.lang.pascal Discussion about Pascal.
comp.lang.postscript The PostScript Page Description Language.
comp.lang.prolog Discussion about PROLOG.
comp.lang.scheme The Scheme Programming language.
comp.lang.smalltalk Discussion about Smalltalk 80.
comp.laser-printers Laser printers, hardware & software. (Moderated)
comp.lsi Large scale integrated circuits.
comp.mail.elm Discussion and fixes for ELM mail system.
comp.mail.headers Gatewayed from the ARPA header-people list.
comp.mail.maps Various maps, including UUCP maps. (Moderated)
comp.mail.mh The UCI version of the Rand Message Handling system.
comp.mail.misc General discussions about computer mail.
comp.mail.sendmail Configuring and using the BSD sendmail agent.
comp.mail.uucp Mail in the uucp network environment.
comp.misc General topics about computers not covered elsewhere.
comp.newprod Announcements of new products of interest. (Moderated)
comp.org.decus DEC* Users' Society newsgroup.
comp.org.fidonet FidoNews digest, official news of FidoNet Assoc. (Moderated)
comp.org.usenix USENIX Association events and announcements.
comp.org.usrgroup News and discussion about/from the /usr/group organization.
comp.os.cpm Discussion about the CP/M operating system.
comp.os.eunice The SRI Eunice system.
comp.os.minix Discussion of Tanenbaum's MINIX system.
comp.os.misc General OS-oriented discussion not carried elsewhere.
comp.os.os9 Discussions about the os9 operating system. (Moderated)
comp.os.research Operating systems and related areas. (Moderated)
comp.os.vms DEC's VAX* line of computers & VMS.
comp.os.xinu The XINU operating system from Purdue (D. Comer).
comp.parallel Massively parallel systems: hardware & software. (Moderated)
comp.periphs Peripheral devices.
comp.protocols.appletalk Applebus hardware & software.
comp.protocols.ibm Networking with IBM mainframes.
comp.protocols.iso The ISO protocol stack.
comp.protocols.kermit Info about the Kermit package. (Moderated)
comp.protocols.misc Various forms and types of FTP protocol.
comp.protocols.tcp-ip TCP and IP network protocols.
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc TCP/IP for IBM(-like) personal computers.
comp.risks Risks to the public from computers & users. (Moderated)
comp.simulation Simulation methods, problems, uses. (Moderated)
comp.society The impact of technology on society. (Moderated)
comp.society.futures Events in technology affecting future computing.
comp.software-eng Software Engineering and related topics.
comp.sources.amiga Source code-only postings for the Amiga. (Moderated)
comp.sources.atari.st Source code-only postings for the Atari ST. (Moderated)
comp.sources.bugs Bug reports, fixes, discussion for posted sources
comp.sources.d For any discussion of source postings.
comp.sources.games Postings of recreational software. (Moderated)
comp.sources.games.bugs Bug reports and fixes for posted game software.
comp.sources.mac Software for the Apple Macintosh. (Moderated)
comp.sources.misc Posting of software . (Moderated)
comp.sources.unix Postings of complete, UNIX-oriented sources. (Moderated)
comp.sources.wanted Requests for software and fixes.
comp.std.c Discussion about C language standards.
comp.std.internat Discussion about international standards.
comp.std.misc Discussion about various standards.
comp.std.mumps Discussion for the X11.1 committee on Mumps. (Moderated)
comp.std.unix Discussion for the P1003 committee on UNIX. (Moderated)
comp.sys.amiga Commodore Amiga: info&uses, but no programs.
comp.sys.amiga.tech Technical discussion about the Amiga.
comp.sys.apollo Apollo computer systems.
comp.sys.apple Discussion about Apple micros.
comp.sys.atari.8bit Discussion about 8 bit Atari micros.
comp.sys.atari.st Discussion about 16 bit Atari micros.
comp.sys.att Discussions about AT&T microcomputers.
comp.sys.cbm Discussion about Commodore micros.
comp.sys.celerity Celerity Computers
comp.sys.dec Discussions about DEC computer systems.
comp.sys.dec.micro DEC Micros (Rainbow, Professional 350/380)
comp.sys.encore Encore's MultiMax computers.
comp.sys.hp Discussion about Hewlett-Packard equipment.
comp.sys.ibm.pc Discussion about IBM personal computers.
comp.sys.ibm.pc.digest The IBM PC, PC-XT, and PC-AT. (Moderated)
comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt Topics related to IBM's RT computer.
comp.sys.intel Disucussions about Intel systems and parts.
comp.sys.m6809 Discussion about 6809's.
comp.sys.m68k Discussion about 68k's.
comp.sys.m68k.pc Discussion about 68k-based PCs. (Moderated)
comp.sys.mac Discussions about the Apple Macintosh & Lisa.
comp.sys.mac.digest Apple Macintosh: info&uses, but no programs. (Moderated)
comp.sys.mac.hypercard The Macintosh Hypercard: info & uses.
comp.sys.mac.programmer Discussion by people programming the Apple Macintosh.
comp.sys.masscomp The Masscomp line of computers. (Moderated)
comp.sys.misc Discussion about computers of all kinds.
comp.sys.nsc.32k National Semiconductor 32000 series chips.
comp.sys.proteon Proteon gateway products.
comp.sys.pyramid Pyramid 90x computers.
comp.sys.ridge Ridge 32 computers and ROS.
comp.sys.sequent Sequent systems, (Balance and Symmetry).
comp.sys.sgi Silicon Graphics's Iris workstations and software.
comp.sys.sun Sun "workstation" computers. (Moderated)
comp.sys.tahoe The CCI 6/32, Harris HCX/7, Sperry 7000 computer series.
comp.sys.tandy Discussion about TRS-80's.
comp.sys.ti Discussion about Texas Instruments.
comp.sys.transputer The Transputer computer and OCCAM language.
comp.sys.workstations Various workstation-type computers. (Moderated)
comp.sys.xerox Xerox 1100 workstations and protocols.
comp.sys.zenith.z100 The Zenith Z-100 (Heath H-100) family of computers.
comp.terminals All sorts of terminals.
comp.text Text processing issues and methods.
comp.text.desktop Technolgy & techniques of desktop publishing. (Moderated)
comp.theory.info-retrieval Topics related to Information Retrieval. (Moderated)
comp.unix Discussion of UNIX* features and bugs. (Moderated)
comp.unix.aux The version of UNIX for Apple Macintosh II computers.
comp.unix.microport Discussion of Microport's UNIX.
comp.unix.questions UNIX neophytes group.
comp.unix.ultrix Discussions about DEC's Ultrix. (Moderated)
comp.unix.wizards Discussions, bug reports, and fixes on and for UNIX.
comp.unix.xenix Discussion about the Xenix OS.
comp.windows.misc Various issues about windowing systems.
comp.windows.news Sun Microsystems' NewS window system.
comp.windows.x Discussion about the X Window System.
misc.consumers Consumer interests, product reviews, etc.
misc.consumers.house Discussion about owning and maintaining a house.
misc.forsale Short, tasteful postings about items for sale.
misc.handicap Items of interest for/about the handicapped. (Moderated)
misc.headlines Current interest: drug testing, terrorism, etc.
misc.invest Investments and the handling of money.
misc.jobs.misc Discussion about employment, workplaces, careers.
misc.jobs.offered Announcements of positions available.
misc.jobs.resumes Postings of resumes and "situation wanted" articles.
misc.kids Children, their behavior and activities.
misc.legal Legalities and the ethics of law.
misc.misc Various discussions not fitting in any other group.
misc.psi Paranormal abilities and experiences. (Moderated)
misc.security Security in general, not necessarily computer related. (Moderated)
misc.taxes Tax laws and advice.
misc.test For testing of network software. Very boring.
misc.wanted Requests for things that are needed (NOT software).
news.admin Comments directed to news administrators.
news.announce.conferences Calls for papers and conference announcements. (Moderated)
news.announce.important General announcements of interest to all. (Moderated)
news.announce.newusers Explanatory postings for new users. (Moderated)
news.config Postings of system down times and interruptions.
news.groups Discussions and lists of newsgroups.
news.lists News-related statistics and lists. (Moderated)
news.misc Discussions of USENET itself.
news.newsites Postings of new site announcements.
news.software.b Discussion about B-news-compatible software.
news.software.notes Notesfile software from the Univ. of Illinois.
news.stargate Discussion about satellite transmission of news.
news.sysadmin Comments directed to system administrators.
rec.arts.anime Japanese animation fen discussion.
rec.arts.books Books of all genres, and the publishing industry.
rec.arts.comics Comic books and strips, graphic novels, sequential art.
rec.arts.drwho Discussion about Dr. Who.
rec.arts.int-fiction Discussions about interactive fiction.
rec.arts.movies Discussions of movies and movie making.
rec.arts.movies.reviews Reviews of movies. (Moderated)
rec.arts.poems For the posting of poems.
rec.arts.sf-lovers Science fiction lovers' newsgroup.
rec.arts.startrek Star Trek, the TV shows and the movies.
rec.arts.tv The boob tube, its history, and past and current shows.
rec.arts.tv.soaps Postings about soap operas.
rec.arts.wobegon "A Prairie Home Companion" radio show discussion.
rec.audio High fidelity audio.
rec.autos Automobiles, automotive products and laws.
rec.autos.tech Technical aspects of automobiles, et. al.
rec.aviation Aviation rules, means, and methods.
rec.bicycles Bicycles, related products and laws.
rec.birds Hobbyists interested in bird watching.
rec.boats Hobbyists interested in boating.
rec.equestrian Discussion of things equestrian.
rec.food.cooking Food, cooking, cookbooks, and recipes.
rec.food.drink Wines and spirits.
rec.food.veg Vegetarians.
rec.games.board Discussion and hints on board games.
rec.games.bridge Hobbyists interested in bridge.
rec.games.chess Chess & computer chess.
rec.games.empire Discussion and hints about Empire.
rec.games.frp Discussion about Fantasy Role Playing games.
rec.games.go Discussion about Go.
rec.games.hack Discussion, hints, etc. about the Hack game.
rec.games.misc Games and computer games.
rec.games.moria Comments, hints, and info about the Moria game.
rec.games.pbm Discussion about Play by Mail games.
rec.games.programmer Discussion of adventure game programming.
rec.games.rogue Discussion and hints about Rogue.
rec.games.trivia Discussion about trivia.
rec.games.video Discussion about video games.
rec.gardens Gardening, methods and results.
rec.guns Discussions about firearms. (Moderated)
rec.ham-radio Amateur Radio practices, contests, events, rules, etc.
rec.ham-radio.packet Discussion about packet radio setups.
rec.humor Jokes and the like. May be somewhat offensive.
rec.humor.d Discussions on the content of rec.humor articles.
rec.humor.funny Jokes that are funny (in the moderator's opinion). (Moderated)
rec.mag Magazine summaries, tables of contents, etc.
rec.mag.otherrealms Edited science fiction & fantasy "magazine". (Moderated)
rec.misc General topics about recreational/participant sports.
rec.models.rc Radio-controlled models for hobbyists.
rec.motorcycles Motorcycles and related products and laws.
rec.music.beatles Postings about the Fab Four & their music.
rec.music.bluenote Discussion of jazz, blues, and related types of music.
rec.music.classical Discussion about classical music.
rec.music.folk Folks discussing folk music of various sorts.
rec.music.gaffa Progressive music (e.g., Kate Bush). (Moderated)
rec.music.gdead A group for (Grateful) Dead-heads.
rec.music.makers For performers and their discussions.
rec.music.misc Music lovers' group.
rec.music.synth Synthesizers and computer music.
rec.nude Hobbyists interested in naturist/nudist activities.
rec.pets Pets, pet care, and household animals in general.
rec.photo Hobbyists interested in photography.
rec.puzzles Puzzles, problems, and quizzes.
rec.railroad Real and model train fans' newsgroup.
rec.scuba Hobbyists interested in SCUBA diving.
rec.skiing Hobbyists interested in skiing.
rec.skydiving Hobbyists interested in skydiving.
rec.sport.baseball Discussion about baseball.
rec.sport.basketball Discussion about basketball.
rec.sport.football Discussion about football.
rec.sport.hockey Discussion about hockey.
rec.sport.misc Spectator sports.
rec.travel Traveling all over the world.
rec.video Video and video components.
rec.woodworking Hobbyists interested in woodworking.
sci.astro Astronomy discussions and information.
sci.bio Biology and related sciences.
sci.crypt Different methods of data en/decryption.
sci.electronics Circuits, theory, electrons and discussions.
sci.lang Natural languages, communication, etc.
sci.lang.japan The Japanese language, both spoken and written.
sci.logic Logic -- math, philosophy & computational aspects.
sci.math Mathematical discussions and pursuits.
sci.math.stat Statistics discussion.
sci.math.symbolic Symbolic algebra discussion.
sci.med Medicine and its related products and regulations.
sci.med.aids AIDS: treatment, pathology/biology of HIV, prevention. (Moderated)
sci.misc Short-lived discussions on subjects in the sciences.
sci.philosophy.tech Technical philosophy: math, science, logic, etc.
sci.physics Physical laws, properties, etc.
sci.psychology Topics related to psychology.
sci.research Research methods, funding, ethics, and whatever.
sci.space Space, space programs, space related research, etc.
sci.space.shuttle The space shuttle and the STS program.
soc.college College, college activities, campus life, etc.
soc.culture.african Discussions about Africa & things African.
soc.culture.arabic Technological & cultural issues, *not* politics.
soc.culture.china About China and Chinese culture.
soc.culture.celtic Group about Celts (*not* basketball!).
soc.culture.greek Group about Greeks.
soc.culture.indian Group for discussion about India & things Indian.
soc.culture.japan Everything Japanese, except the Japanese language.
soc.culture.jewish Group for discussion about Jewish culture & religion.
soc.culture.misc Group for discussion about other cultures.
soc.human-nets Computer aided communications digest. (Moderated)
soc.men Issues related to men, their problems & relationships.
soc.misc Socially-oriented topics not in other groups.
soc.motss Issues pertaining to homosexuality.
soc.net-people Announcements, requests, etc. about people on the net.
soc.politics Political problems, systems, solutions. (Moderated)
soc.politics.arms-d Arms discussion digest. (Moderated)
soc.religion.christian Christianity and related topics. (Moderated)
soc.roots Genealogical matters.
soc.singles Newsgroup for single people, their activities, etc.
soc.women Women's rights, discrimination, etc.
talk.abortion All sorts of discussions and arguments on abortion.
talk.bizarre The unusual, bizarre, curious, and often stupid.
talk.origins Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!).
talk.philosophy.misc Philosophical musings on all topics.
talk.politics.mideast Discussion & debate over Middle Eastern events.
talk.politics.misc Political discussions and ravings of all kinds.
talk.politics.soviet Discussion of Soviet politics, domestic and foreign.
talk.politics.theory Theory of politics and political systems.
talk.religion.misc Religious, ethical, & moral implications.
talk.religion.newage Esoteric and minority religions & philosophies.
talk.rumors For the posting of rumors.
bionet.general General BIONET announcements.
bionet.sci-resources Information about funding agencies, etc.
bionet.jobs Scientific Job opportunities.
bionet.molbio.ageing Discussions of cellular and organismal ageing.
bionet.molbio.news Research news of interest to the community.
bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts Requests for information and lab reagents.
bionet.molbio.genbank Info about the GenBank Nucleic acid database.
bionet.molbio.embldatabank Info about the EMBL Nucleic acid database.
bionet.molbio.pir Info about the PIR protein sequence database.
bionet.molbio.bio-matrix Computer applications to biological databases.
bionet.molbio.evolution How genes and proteins have evolved.
bionet.molbio.gene-express How genes are regulated in cells.
bionet.molbio.gene-org How genes are organized on chromosomes.
bionet.molbio.oncogenes Genes that cause cancer.
bionet.molbio.plant Molecular biology of plants.
bionet.molbio.proteins Research on proteins and protein databases.
bionet.molbio.swiss-prot Discussion on the SWISS-PROT Database.
bionet.molbio.yeast Molecular biology of yeast.
bionet.software.pc Info on PC software for scientists.
bionet.software.pc.comm Info on PC communications software.
bionet.software.contrib Info on programs contributed to BIONET.
bionet.technology.conversion Use of techology to convert waste and biomass.
∂29-Jan-89 1531 bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU Scots
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 15:31:26 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA08742; Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:30:46 -0800
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:30:46 -0800
From: Barry Hayes <bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901292330.AA08742@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Scots
I sent the joke to some friends of mine in Scotland. I may have
even changed it to "two scots" rather than a Jew and a Scot. I
send every Scots joke I hear to these folks, and have heard nothing
negative from them. Just so's you know...
-b
∂29-Jan-89 1539 philf@lindy.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 15:39:51 PST
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:36:23 PST
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:36:23 PST
From: philf@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Phil Fernandez)
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: rec.humor.funny
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <LhraH@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford Data Center
Cc:
John --
As one of the shrill opponents within SDC of the RHF purge, I am
surprised at the continuing discussion on su.etc that pins the
decision on "SDC and AIR" or calls on "SDC and AIR" to rescend the
decision.
The way my boss (John Sack) tells it, direction to purge RHF came from
on high -- Bob Street and Don Kennedy. Sack and Gorin say they're
just "good soldiers following orders." Are you hearing otherwise? If
so, then there is bad-faith deception going on, in addition to bad
decision making.
Seems to me that attempts to encourage open discussion on the issue
need to be directed toward Street and Kennedy, not SDC and AIR.
pmf
∂29-Jan-89 1552 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU [Alvaro del Val <delval@Portia.stanford.edu> : Assig. #1 ]
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 15:52:14 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA09383; Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:51:39 -0800
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1989 15:51:37 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: [Alvaro del Val <delval@Portia.stanford.edu> : Assig. #1 ]
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.602121097.alex@polya.stanford.edu>
Prof. McCarthy,
I'm getting various questions about what you intended with the monkey
problem. One example follows. Various people have made appointments to see
Monday morning because they are worried about this... It'd help me if you
send me a clarification about what you want them to do.
Thanks,
Alex
---------------
Return-Path: <delval@Portia.stanford.edu>
Received: from Portia.Stanford.EDU by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA29255; Sun, 29 Jan 89 09:19:45 -0800
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA09005; Sun, 29 Jan 89 09:19:12 PDT
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 09:19:12 PDT
From: Alvaro del Val <delval@Portia.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8901291719.AA09005@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: alex@polya
Subject: Assig. #1
Hi.
I am not quite sure whether I understand the problem given in class about the
monkey. Is it the predicate "at" or the predicate "move" which we have to
modify? As I see it, I think allowing the predicate "at" to have as first
argument list of arbitrary lengthnt a list of arbitrary length (whose elements would be all the objects
that are"at" the location in a particular situation) would do.
That is, we wolud have:
at((b,Monkey),loc,move(Monkey,b,loc,s))
Is this what the question is asking for? And, second, is it legitimate to
make a list of arbitrary length the argument of "at" (or of any other
predicate) ?
Thanks
Alvaro
∂29-Jan-89 1602 stantz@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 16:02:10 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:58:40 PST
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:58:40 PST
From: stantz@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Mark Stantz)
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Re: rec.humor.funny
> Statement of protest about the AIR purge of rec.humor.funny.
[stuff deleted]
You might want to pick one of your more obscure accounts
somewhere, discontinue your mail forwarding from there, and have
people that want to 'sign' this send mail to you at that address.
Then you could wait a week while the mail piles up, grep out the
'From:' lines, and append them to the statement before passing it on
up the ladder.
-Mark
∂29-Jan-89 1648 S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 16:48:25 PST
Date: Sun 29 Jan 89 16:45:27-PST
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: rec.humor.funny
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <LhraH@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12466528339.13.S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
I agree w/ your statement of protest. If you're compiling electronic
signatures, please add mine.
Alex Bronstein
-------
∂29-Jan-89 1717 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU re: [Alvaro del Val <delval@Portia.stanford.edu> : Assig. #1 ]
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 17:17:32 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA11935; Sun, 29 Jan 89 17:16:57 -0800
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1989 17:16:55 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: [Alvaro del Val <delval@Portia.stanford.edu> : Assig. #1 ]
In-Reply-To: Your message of 29 Jan 89 1600 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.602126215.alex@polya.stanford.edu>
OK, will do.
Alex
∂29-Jan-89 1746 arean@polya.Stanford.EDU Protest letter
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 17:46:02 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA13084; Sun, 29 Jan 89 17:45:24 -0800
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 17:45:24 -0800
From: Luis F. Arean <arean@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901300145.AA13084@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Protest letter
How about posting the letter along with the explanation in physical
bulletin boards in MJH, Sweet Hall, Tressider and the Math & CS library?
Perhaps we could get more signatures that way. The explanation would
need a preamble to catch attention, though.
Luis
∂29-Jan-89 1843 arean@polya.Stanford.EDU Suggestions about protest letter
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 18:43:02 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA15408; Sun, 29 Jan 89 18:42:26 -0800
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 18:42:26 -0800
From: Luis F. Arean <arean@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901300242.AA15408@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Suggestions about protest letter
Two more suggestions (or rather questions):
Should we include something about the unenforceability of the censorship
attempt? It sounds like a menace, but it might be helpful.
How public should this be? Should we go to Campus Report and the ineffable
Stanford Daily?
Luis
∂29-Jan-89 1845 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU University's legal rights
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 18:45:06 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA06346; Sun, 29 Jan 89 18:43:24 PST
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 18:43:24 PST
From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Message-Id: <8901300243.AA06346@csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: University's legal rights
In your recent su-etc posting, you state that Stanford has a right to fire
a tenured professor for his opinions.
Have you heard about the recent case in which a tenured instructor at a
Catholic university was excommunicated from the Church because of his
changing views, and then fired from his position?
The university is being sued to prevent them from firing him.
I don't have the source, but I could get it.
What is going on here???
∂29-Jan-89 2105 crew@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 21:04:29 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA18447; Sun, 29 Jan 89 21:03:53 -0800
Message-Id: <8901300503.AA18447@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <Lhrmo@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University Computer Science Dept.
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 21:03:52 -0800
From: Roger Crew <crew@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Nitpick:
Templeton does not maintain rec.humor.d. rec.humor.d is an
unmoderated newsgroup which has been in existence almost as long as
the original rec.humor and was originally intended to be a group where
discussions concerning posts to rec.humor could go (rec.humor is
strictly for jokes, not discussions).
When rec.humor.funny was created, it was decided that discussions
about the new moderated group could also go in rec.humor.d
Also, Templeton's statement of philsophy concerning his view of humor
and his procedures in operating rec.humor.funny (doubtless it's
sitting around on r.h.f or r.h.d someplace) might be a useful
supplementary document for this protest; it's very well done, in my view.
Roger
∂29-Jan-89 2135 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Templeton called
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 21:35:48 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01842; Sun, 29 Jan 89 21:37:44 PST
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 21:37:44 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901300537.AA01842@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Templeton called
I just got a call at home from Brad Templeton, who had received a call
from the Stanford Daily and refused to talk to them. I filled him in
on some of the recent happenings, since he talked to you before you
met with Ralph Gorin. (I briefly summarized what you had learned from
Ralph's memos and posted to su.etc.) His advice (to me) is to see if
the Daily takes this up as an anti-racist cause, and if so, to refuse
to talk to them since they might then be deceitful in an interview
just to get the quotes that they want to print.
∂30-Jan-89 0022 ARK censorship comments
∂30-Jan-89 0014 JMC
Comments on censorship?
ARK - I believe that such censorship is wrong. I used to read
rec.humor.funny when it first came out (and I was at UTexas) but
I have no time for it now.
rec.humor.funny distributes jokes that one particular person considers
to be funny. The moderator started this service because too much of
rec.funny was simply not funny, but rather arguments and boring followup.
The fact that rec.humor.d exists for discussions means there is a voice
for such followup, although most people do not want to read it.
There is considerable concern about the anti-black and anti-semitic
actions that have taken place on campus recently. We should be encouraging
tolerance and understanding, rather than enforced censorship.
In particular, it is important to note the actions taken by the moderator
when this offense was brought to his attention. Those actions indicate
that the moderator has increased his sensitivity as those at Stanford
would have suggested.
Arthur
∂30-Jan-89 0031 Mailer rec.humor.funny
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 00:31:44 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA27708; Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:29:46 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:29:46 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8901300829.AA27708@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 29 Jan 89 14:31 PST <LhraH@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: rec.humor.funny
Dear John
I think that your not having tried out the "joke" on a Scot is
revealing. After all, it makes no attack on the character of the
Jewish gentlemen: he indulges, ironically, in a harmless prank which
results in his being promptly murdered by the Scot, motivated
presumably by Scottish meanness, coldbloodedness and temper. This is
just the sort of dangerous stereotyping which Gorin and Sack complain
of, and is liable to lead to the sort of anti-Scottish feeling which
gave rise to Culloden. AS someone who numbers many Scots among his
friends, and lived there for several years, I think I can say that any
true Scottish Nationalist would find this attempt at humor quite
unacceptable in any civilised publication. If Stanford is to be a
place where one can eat haggis proudly, then we must take this sort of
neo-English hatred seriously.
Pat Hayes
∂30-Jan-89 0052 hayes@arisia.xerox.com Has your son Simon changed his name to Barry?
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 00:52:34 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA27816; Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:50:38 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:50:38 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8901300850.AA27816@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 30 Jan 89 0038 PST <LhPSy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Has your son Simon changed his name to Barry?
Sorry, no, theyre still called Simon and Robin, and they both live
here at present. I dont know who Barry is. I hope you got my recent
message about sensitivity to anti- Scottish racism.
Pat
∂30-Jan-89 0047 LES re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
[In reply to message sent 29 Jan 89 1445 PST.]
Good summary. Two nitpicks:
1. rec.humor.funny has not been added to Gang-of-four; it was there all
along.
2. In the final paragraph where you say "Should Stanford not persist,"
I believe that the "not" should be deleted.
∂30-Jan-89 0055 hayes@arisia.xerox.com rec.humor.funny
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 00:55:01 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA27828; Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:53:04 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:53:04 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8901300853.AA27828@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 30 Jan 89 0039 PST <LhPU3@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: rec.humor.funny
In an earlier version of the msg, I went on about the fact that
Haggis, that Sovereign of the Pudding Race ( Burns ) is unobtainable
in the Bay area as being a possible symptom of the sort of hidden but
nefarous prejudice which a Universitry should strive to overcome. But
it got a a bit heavy-handed.
Pat
∂30-Jan-89 0057 hayes@arisia.xerox.com rec.humor.funny
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 00:56:54 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA27860; Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:54:58 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:54:58 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8901300854.AA27860@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 30 Jan 89 0039 PST <LhPU3@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: rec.humor.funny
It occurs to me that a True Scot could probably make his own haggis.
One would need to get a sheeps stomach, but I bet a really good
Safeway would oblige. People eat tripe, after all.
Pat
∂30-Jan-89 0118 vera@Portia.stanford.edu Re: rec.humor.funny
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 01:17:58 PST
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA26065; Mon, 30 Jan 89 01:16:51 PDT
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 01:16:51 PDT
From: James Vera <vera@Portia.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8901300916.AA26065@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: rec.humor.funny
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <vhtSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
In article <vhtSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>Those who wish to sign the protest should mail to jmc@gang-of-four.
>They won't be forwarded, and I'll pick them up at the end of the week.
Add my name.
--
James S. Vera | Internet |Standard Disclaimers
Stanford University|vera@portia.stanford.edu |Blah Blah Blah Blah
Bellcore |vera2%mruxb@bellcore.arpa|vvv My Cutesy Quote vvv
"When I was young it seemed that life was so wonderful..." - Supertramp
∂30-Jan-89 0631 holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 06:31:17 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA26017; Mon, 30 Jan 89 06:30:42 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 06:30:42 -0800
From: Mary Holstege <holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901301430.AA26017@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
In-Reply-To: <Lhrmo@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
In terms of content, I have no complaints and will gladly add my name as a
co-protester. There are some minor typos, however:
>c. Material of interest to subgroups: feminists, gays, Jews, sex,
>drugs.
Non-parallel items: `feminists', `gays', and `Jews' are subgroups; `sex' and
`drugs' are not.
>of AIR and John Sack, head of SDC, jointly announced that rec.humor.
>funny was to be purged from the computers under their control.
It just looks weird to be to split the name of the newsgroup across lines like
this.
I am amazed at how broad the agreement is on this issue, considering the
general contentiousness of su.etc participants.
-- Mary
Holstege@polya
∂30-Jan-89 0718 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 07:18:30 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA26339; Mon, 30 Jan 89 07:17:51 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 07:17:51 -0800
From: Oren Patashnik <op@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901301517.AA26339@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: rec.humor.funny
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <LhraH@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
In article <LhraH@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>
> . . . The newsgroups are available on various networks are
In case nobody else has pointed this out: The `newsgroups are' should
be simply `newsgroups' (or, if you prefer, `newsgroups that are').
∂30-Jan-89 0720 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 07:20:02 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA26385; Mon, 30 Jan 89 07:19:26 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 07:19:26 -0800
From: Oren Patashnik <op@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901301519.AA26385@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: rec.humor.funny
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <vhtSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
In article <vhtSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>Those who wish to sign the protest should mail to jmc@gang-of-four.
>They won't be forwarded, and I'll pick them up at the end of the week.
I will sign the protest.
--Oren
∂30-Jan-89 0800 JMC
proofs
∂30-Jan-89 0820 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 08:20:23 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03540; Mon, 30 Jan 89 08:22:19 PST
Message-Id: <8901301622.AA03540@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 30 Jan 89 01:27:00 -0800.
<rhQAf@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 08:22:17 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Yes, Les is essentially correct. Gang-of-Four doesn't keep USENET
articles online, as Polya, Portia and other major hosts do. Rn on
Gang-of-Four is a "remote" version (sometimes called "rrn") that uses
a network protocol to access articles on Polya.
Polya could restrict particular newsgroups to local users only or to
certain remote hosts, but it currently doesn't. It does, however,
require the remote users to be coming from a machine in the CSD
subnets of Stanford, to avoid being overloaded with traffic.
∂30-Jan-89 0859 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu Censoring rec.humor.funny
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 08:59:16 PST
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA04188; Mon, 30 Jan 89 08:58:01 PDT
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 08:58:01 PDT
From: George Wheaton <wheaton@athena.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8901301658.AA04188@athena.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 29 Jan 89 1445 PST <Lhrmo@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Censoring rec.humor.funny
You mentioned that you hadn't tried the joke on any Scots. I have a
strong Scottish heritage (mixed with some English/Irish) and have
inherited some Scottish tendencies, eg tight-fistedness. I think the
joke is a kick and take NO offence.
Aside from that, this seems to be a case of overt censorship, which I
strongly oppose.
gw
∂30-Jan-89 0928 HK.GRH@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU re: Request to see Don Kennedy
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 09:28:30 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 09:27:34 PST
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
From: "G. Robert Hamrdla" <HK.GRH@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Request to see Don Kennedy
REPLY TO 01/29/89 12:26 FROM JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU "John McCarthy": re: Request
to see Don Kennedy
Professor McCarthy,
Indeed, it's easy to send the President electronic mail: the
address is hk.dxk. I think that would be a very good way to handle
your request; if you'd like to meet, you could simply outline your
reasons in your message, and then he can reply through Marlene Wine
or me.
Bob Hamrdla
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
∂30-Jan-89 0934 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU June Genis
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 09:34:24 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03697; Mon, 30 Jan 89 09:36:17 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 09:36:17 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901301736.AA03697@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, les@sail
Subject: June Genis
I just called June Genis and confirmed what I suspected -- that her
initial mention of this to John Sack was along the lines of "hey,
isn't this funny, it seems just like the incident here several years
ago" and she had no intention of protesting rec.humor.funny herself.
She is in support of our efforts against the censorship. She also
doesn't believe that John Sack would instigate this, so it becomes
more clear that the pressure came from above.
∂30-Jan-89 1016 littell@polya.Stanford.EDU Fellowship supplements
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 10:13:57 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA02476; Mon, 30 Jan 89 10:13:16 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 10:13:16 -0800
From: Angelina M. Littell <littell@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901301813.AA02476@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, clt@sail
Cc: littell@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Fellowship supplements
John,
Ramin Zabih required a supplement to his fellowship which
will be charged to your account 2-DMA804. His supplemented amount is
$69.00.
Thank you.
--Angie
Thank you.
--Angie
∂30-Jan-89 1023 PAF terminal
Just a few notes regarding the terminal. First, does CS have a 300 level
research credit? If so, that would seem to be best. Secondly, I'd like
to add audio capability to the keyboard. This would include a three - voice
synthesizer for bells, whistles, etc., as well as a decent LPC CoDec for
voice input and output (LPC will give you decent voice quality at 9600 bps,
at least good enough for voice mail).
One other thing: as with any project, the most critical item is the name
(especially for funding!). Any suggestions?
-=PAF
∂30-Jan-89 1030 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 10:30:09 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA03534; Mon, 30 Jan 89 10:29:28 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 10:29:28 -0800
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901301829.AA03534@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: rec.humor.funny
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <vhtSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
In article <vhtSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>Those who wish to sign the protest should mail to jmc@gang-of-four.
>They won't be forwarded, and I'll pick them up at the end of the week.
I'll sign.
Matt
∂30-Jan-89 1109 LES Typing large symbol sets
I finally got a call back from Ed Smura, the Xerox guy who is involved in
the large symbol set standardization effort. He had been in Japan when I
tried to reach him. Ed says that ISO has delegated the standardization
effort to a new Association for Font Information Interchange, in which he
is centrally involved, but that no standard has been issued yet. He is
sending me their draft standard.
∂30-Jan-89 1137 jacobs@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: misattribution
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 11:37:32 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA08176; Mon, 30 Jan 89 11:36:56 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 11:36:56 -0800
From: Joseph Jacobs <jacobs@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901301936.AA08176@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: misattribution
I hadn't yet read today's Daily. After getting your message I read
the article and noticed that the other 'quote' attributed to you is
actually something which Liam wrote and which they modified without
indicating they did it. Thanks for pointing this out to me.
Joseph
∂30-Jan-89 1155 mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: rec.humor.funny
Received: from june.cs.washington.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 11:55:07 PST
Received: from tomobiki-cho.acs.washington.edu by june.cs.washington.edu (5.59/6.13+)
id AA06974; Mon, 30 Jan 89 11:53:38 PST
Return-Path: <mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1989 11:55:26 PST
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: rec.humor.funny
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <vhs2d@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <MS-C.602193326.1103527590.mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Be sure to correct "Should Stanford not persist in its foolish decision" to be
"Should Stanford persist in its foolish decision".
-------
∂30-Jan-89 1200 bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 12:00:30 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA10245; Mon, 30 Jan 89 11:59:54 -0800
Message-Id: <8901301959.AA10245@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Re: rec.humor.funny
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:29:46 -0800.
<8901300829.AA27708@arisia.Xerox.COM>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 11:59:50 -0800
From: bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU
As far as I know, he's not my uncle, but I wholeheartedly endorse his
opinion. This sort of anti-Scots "humor", if condoned will soon lean
to anti-Irish, perhaps even anti-Manx jokes.
∂30-Jan-89 1325 jacobs@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: misattribution
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 13:25:11 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA17954; Mon, 30 Jan 89 13:24:27 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 13:24:27 -0800
From: Joseph Jacobs <jacobs@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901302124.AA17954@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, jacobs@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: misattribution
I called the Daily about the incorrect quotes in the article. The person
I talked to (not the author of the article) said that there would be a
correction published tomorrow. She said that she would talk to the author
and have him call me back to make sure things are straightened out.
Joseph
∂30-Jan-89 1326 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Protesting the censorship of a newsgroup
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 13:25:55 PST
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA03070; Mon, 30 Jan 89 13:24:11 PDT
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 13:24:11 PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8901302124.AA03070@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 29 Jan 89 1431 PST <vhr$U@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Protesting the censorship of a newsgroup
I will sign your protest statement. -Nils
∂30-Jan-89 1417 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
su-events@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
A MINIMAL MODEL SEMANTICS WITH DEFAULT PRIORITIES
Paul Morris
IntelliCorp
Monday, February 6, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Existing default reasoning systems may be divided into minimality based
formalisms, such as circumscription, and those that depend on a fixed
point construction, like default logic. The fixed point schemes have
appeared to possess an advantage in allowing implicit specification of
arbitrary priorities among defaults. However, they also have
disadvantages, including a lack of cumulativity, and difficulty in
properly representing some situations where a mere possibility of some
contingency is sufficient to overcome a default.
We present a model minimization scheme that supports implicit
specification of priorities among defaults. The system enjoys
cumulativity (like other model preference systems), and gives more
satisfactory results in situations where a possibility overcomes a
default.
∂30-Jan-89 1457 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [Joel Shurkin: censorship release]
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 14:57:24 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05237; Mon, 30 Jan 89 14:59:17 PST
Message-Id: <8901302259.AA05237@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: [Joel Shurkin: censorship release]
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 14:59:09 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
I called Shurkin and he sent me this. It may not be identical to the
final version, because the last round of editing is done on a word-
processing system not connected to the campus network.
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05190; Mon, 30 Jan 89 14:51:14 PST
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 14:49:02 PST
Date: Mon 30 Jan 89 14:45:43-PST
From: Joel Shurkin <S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: censorship release
To: jsw@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <12466768686.86.S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Shurkin (415) 725-1944
UNIVERSITY PULLS THE PLUG ON COMPUTERIZED JOKE FILE MANY
FOUND OFFENSIVE
STANFORD--
A computer file containing ethnic, racial, and sexual jokes
has been pulled from Stanford's computer network because of
complaints that the contents were offensive.
The censorship immediately caused protests from 40 faculty,
staff, and students on the network.
The database, on Usenet, a bulletin board forum for people
using the UNIX operating system, originated at the
University of Waterloo, Ontario, and is widely available at
North American universities. According to Stanford's Ralph
Gorin, director of Information Resources, the bulletin board
file contained material that was "based on racial, ethnic,
sexual, religious and other stereotypes."
The file had been set up so that jokes that others might
find offensive were encrypted. The encryption is a simple
one, easily broken by anyone wishing to read the jokes, but
they could not simply browse through the file.
Ed Cotter, of AIR, said the issue of deleting the file was
debated intensely in the organization because of free speech
considerations. But after consultation with the university's
legal office, it was decided to kill the file.
Now, when computer users call up the bulletin board, they
get instead a statement from Gorin and from John Sack,
director of the Academic Data Center explaining the missing
file.
The text of the statement:
"To the Stanford community,
"In Information Resources, we have been confronted with the
existence of a Usenet (Unix users') bulletin board,
rec.humor.funny, that contains jokes including, among
others, jokes based on racial, ethnic, sexual, religious,
and other stereotypes. Jokes based on such stereotypes
perpetuate racism, sexism, and intolerance; they undermine
an important University purpose: our collective search for a
better way, for a truly pluralistic community in which every
person is acknowledged an individual, not a caricature.
"We have weighed our love of freedom of expression and the
free exchange of ideas in contrast to our respect for the
dignity and rights of every individual. In this situation
we find: this bulletin board does not serve a University
educational purpose; its content is offensive; it does not,
in itself, provide a forum for the examination and
discussion of intolerance, an exchange of views, or the
expression of views of the members of the University
community.
"Stanford University has no commitment to maintain our
computing facilities as a generalized forum for outsiders'
indiscriminate purposes. We are sensitive to the pain
caused by racial, religious, and sexual affronts. For these
reasons, we have decided not to have that bulletin board
file on the computers operated by Information Resources.
"We endorse the continued use of our local, unmoderated
computer bulletin boards by members of the University
community for the discussion of ideas, including those that
are unpopular. In such a forum, ideas are subject to the
thoughtful judgement of others."
According to John McCarthy, professor of computer sciences
and one of those opposed to the censorship, the dispute,
began when a Jewish graduate student at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology objected to a joke on the system
involving a Jew and a Scotsman.
(A Jew and a Scotsman are having dinner. When the bill
arrives, the Scotsman says he will pick up the tab, and
does. The next morning the newspaper carries the headline:
"Scotsman murders Jewish ventriloquist.")
The M.I.T. student protested the joke to Brad Templeton,
who ran the bulletin board, but Templeton refused to kill
the file.
When newspaper articles appeared in the local press about
the bulletin board, Waterloo University ordered Templeton to
feed only non-offensive material, but he continued to make
the full file available on the network by telephone lines.
The file is upgraded almost daily and the full file now
contains several thousand jokes, McCarthy said.
McCarthy, said he objected to the censorship for two
reasons:
"I think history is repeating itself," he said. "As soon as
the printing press became a means of communication, the
Vatican established the index of banned books.
"The development of the computer as a means of
communication is being accompanied by a list of prohibited
communications. It seems to me to be kind of a fundamental
issue," he said.
"I should regard these things as prototypes of a magazine
that goes into an electronic library. The analog is somebody
saying that some magazine has no educational purpose and
causes some people to find it offensive."
Second, he said, "the biggest danger today is
self-righteousness."
McCarthy said he contacted the American Civil Liberties
Union but was told it probably was not a legal issue because
Stanford is a private university.
INSERT TO COME
The incident was similar to one in 1982, when Stanford
computer officials killed a file of jokes contained on the
IBM mainframe at the central computing center. Many of those
jokes also were offensive to members of the community.
The file in that incident was generated by Stanford people
and was kept on a Stanford computer.
McCarthy said the file is still available on his computer
system, The Gang of Four and can be accessed from other
computers on campus.
INSERT FOR JOKES
Gorin said the joke file was "moderated," meaning that
Templeton had complete control over what was sent or said.
Templeton had provided no place on the bulletin board for a
discussion of the jokes.
Discussions were held on another, unmoderated bulletin
board, but most users were not aware of that "stream."
Gorin said he did not feel his action constituted
censorship as it is commonly defined. He said it was like
receiving a magazine unsolicited in the mail. "We simply
decided not to subscribe."
"At a time when the University is devoting considerable
energy to suppress racism, bigotry and other forms of
prejudice, why devote computer resources to let some outside
person exploit these."
Templeton refused to comment.
- -------
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂30-Jan-89 1503 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Lucid phone numbers
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 15:03:25 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05316; Mon, 30 Jan 89 15:05:07 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 15:05:07 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901302305.AA05316@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: clt@sail, jmc@sail, pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
roach@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Lucid phone numbers
When you call Lucid, a recording now asks you to dial the extension
number of the person you want, if you know it. Here is a list of
extensions as supplied by Jan Zubkoff:
Benson, Eric 5523 eb
Benson, Peter 5568 pab
Boyce, Jim 5516 jeb
Cheung, Meekie 5505 meekie
DeMichiel, Linda 5592 lgd
Devin, Matthieu 5579 devin
Dinkel, Kris 5521 kris
Do, Loan 5552 loan
Dussud, Patrick 5578 dussud
Ferguson, Marc 5566 marc
Gabriel, Dick 2609 rpg
Gallo, Joe 5558 spaz
*Gilbert, Erik 5595 ejg
Goldman, Ron 5528 arg
Hardy, Bob 5543 hardy
Harrison, Tammie 5553 tami
Haskell, Jo 5530 jo
Hoffman, Joanna 5586 kara
Jungerman, Mark 5520 maj
*Kadarauch, Bob 5541 bob
Kaphan, Shel 5527 sjk
Kellogg, Becky 5551 rsk
Kumamoto, Shirley 5515 moe
Lew, Lois 5573 lew
Lyris, Sonia 5559 sol
McDonald, Jim 5575 jlm
Miller, Molly 5599 mmiller
Miller, Scott 5522 scott
Mokhtary, Joyce 5588 joyce
Muelleman, Mary 5510 mary
Murray, Burton 5580 murray
Olum, Ken kdo
Penninger, Lisa 5582 lisa
Poor, Rob 6606 r
*Rosenbaum, Susan 5562 susan
*Rosenberg, Teddy 5591 teddy
Ryan, Paul 5572 ryan
*Sayer, Mike 5561 mike
*Schofield, Tony 5567 ant
Sears, Steve 5596 sears
Seropian, Hasmig 5504 hasmig
Sexton, Carol 5531 carol
Sexton, Harlan 5594 hbs
*Slocum, Tony 5556 tony
Smith, Zach 5574 zach
Stetak, Bob 5546 rxs
Tillman, Don 5587 till
Unietis, David 5533 dru
White, JonL 5514 jonl
Wieneke, Paul 5502 pw
Wolfe, Claire 5526 Trogon
Wright, Chris page chris
Yellin, Frank 5550 fy
Zaun, Jim 5570 jaz
Zubkoff, Jan 5509 jlz
Zubkoff, Leonard 5585 lnz
∂30-Jan-89 1949 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU libraries
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 19:49:48 PST
Date: Mon 30 Jan 89 19:49:44-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: libraries
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: 89.ahmad@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12466824031.18.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
I was curious about the "somewhat more successful left wing purges" of
school libraries. Would you be kind enough to give specific examples,
and also describe how they have been "more successful" than purges
during the McCarthy (the Senator, that is) era. The specific information
(date, place, and unambiguous evidence of left-wing involvement) may help
me in a debate I am having.
Thank you for your help -- in advance. Please treat this as a priority
request. Also, to save you from the inconvenience of being asked for
additional information, please give clear citations describing
each incident of left-wing purges.
-------
∂30-Jan-89 2301 rustcat@cnc-sun.Stanford.EDU re: funny business
Received: from cnc-sun.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 23:00:54 PST
Received: by cnc-sun.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA07663; Mon, 30 Jan 89 22:59:16 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 22:59:16 PST
From: rustcat@cnc-sun.Stanford.EDU (Vallury Prabhakar)
Message-Id: <8901310659.AA07663@cnc-sun.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: funny business
Thank you for clarifying that. Incidentally, you seem to think that
Templeton actually goes through rec.humour and selects "appropriately"
funny articles for rec.humour.funny. As far as I know, this is not
true. There was quite a big argument over this a while ago, as a
consequence of which a person has to explicitly send an article to
Templeton before the latter can consider and allow the posting on
the newsgroup. That is to say, he does not have a carte blanche to
select from rec.humour. I vaguely recall something about copyright
infringements.
Ah, but does this cast a new light on the case at hand?
-- Vallury Prabhakar
∂31-Jan-89 0919 C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Car Mechanic Wanted
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Jan 89 09:19:17 PST
Date: Tue 31 Jan 89 09:16:09-PST
From: George Cole <C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Car Mechanic Wanted
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12466970832.84.C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Wesley, at M&R automotive, Menlo Park; Bob Helming, at Helming's Auto Repair,
Palo Alto. They're my regular mechanics on a repeat basis (over 7 years, so
it's not as bad as it sounds). They have helped a housemate buy a used car.
(Subsequently lost due to a freeway driver watching planes land at SFO).
-------
∂31-Jan-89 1117 peyton@polya.Stanford.EDU re: Rec.humour.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Jan 89 11:17:49 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA09993; Tue, 31 Jan 89 11:16:59 -0800
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1989 11:16:45 PST
From: "Liam H. Peyton" <peyton@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Rec.humour.funny
In-Reply-To: Your message of 27 Jan 89 2008 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.602277405.peyton@polya.stanford.edu>
Thank you.
That meant a great deal to me, as I have a great deal of respect for you,
your ideas and the way you present them. (In spite of my too often too
caustic and irrevent bboard style - or shall I say lack of style).
---Liam
∂31-Jan-89 1210 Mailer Re: mechanic wanted
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Jan 89 12:10:39 PST
Date: Tue 31 Jan 89 12:07:29-PST
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: mechanic wanted
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: su-market@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <di7LM@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12467002023.12.S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
AAA diagnostic station: since they don't perform any repairs, I think they
are very unbiased. Although I haven't had a chance to use them yet, so I'm
just mentioning them on principle (I like the idea of an independent
diagnostic place). For info: 408-247-5405 .
Alex
-------
∂31-Jan-89 1418 VAL Seminar Announcement
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Wednesday, Feb. 1, 10:30 a.m.
AI Center, SRI International
Hard Problems for Simple Default Logics
Henry A. Kautz
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Murray Hill, N.J. 01774
kautz@allegra.att.com
It has been suggested that some kind of default inference can be used
to simplify and speed commonsense reasoning. Researchers have
appealed to default logics as a solution to the problem of generating
and reasoning with large numbers of frame axioms; as a way of
simplifying complex probabilistic calculations; and recently as a way
of "vivifying" an incomplete knowledge base, thus suppressing the
complexities of reasoning with uncertainty.
While current formal theories of default inference are computationally
much worse than ordinary logic, it has been tacitly assumed that this
additional complexity arises from their use of consistency tests. Our
interest in fast, special purpose inference mechanisms led us to
investigate very simple propositional, disjunction-free systems of
default reasoning, where consistency checking is trivial. Here, we
thought, default reasoning should shine.
This paper reports a number of surprising complexity results involving
restricted versions of Ray Reiter's Default Logic. We define a
lattice of disjunction-free default theories, such as normal theories;
"unary" theories, which correspond to inheritance graphs with
cancellation links; and "normal unary" theories, which correspond to
inheritance graphs with no priority or inferential distance ordering.
For each we determine the complexity of solving the following three
problems: finding an extension; determining if a given proposition is
true in some extension ("credulous reasoning"); and determining if a
given proposition is true in all extensions ("skeptical reasoning").
All of these problems are NP-hard for unary theories, and only the
first is tractable for normal theories. We'll describe a complete and
correct polynomial-time algorithm for skeptical reasoning with
normal-unary theories. Finally we provide an intuitive
characterization of sources of complexity in default reasoning.
∂31-Jan-89 1931 HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU VTSS OUTINGS
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Jan 89 19:31:34 PST
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 19:30:00 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Joyce Kiefer" <HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: VTSS OUTINGS
To VTSS Faculty and Students
From Joyce Kiefer, Program Assistant
Re. VTSS ADVENTURES IN FEBRUARY
Two VTSS adventure events have been scheduled for this month. The
dates are Thursday, February 9 and Friday, February 10. Watch your
physical mail box for details . . .
To: FACULTY/STUDENT(EB.RBT,EK.7XL,FE.ALF,A.ALICE@MACBETH,
B.BEARDSLEY@MACBETH,B.BOND-JAMES@MACBETH,B.BUNSEN@MACBETH,
DRELL@SLACVM.BITNET,E.E-CUMMINGS@MACBETH,E.EPR@MACBETH,GALISON@CSLI,
J.JBBT@MACBETH,J.JPWIZ@MACBETH,JMC@SAIL,L.LUAU@MACBETH,MASTERS@CIVE,
N.NEJ@MACBETH,NASS@SUWATSON,P.PAMOO@MACBETH,P.PAST@MACBETH,
R.REDHEAD@PORTIA,R.ROADRUNNER@MACBETH,R.RSMIII@MACBETH,
R.RTSHOOTIN@MACBETH,T.THING@MACBETH,T.TIGRON@MACBETH,
V.VALENTINE@MACBETH,W.WEDGE@MACBETH,W.WILDSTRUBEL@MACBETH,
WINOGRAD@SCORE,Z.ZTOPP@MACBETH)
∂01-Feb-89 0140 les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 01:39:54 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02196; Wed, 1 Feb 89 01:41:47 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 01:41:47 PST
From: Les Earnest <les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902010941.AA02196@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
Newsgroups: csd.bboard
In-Reply-To: <$iDFE@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Cc:
I sign, of course.
∂01-Feb-89 0915 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Your statement of protest
Received: from glacier.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 09:15:52 PST
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu; Wed, 1 Feb 89 09:14:23 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 09:14:23 PST
From: John B. Nagle <jbn@glacier.stanford.edu>
Subject: Your statement of protest
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
As an alumnus, I don't consider it appropriate that I "sign", but
I approve of what you are doing.
John Nagle
∂01-Feb-89 0922 rit@coyote.stanford.edu Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
Received: from coyote.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 09:22:00 PST
Received: by coyote.stanford.edu; Wed, 1 Feb 89 09:26:29 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 09:26:29 PST
From: Jean-Francois Rit <rit@coyote.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
Newsgroups: csd.bboard
In-Reply-To: <$iDFE@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
I support this statement.
--
Jean-Francois Rit Tel: (415) 723 3796
CS Dept Robotics Laboratory e-mail: rit@coyote.stanford.edu
Cedar Hall B7
Stanford, CA 94305-4110
∂01-Feb-89 1116 heit@meme.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny
Received: from meme.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 11:16:21 PST
Received: by meme.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Wed, 1 Feb 89 11:16:46 PST
From: heit@meme.Stanford.EDU (Evan Heit)
To: jmc@sail
Reply-To: heit@psych.stanford.edu
Subject: rec.humor.funny
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 89 11:16:43 PST
Thank you for leading the fight against censorship! The U. administration
just doesn't understand that CENSORSHIP DOES NOT PROMOTE PLURALISM. I am
not optimistic about AIR being overruled by Don Kennedy, though. According
to a personal message from Vice President Robert Street:
The issue was reviewed initially at a President's staff meeting and there was
unanimous agreement that the file should be removed. Those at the meeting
included the President, University Legal Counsel, me, other vice presidents
and, as I recall, the Dean of Students and the Provost among others.
By the way, yesterday's article in the _Times Tribune_ starts by stating
that the rec.humor.funny file contains several thousand racist and sexist
jokes. They got this "information" from Stanford News Service, who (according
to Bob Beyers) got it from you. Since the total volume of rec.humor.funny is
20/week, since jokes are erased after a few weeks, and since only a small
fraction of the jokes are offensive, it seems like the extent of the
offensive material is being exaggerated. I suppose that a few years worth
of saved jokes might add up to a thousand offensive ones....
Anyway, keep up the fight.
--Evan Heit
∂01-Feb-89 1212 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU re: libraries
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 12:12:19 PST
Date: Wed 1 Feb 89 12:12:15-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: libraries
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <$hbSQ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12467265035.53.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks for your note. I look forward to hearing specifics from you on
this matter.
Have a pleasant day.
Nazir Ahmad
-------
∂01-Feb-89 1402 weening@polya.Stanford.EDU Jew & Scotsman joke
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 14:01:54 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA20674; Wed, 1 Feb 89 13:59:40 -0800
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 13:59:40 -0800
From: Joe Weening <weening@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902012159.AA20674@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Jew & Scotsman joke
This is the complete text of the original joke. It contains a few
words that have not made it into the places where it is quoted.
From: brian@radio.uucp (Brian Glendenning)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
Subject: I wonder whodunnit?
Keywords: rec.humor, rec_humor_cull, racist (mildly), chuckle
Message-ID: <2281@looking.UUCP>
Date: 8 Nov 88 16:30:03 GMT
Sender: funny@looking.UUCP
Organization: Radio Astronomy, University of Toronto
Lines: 16
Approved: funny@looking.UUCP
From prabhu@mitisft Tue Oct 4 16:00:31 1988
A Scotsman and a Jew went to a restaurant. After a hearty meal,
the waitress came by with the inevitable check. To the amazement
of all, the Scotsman was heard to say, "I'll pay it!", and he actually
did.
The next morning's newspaper carried the news item:
"JEWISH VENTRILOQUIST FOUND MURDERED IN BLIND ALLEY".
--
Edited by Brad Templeton. MAIL, yes MAIL your jokes to watmath!looking!funny .
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible. I will reply, mailers willing.
If you MUST reply to a rejection, include a description of your joke
because there is 0 chance I will remember which one it was.
∂01-Feb-89 1424 oski@Portia.stanford.edu rec.humor.funny petition
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 14:24:07 PST
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA20628; Wed, 1 Feb 89 14:22:50 PDT
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 14:22:50 PDT
From: L. Ravi Narasimhan <oski@Portia.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8902012222.AA20628@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: rec.humor.funny petition
Cc: oski@Portia.stanford.edu
I would like to offer my signature on any petition to protest this
"pre-emptive surrender" on the part of AIR. I have heard that you are
drawing up such a document, may I please see a copy when it is
available? Thank you,
--- Ravi Narasimhan
oski@portia
∂01-Feb-89 1421 MPS
Susie called about 15 minutes ago
∂01-Feb-89 1505 Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU Message of 29-Jan-89 14:29:38
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 15:05:03 PST
Date: Wed 1 Feb 89 15:02:31-PST
From: The Mailer Daemon <Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Message of 29-Jan-89 14:29:38
Message undeliverable and dequeued after 3 days:
sgi!baskett@decwrl.dec.com.#Internet: Cannot connect to host
guibas@decwrl.dec.com.#Internet: Cannot connect to host
Tenenbaum@SPAR.SLB.COM.#Internet: Cannot connect to host
------------
Received: from SAIL.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Sun 29 Jan 89 14:29:38-PST
Message-ID: <vhr$U@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 29 Jan 89 1431 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Protesting the censorship of a newsgroup
To: faculty@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
Recently AIR and SDC have censored the newsgroup rec.humor.funny.
This has resulted in about 40 messages in su-etc objecting to the
purge and no messages in its favor. There follows a draft
statement on the issue. Individual "signatures" will be
solicited for a final version.
rec.humor.funny is still available on Polya and other computers
not under the control of AIR and SDC. It has been added to
gang-of-four. The following messages include Ralph Gorin's purge
memo, a general exposition of the situation including
recommendations.
I hope the Department will eventually make an explicit
decision not to censor csd-cf and publicize the decision.
-------
∂01-Feb-89 1516 MPS israel
I have you booked on first class, but if you want
coach, let me know as Franklin has you on a wait list
for that class. I'll give you schedule after I find
out if you want first or coach.
∂01-Feb-89 1532 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Peninsula Times-Tribune article on rec.humor.funny
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 15:32:09 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05894; Wed, 1 Feb 89 15:34:02 PST
Resent-Message-Id: <8902012334.AA05894@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Return-Path: <bstempleton%watmath.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05857; Wed, 1 Feb 89 15:31:51 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa07435; 1 Feb 89 15:51 EST
Received: by watmath; Wed, 1 Feb 89 15:49:15 EST
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 15:49:15 EST
From: Brad Templeton <bstempleton%watmath.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
Message-Id: <8902012049.AA26342@watmath>
To: weening@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: Peninsula Times-Tribune article on rec.humor.funny
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <6553@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Cc:
Resent-To: jmc@sail
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 89 15:33:57 PST
Resent-From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Sheesh. "several thousand racist jokes."
Only around 900 postings have *ever* been made to rec.humor.funny
and less than 50 have potentially involved stereotypes. If Stanford
keeps RHF 1 month, it would have fewer than 50 jokes on line, of which
2-3 might be in the questionable category.
A slight exaggeration, one might say!
∂01-Feb-89 1546 Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU Message of 29-Jan-89 15:05:12
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 15:46:50 PST
Date: Wed 1 Feb 89 15:44:42-PST
From: The Mailer Daemon <Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Message of 29-Jan-89 15:05:12
Message undeliverable and dequeued after 3 days:
Tenenbaum@SPAR.SLB.COM.#Internet: Cannot connect to host
------------
Received: from SAIL.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Sun 29 Jan 89 15:05:13-PST
Message-ID: <dhrew@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 29 Jan 89 1436 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: rec.humor.funny
To: faculty@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
Here is the Gorin and Sack message
To the Stanford community,
In Information Resources, we have been confronted with the existence
of a Usenet (Unix users') bulletin board, rec.humor.funny, that
contains jokes including, among others, jokes based on racial, ethnic,
sexual, religious, and other stereotypes. Jokes based on such
stereotypes perpetuate racism, sexism, and intolerance; they undermine
an important University purpose: our collective search for a better
way, for a truly pluralistic community in which every person is
acknowledged an individual, not a caricature.
We have weighed our love of freedom of expression and the free
exchange of ideas in contrast to our respect for the dignity and
rights of every individual. In this situation we find: this bulletin
board does not serve a University educational purpose; its content is
offensive; it does not, in itself, provide a forum for the examination
and discussion of intolerance, an exchange of views, or the expression
of views of the members of the University community.
Stanford University has no commitment to maintain our computing
facilities as a generalized forum for outsiders' indiscriminate
purposes. We are sensitive to the pain caused by racial, religious,
and sexual affronts. For these reasons, we have decided not to have
that bulletin board file on the computers operated by Information
Resources.
We endorse the continued use of our local, unmoderated computer
bulletin boards by members of the University community for the
discussion of ideas, including those that are unpopular. In such a
forum, ideas are subject to the thoughtful judgement of others.
Ralph Gorin, Director John Sack, Director
Academic Information Resources Stanford Data Center
-------
-------
∂01-Feb-89 1609 haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU original correspondance
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 16:09:51 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA00338; Wed, 1 Feb 89 16:09:08 -0800
Message-Id: <8902020009.AA00338@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Cc: Ramsey Haddad <haddad@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: original correspondance
Organization: Computer Science Department
Phone: (415) 723-1787 [W], 324-3340 [H]
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 89 16:09:05 -0800
From: Ramsey W Haddad <haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU>
A little while ago you offered to send people copies of the original
E-mail correspondance between Gorin, etc..
If you still have it, I'd like a copy. Thanks.
Ramsey.
∂01-Feb-89 1630 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Radio stations
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 16:30:30 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06145; Wed, 1 Feb 89 16:32:16 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 16:32:16 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902020032.AA06145@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Radio stations
Stanford's radio station (KZSU) and Berkeley's (KLX? news) both called
this afternoon asking for you, and ended up talking to me. Each of
them asked several questions and recorded the answers, presumably to
be edited and put into a story. I don't remember the questions in
detail; Stanford's were more about the reaction of students so far,
and my opinion, while Berkeley wanted a description of what
rec.humor.funny is and a couple of other facts.
∂01-Feb-89 1638 patel@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 16:38:11 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA02093; Wed, 1 Feb 89 16:37:27 -0800
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 16:37:27 -0800
From: Rajesh L. Patel <patel@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902020037.AA02093@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
Cc: patel@polya.Stanford.EDU
Professor McCarthy:
I agree with your position on rec.humor.funny, and I would like to offer
the following analogy:
A newsgroup is like a magazine. Just as there are different magazines
for different subjects, there are different newsgroups to cover
different subjects.
Banning rec.humor.funny is analogous to making the publication of
magazines such as Playboy, Playgirl, Soldier of Fortune, etc., etc.,
illegal. Tell the AIR director to first attack these magazines, THEN
work on banning rec.humor.funny. Doing one without the other is
being prejudice to those of us who prefer the computer network as the
medium of communication.
-Raj Patel
∂01-Feb-89 1716 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU decwrl
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 17:16:29 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06504; Wed, 1 Feb 89 17:18:14 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 17:18:14 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902020118.AA06504@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: decwrl
It looks like DECWRL is up and is passing USENET news, but is refusing
Telnet and mail connections. I have no idea why.
∂01-Feb-89 1725 haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: original correspondance
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 17:25:12 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA04919; Wed, 1 Feb 89 17:24:28 -0800
Message-Id: <8902020124.AA04919@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: Ramsey Haddad <haddad@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: original correspondance
In-Reply-To: Your message of 01 Feb 89 16:49:00 -0800.
<xizam@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department
Phone: (415) 723-1787 [W], 324-3340 [H]
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 89 17:24:26 -0800
From: Ramsey W Haddad <haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Yes, that makes sense. I might stop by sometime tomorrow.
Ramsey.
∂01-Feb-89 1746 Mailer re: A Trip to Meyer (was: rec.humor.funny)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, paulf@DEFIANT.STANFORD.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Robert W Floyd <RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from JMC rcvd 01-Feb-89 17:11-PT.]
If you want to find offensive material at the library,
look no further than the Sunday Chron pink pages,
where flourish the writings of Joe Bob Briggs,
which the Mercury News stopped carrying because of
the offense it gave to bimbos, sambos, q...oops,
I mean women, blacks, etc. I'll bet Little Black
Sambo is around there somewhere, and plenty of people
feel insultingly portrayed by that. Conrad`s "The
Nigger of the Narcissus" is surely there; what would
you expect from a Polish author, anyway? Faulkner
is full of sympathetic treatments of slaveowners.
God knows what you might find in the Hoover library
collection among the posters and the pamphlets.
∂01-Feb-89 1811 brad@looking.uucp banning newspapers
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 18:11:22 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa11223; 1 Feb 89 20:35 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Wed, 1 Feb 89 20:33:16 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA21698; 1 Feb 89 20:27:51 EST (Wed)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: banning newspapers
Date: Wed Feb 1 20:27:49 1989
Message-Id: <8902012027.AA21693@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
The reason I suggest this is that it might get the papers on your side.
I have called rec.humor.funny a comedy newsmagazine. They are reporting,
and so am I. A good newspaper doesn't censor the truth based on what it
is, just on how interesting it is to the readers. They printed one joke
in a whole newspaper, I've done about 45 to 50 out of 1000 total postings.
I've done more material that bothers people, certainly, but it's only a
question of degree, not of kind.
You may not quote me on this, but you can express these ideas quite
eloquently yourself, I would suspect.
In some ways, I don't like the freedom of speech defence for myself.
It's like admitting what I'm doing is evil, and that it should only
be allowed because we must respect free speech. While it is certainly
true that we must respect free speech completely, the fact that there is
just plain no bigotry, prejudice or hatred involved here should count for
something.
My dad was the civil rights leader who organized the first integrated public
meeting to take place south of the Mason-Dixon line. My mother considers
herself Jewish, by race. Is this the sort of thing that breeds racist
anti-semites?
I wish the protest could take that tack a little bit more, while keeping
up the other tack as well. Again, this is for your own information only.
(Particularly the part about by father who, while he defends me and
free speech, isn't keen on the type of joke in question.)
∂01-Feb-89 1811 brad@looking.uucp Newspaper reports
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 18:10:38 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa11063; 1 Feb 89 20:27 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Wed, 1 Feb 89 20:24:38 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA21678; 1 Feb 89 20:19:19 EST (Wed)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Newspaper reports
Date: Wed Feb 1 20:19:17 1989
Message-Id: <8902012019.AA21674@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
After reading lines like "several thousand racist jokes" and "filled with
racist and sexist jokes" you now see the proof of my opinion about the
daily newspapers when it comes to matters like this.
Of course, these newspapers all printed the cut-down version of the
famous ventriloquist joke. They are all edited, too.
I can see no other choice but to have newspaper boxes for these papers
removed from Stanford land immediately. Or have security meet the newspaper
delivery people when they try to enter Stanford property.
∂01-Feb-89 1836 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to the address(es) below
because the destination Host Name(s) are Unknown:
brad@looking.uucp
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
01-Feb-89 1836 JMC re: banning newspapers
To: brad@looking.uucp
[In reply to message sent Wed Feb 1 20:27:49 1989.]
Thanks for your message. The tack you suggest is essentially the one
we are taking, and we are doing better and better with the media
as they overcome their misconceptions. Their misconceptions take
the form of "where there's smoke, there must be some fire". Thus
we get things like, "a file of racist jokes". When corrected they
promise to do better in a follow-up story. I was called by an
editorial writer for the San Jose Mercury News, and they are going
to do an editorial comment piece on our side. At present we are
winning the comment battle, but it isn't clear what will happen
if President Kennedy weighs in on the other side. I still think
we'll win in the media, although he has great power at Stanford.
We'll keep you informed.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂01-Feb-89 1837 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to the address(es) below
because the destination Host Name(s) are Unknown:
brad@looking.uucp
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
01-Feb-89 1837 JMC re: Newspaper reports
To: brad@looking.uucp
[In reply to message sent Wed Feb 1 20:19:17 1989.]
As you see from my previous message, I think we're winning.
I think I can emphasize praising the magazine a bit more.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂01-Feb-89 1917 rsf@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny petition
Received: from Pescadero.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 19:17:13 PST
Received: by Pescadero.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA28694; Wed, 1 Feb 89 19:15:38 PDT
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 19:15:38 PDT
Message-Id: <8902020315.AA28694@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU>
From: Ross Finlayson <rsf@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: rec.humor.funny petition
To: jmc@sail
Cc: rsf@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU
Please add my name to your petition.
Ross.
∂01-Feb-89 2032 S.STREET@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Telephone Messages
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 20:31:41 PST
Date: Wed 1 Feb 89 20:28:23-PST
From: Robert Street <S.STREET@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Telephone Messages
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: s.street@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12467355354.90.S.STREET@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Dear John,
We are continuing to fail contact by phone. Can you tell me what is on
your mind and exchange our thoughts by this means?
Regards,
Bob*
-------
∂01-Feb-89 2040 bothner@wsl.dec.com rec.humor.funny petition
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Feb 89 20:40:17 PST
Received: from gilroy.pa.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
for jmc@sail.stanford.edu; id AA20345; Wed, 1 Feb 89 20:38:43 PST
Received: from localhost by gilroy.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA02772; Wed, 1 Feb 89 14:59:26 PST
Message-Id: <8902012259.AA02772@gilroy.pa.dec.com>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: rec.humor.funny petition
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 89 14:59:26 PST
From: bothner@wsl.dec.com
I understand you might consider it to dilute the message, but I
believe your petition should mention content and not only
issues of freedom-of-speech (or library "completeness").
I am concerned by newspaper articles that imply
that a sigificant part of the news messages are racist and offensive.
Personally, I think if rec.humor.funny were a steady stream of racist
jokes with no redeeming humor value, I would be less upset if it were
cancelled. (However, given the economics of usenet compared with
that of a library, I would probably be inclined to let it arrive.)
As it stands, Templeton's "crime" is in selecting for humor, rather
than letting Political Correctness be the overriding concern.
There are few or no really vicious/offensive messages; the complaints
can only be about borderline poor taste.
--Per
∂02-Feb-89 0044 oski@Portia.stanford.edu Thank foλλyou for the copy of the petition.
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Feb 89 00:43:57 PST
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA24240; Thu, 2 Feb 89 00:42:18 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 00:42:18 PDT
From: L. Ravi Narasimhan <oski@Portia.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8902020842.AA24240@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Thank foλλyou for the copy of the petition.
Please add my name to the list of signatures.
I asked Ralph Gorin if and when he was planning an "AIR Town Meeting"
in which we could ask him and his staff about this decision in person.
He said he had nothing planned but that he liked the idea. Perhaps
a face-to-face discussion would help matters.
--- Ravi Narasimhan
∂02-Feb-89 0430 ME ⊗#⊗ε command in E
∂01-Feb-89 2335 JMC
<n>ε is broken in E.
ME - OK, it's fixed now. Note that the numbers of files, as listed by ⊗∃,
run from 1 to 8 now instead of 0 to 7. This is to make the 0-arg case not
do any file switching (thus putting the ⊗∃, ⊗ε and ⊗λ commands in line
with E's general rule that a 0 argument doesn't usually do anything
significant).
∂02-Feb-89 0651 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Feb 89 06:51:38 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA24387; Thu, 2 Feb 89 06:50:53 -0800
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 06:50:53 -0800
From: Oren Patashnik <op@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902021450.AA24387@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
Newsgroups: csd.bboard
In-Reply-To: <$iDFE@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
In article <$iDFE@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write:
> . . . The newsgroups
>available on various networks are the computer analog of
>magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
>libraries.
I had trouble parsing this sentence, partly because a reader (me for
example) seeing `the computer analog of magazines and' might be
expecting something like `newspapers' to follow. Thus I think you
should rewrite it slightly, to be something like `the computer analog
of magazines, and constitute a partial prototype . . .'
Also, I'm pretty sure I already asked you to add my name to the
signature list, but if you haven't already, please do.
--Oren
∂02-Feb-89 0802 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Templeton's address
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Feb 89 08:02:19 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09374; Thu, 2 Feb 89 08:04:06 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 08:04:06 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902021604.AA09374@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Templeton's address
brad@looking.uu.net should work from SAIL. If not, either of
brad%looking.uucp@uunet.uu.net
brad%looking.uucp@relay.cs.net
∂02-Feb-89 0829 MPS Adms mtg
There is also an admissions committee at 12:00 in room 252.
Lunch will be served.
∂02-Feb-89 1157 MPS
Dr. Terrance Smith, Chair, UCSB called
805-961-8221
∂02-Feb-89 1158 MPS Academic Senate
Arthur Coladarci is the secretary. The next meeting
is at 3:15 on the 9th of February at Law 180.
∂02-Feb-89 1159 MPS
You can get a coach trip for 1291. It must be purchased
14 days in advance and is non-refundable.
You can also go on coach, no restrictions, for 1777, if
you want to pay the difference yourself.
∂02-Feb-89 1413 MPS phone call
Nick VanRyan, Toronto Star, would like you to call
416-369-0237
Call at 2:15
∂02-Feb-89 1414 MPS
He called at 2:15
∂02-Feb-89 1414 MPS PTO
The sheriff's department could not get my former
landlord served for the small claims I have against
him.
I will have to go the courthouse and change the date to
a later date. I will then have to take it to the sheriff's
office for serving. This time, I will have him served at
his place ot business, which I think will work.
I will be taking off from around 12:30 for the balance of the
day. If you have anything special you want me to do would
you please give it to me today or early tomorrow. Thanks
Pat
∂02-Feb-89 1510 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Petition
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Feb 89 15:09:53 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01203; Thu, 2 Feb 89 15:11:39 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 15:11:39 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902022311.AA01203@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Petition
This morning, I answered a call from Jack McCurdy, the higher
education reporter from the Chronicle. He wanted to know if the
petition has been submitted to Kennedy yet, and I told him it has
not.
∂02-Feb-89 1542 MPS Re: AI
∂02-Feb-89 1539 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu Re: AI
Received: from CAD.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Feb 89 15:38:54 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1989 14:32:39 EST
From: Rich Thomason <thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: Pat Simmons <MPS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: thomason
Subject: Re: AI
In-Reply-To: Your message of 02 Feb 89 1037 PST
Message-ID: <CMM.0.88.602451159.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
Pat,
Last I heard from John, he was going to think about rephrasing
a part of the paper where the exposition was tricky. I haven't seen
anything since then, about a week ago. We have been working by email
on drafts of this paper. A hard copy won't be of much use to me if that
is what you were thinking of since I'll have to adjust style parameters
to get camera ready copy.
--Rich Thomason
∂02-Feb-89 2202 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU [Douglas Jones <jones@herky.cs.uiowa.edu>: Dead Code Maintenance]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Feb 89 22:02:28 PST
Date: Thu 2 Feb 89 22:00:32-PST
From: Ramin Zabih <RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [Douglas Jones <jones@herky.cs.uiowa.edu>: Dead Code Maintenance]
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12467634274.10.RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I thought this story might amuse you.
---------------
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 13:04:56 CST
From: Douglas Jones <jones@herky.cs.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Dead Code Maintenance
One of the benefits I get from living in Iowa City is that many of my students
have worked for one or the other of the local divisions of Rockwell
International. One of them, who had worked for the Government Avionics
Division, on the Global Positioning System project related the following tale
to me:
Global Positioning System receivers are boxes that use information broadcast
by a system of satelites to deduce the latitude, longitude, and altitude of
the receiver. These boxes are built into a variety of weapons systems now
in use by the United States and its allies. The box contains a radio receiver
to listen to the satelites, and a fairly powerful computer to interpret the
radio signals.
The computers in the current production GPS receivers are programmed in Jovial,
although a new generation programmed in Ada will no doubt appear someday. My
student was part of one of the teams that maintained the GPS code. After
some time on the job, he began to realize that the code his team maintained
was never executed and had never been executed in the memory of any team
member. That is, an entire team of programmers was being paid to maintain
dead code. Despite the fact that the code was dead, the team was required to
produce the entire range of documents supporting each release of the code, and
they were required to react to various engineering change requests.
Not too surprisingly, my student became demoralized and left the company, but
not before learning enough to make the following hypothesis about how his
situation had come to be.
He guesses that, once upon a time, there was a prototype GPS system where his
module actually served some purpose and came to be executed from time to time.
The structure of this system was presumably used to define Rockwell's
contractual relationship to the Department of Defense, and as a result, his
module gained a legal standing that was quite independent of its function in
the GPS system.
As time passed, the actual calls to procedures in his module were eliminated
from the GPS system, for one reason or another, until the code was dead. At
first, nobody knew it was dead. The project was big enough that it wasn't
uncommon for the people working on one module to have at best infrequent
communication with those who called the procedures in the module, and
engineering change notices that required changes to the module kept everybody
busy.
Engineering change notices would not have arrived if the actual structure of
the program were used to determine who needed to participate in a change. In
fact, the notices were distributed based on many other criteria, including the
contractual descriptions of the modules. The team was quite busy keeping their
code up with the changes, testing changes using locally developed scaffolding,
and waiting for any report of failures from the global system tests.
The discovery that the code was dead appears to have resulted from its passing
global system tests even when it was obviously in error. Once my student found
that the code was dead, he asked his managers why his efforts were being
waisted on it. Their answer was that it was less expensive to maintain dead
code than it was to rewrite the contract with the Department of Defense to
eliminate the job.
Douglas W. Jones, Department of Computer Science, University of Iowa
-------
∂02-Feb-89 2225 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 2 February 1989
Previous Balance 24.60
Payment(s) 24.60 (check 1/10/89)
-------
Current Charges 4.00 (bicycle lockers)
0.30 (vending machine)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 4.30
PAYMENT DELIVERY LOCATION: CSD Receptionist.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
Please deliver payments to the Computer Science Dept receptionist, Jacks Hall.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your PONY ACCOUNT NAME on your check.
Note: The recording of a payment takes up to three weeks after the payment is
made, but never beyond the next billing date. Please allow for this delay.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.0% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
An account with a credit balance earns interest of .33% per month,
based on the average daily balance.
∂03-Feb-89 0010 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [xait!linus!watmath!looking!brad@harvard.harvard.edu (Brad Templeton): Re: su.etc at Stanford ]
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Feb 89 00:10:32 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04314; Fri, 3 Feb 89 00:12:21 PST
Message-Id: <8902030812.AA04314@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: [xait!linus!watmath!looking!brad@harvard.harvard.edu (Brad Templeton): Re: su.etc at Stanford ]
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 89 00:12:19 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Here is a message that Templeton sent me today. I'm not actually sure
what "feature article" he is talking about.
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <xait!linus!watmath!looking!brad@harvard.harvard.edu>
Received: from HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03638; Thu, 2 Feb 89 21:41:10 PST
Received: by harvard.harvard.edu; Fri, 3 Feb 89 00:39:46 EST
Received: by linus.MITRE.ORG (5.59/RCF-3S)
id AA15297; Fri, 3 Feb 89 00:14:23 EST
Posted-Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 13:20:43 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Thu, 2 Feb 89 13:36:06 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA26675; 2 Feb 89 13:20:44 EST (Thu)
To: watmath!linus!xait!harvard!GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU!weening@harvard.harvard.edu (Joe Weening)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 13:20:43 EST
Subject: Re: su.etc at Stanford
In-Reply-To: Message from "Joe Weening" of Feb 01, 89 at 10:25 am
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902021320.AA26675@looking.UUCP>
From: xait!linus!watmath!looking!brad@harvard.harvard.edu (Brad Templeton)
Feature article??? Joe, this is not what we want. You've seen what the
press did on the first round. You might get them to correct that, but
there will be new mistakes 'a plenty in anything new they write.
It may sound fine to you, but from now on if anybody does a database search
on me in bay area papers, all they will find out is that I was somehow
involved in some sort of computer racism. Wonderful. This is my life
and reputation in the outside world at risk, Joe. Don't trust the press.
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂03-Feb-89 0813 beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU Mr. P and Ms. S
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Feb 89 08:13:28 PST
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.61/1.34)
id AA08372; Fri, 3 Feb 89 06:15:47 -0800
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 06:15:47 -0800
From: beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8902031415.AA08372@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Mr. P and Ms. S
There has been a flurry of interest at UCSC in Mr. P and Ms. S.
Enough people mentioned it to me that I wrote a short Prolog program to
solve it for them (they tried to solve it in C and one actually did solve
it with a mix of unix utilities). But that got me thinking--the really
interesting part of course is the part I did in my head, translating
"I knew you didn't know" into number theory. Please tell or send me
everything you know about formalizing that part of the problem in
logic with some axioms about "know" that would permit Ms. S and Mr. P to
reasonably simulate each other's thought processes.
∂03-Feb-89 0814 op@polya.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Feb 89 08:14:24 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA21344; Fri, 3 Feb 89 06:10:55 -0800
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1989 6:10:54 PST
From: Oren Patashnik <op@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: rec.humor.funny
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.602518254.op@polya.stanford.edu>
I missed you yesterday, and I'll try to catch you late morning/early
afternoon today (Friday), but in case I miss:
(1) I called Mary Madison yesterday morning to tell her that very few
of the jokes in humor.rec.funny actually relied on ethnic/etc.
stereotypes. She seemed somewhat appreciative.
(2) For the record: I'm Jewish and I found the Jew/Scotsman joke
slightly offensive and somewhat amusing (if it were a little funnier I
would probably retell it to selected friends). But I think the
offensiveness of the joke is insignificant compared with the censorship.
(3) I'm thinking of calling People For the American Way, since they're
into anti-censorship, to see what they think. Would you be interested
in getting involved with them?
--Oren
∂03-Feb-89 0813 S.STREET@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Telephone Messages
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Feb 89 08:13:27 PST
Date: Fri 3 Feb 89 07:54:39-PST
From: Robert Street <S.STREET@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Telephone Messages
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <$jtc7@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12467742430.75.S.STREET@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
John,
We seem to have mutually exclusive schedules. I'll be in DC all of next
week. So lets aim for a phone call, say between 3 and 5 on Sunday? At what
number can I call you?
Bob*
-------
∂03-Feb-89 0839 MPS telex
Stoypin sent the following telex. Institute of Philosophy invites you
both to Moscow for 2 week visit in March-April 1989. Soviet side will
pay your accommodations in USSR. Letter follows.
∂03-Feb-89 1023 winograd@loire.stanford.edu John McCarthy discussion for Monday
Received: from loire.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Feb 89 10:23:43 PST
Received: by loire.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA09999; Fri, 3 Feb 89 10:16:42 PDT
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 10:16:42 PDT
Message-Id: <8902031816.AA09999@loire.stanford.edu>
From: Terry Winograd <Winograd@csli.stanford.edu>
To: ethlist@loire.stanford.edu, jmc@sail
Subject: John McCarthy discussion for Monday
Next Monday John McCarthy has agreed to come talk with our seminar. He
was also kind enough to have become embroiled in a novel and quite
vociferously debated computer ethics issue that could serve to focus
part of the discussion. The following materials put together by Liam
Peyton describe the issue. There were stories in the Daily (and
perhaps other press media) which I don't have copies of. If anyone
does, please bring them along and we can make copies.
I don't want to get into a debate about whether a particular joke is
"racist" or whether the Stanford administration behaves
democratically. The interesting question from the standpoint of the
course is whether computer technology has created new possibilities and
issues related to "publication", "freedom of speech", and the like, and
how they relate to traditional concerns in those areas. We might ask,
for example, what would be different in this case if material considered offensive
by some members of the community were distributed by other means:
shelved in the library stacks;
placed on public display in a library reading area;
published in a campus newspaper;
placed on bulletin boards in each building;
left out on tables in public areas;
etc.
--t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Materials: 1. Letter which banned newsgroup
2. Background on incident
3. JMCs petition
4. Message from the moderator of newsgroup
5. Analysis of the cost of providing newsgroup
6. Small comment by Liam
1. Letter Which Banned Rec.Humour.Funny
[The following message is being distributed to rec.humor.funny only at
Stanford University. It contains a message from the directors of
Information Resources, announcing the policy with regard to this
newsgroup. Please do not send followup messages to rec.humor.funny;
any discussion of this policy should take place on su.etc.
-- Dan Kolkowitz & Joe Weening]
To the Stanford community,
In Information Resources, we have been confronted with the existence
of a Usenet (Unix users') bulletin board, rec.humor.funny, that
contains jokes including, among others, jokes based on racial, ethnic,
sexual, religious, and other stereotypes. Jokes based on such
stereotypes perpetuate racism, sexism, and intolerance; they undermine
an important University purpose: our collective search for a better
way, for a truly pluralistic community in which every person is
acknowledged an individual, not a caricature.
We have weighed our love of freedom of expression and the free
exchange of ideas in contrast to our respect for the dignity and
rights of every individual. In this situation we find: this bulletin
board does not serve a University educational purpose; its content is
offensive; it does not, in itself, provide a forum for the examination
and discussion of intolerance, an exchange of views, or the expression
of views of the members of the University community.
Stanford University has no commitment to maintain our computing
facilities as a generalized forum for outsiders' indiscriminate
purposes. We are sensitive to the pain caused by racial, religious,
and sexual affronts. For these reasons, we have decided not to have
that bulletin board file on the computers operated by Information
Resources.
We endorse the continued use of our local, unmoderated computer
bulletin boards by members of the University community for the
discussion of ideas, including those that are unpopular. In such a
forum, ideas are subject to the thoughtful judgement of others.
Ralph Gorin, Director John Sack, Director
Academic Information Resources Stanford Data Center
2. Background on Rec.Humour.Funny [by John McCarthy]
Brad Templeton, who runs a small company in Waterloo, Canada
has operated as a hobby a moderated newsgroup for jokes called
rec.humor.funny. Templeton selects jokes for humorousness and
explicitly abjures ``political correctness'' as a criterion.
Jokes that might be considered offensiveness are encrypted in
the C13 cipher, i.e. letters are displaced by 13 in the alphabet.
If a joke is classified as potentially offensive, the reader
can skip it without decrypting it. Templeton also maintains the
newsgroup rec.humor.d that anyone can use to comment on his selection
policy.
Templeton was attacked by an M.I.T graduate student in civil
engineering. The attack first appeared in some other newsgroups,
and later in the newspapers in Waterloo. The attack was triggered
by the following joke.
A Jew and a Scotsman had dinner in a restaurant. At the end, the
Scotsman was heard to say, ``I'll pay''. The next day there was
a newspaper headline, ``Jewish ventriloquist murdered''.
No Jew to whom I have told this joke was offended, but I haven't
had a chance to try Scots.
According to Templeton, this is a joke he would normally encrypt,
but he forgot that time. His apology for this didn't satisfy his
critic(s).
The upshot in Waterloo was that he no longer distributes rec.humor.funny
through the University of Waterloo computer and the University only
receives G-rated jokes.
THE STANFORD FLAP
Early in December, a programmer at SDC pointed out the
controversy to John Sacks, apparently just as an item of gossip,
making no suggestion that Stanford do anything to prevent Stanford
people from reading rec.humor.funny.
However, the matter gurgled through the Stanford computer
bureaucracy, the upper reaches of the Stanford Administration and
Stanford legal counsel. The matter was kept confidential among
these officials for no reason that was ever made explicit. Perhaps
it was just habit. After a month and a half, Ralph Gorin, head
of AIR and John Sack, head of SDC, jointly announced that rec.humor.
funny was to be purged from the computers under their control.
Here are some related facts.
1. There are many computers not under their control including
those operated by various research groups in the Engineering School,
the Computer Science Department and the Center for Studies in Language
and Information and the Music Department. None of these other
organizations have taken any action or seem inclined to do so as yet.
rec.humor.funny has been added to the gang-of-four computer operated
by the Qlisp research project.
2. This bit of censorship is a random thrust in the dark.
A few number of other newsgroups are in far worse taste than
rec.humor.funny ever is.
3. The effort to remove rec.humor.funny has taken several
man days of programmer time by people who have no personal taste
for this particular job. It may not have been entirely successful
for technical reasons. The costs are in purging the library---not in
maintaining it.
4. Stanford has a legal right to do what its administration
pleases, just as it has a legal right to purge the library or
fire tenured faculty for their opinions.
OPINION
Newsgroups are a new communication medium just as printed
books were in the 15th century. I believe they are one step
towards universal access through everyone's computer terminal to
the whole of world literature. AIR and SDC setting up an index
of prohibited newsgroups is in the same tradition as the Pope's
15th century Index Liber Prohibitorum.
Stanford should consider the newsgroups received by its
various computers as analogous to books and magazines in its
library. Costs require a library to be selective in the books
and magazines in its library. Costs don't seem to be a factor
here as long as there are a mere 500 newsgroups.
Stanford should maintain the part of the tradition of academic
freedom in case of newsgroups.
Should Stanford not persist in its foolish decision and even
attempt to enforce it Campus wide, it will acquire somewhat of
a reputation as a boobocracy, but doubtless it will survive this.
One might regard this as another sign of a more general
censorious trend, but maybe it won't get worse.
3. Petition to Protest AIR Decision
The following statement has about 50 "signatures". To sign
mail to jmc@gang-of-four. To comment mail to jmc@sail.
About Monday Feb 6 it will go to whoever admits having
authority in the matter, e.g. Ralph Gorin, Robert Street
and/or Donald Kennedy.
%Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny.
4. Comment fron newsgroup Moderator
>From: brad%looking.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Brad Templeton)
Subject: A major point on rec.humor.funny (From the horse's mouth)
Message-ID: <8902020313.AA22804@looking.UUCP>
Date: 1 Feb 89 06:44:25 GMT
Sender: daemon@labrea.Stanford.EDU
Distribution: su
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 61
I want to thank all you people for being so fervent in my defence,
although as you can see from lines like "several thousands of racist
jokes," going to the press rarely does what you think it will.
I really feel that much of the protest misses the point. Rec.humor.funny
isn't in any way racist or sexist or *-ist. The number of
jokes that use sterotypes is very small -- less than 6%.
(Read the jokes policy for full details.)
While it's true that even if there were a newsgroup just for racism, it
would still deserve the same freedom of expression that all speech
should be guaranteed, the situation is far more troublesome with
Stanford's ban of rec.humor.funny.
The tiny volume of material that is in question is there not because I
approve of its politics, but because of my devotion to free speech. If it
were a 100% racist group, Stanford could claim it is banning racism.
Stanford can't claim this. Stanford is banning my policy of free speech.
The postings to rec.humor.funny come from the computer/academic community,
and reflect what is there. I write almost none of them. You would not trust
a letters to the editor page where they only printed letters that the paper
agreed with. A good letters editor picks letters on how interesting they
will be to the readers, not on what they say.
The analogy of the library is not quite correct. Banning rec.humor.funny
is not like banning an objectionable book from the library. It is like
closing down the whole library because the librarians are willing to
stock books some find objectionable. It's like closing down the library
and using the excuse that it can't be tolerated because the librarians
don't allow people to talk out loud while in the stacks, but rather request
the discussion take place in the designated "rec.humor.d" room.
What the University of Waterloo did -- asking only for clean jokes --
that's the same as removing the books from the library but keeping the
library open. UW did this under tremendous pressure from newspaper
reporters who were out to make a cause celebre out of the University's
involvement. I wish I knew Stanford's reason.
I have been told that Mr. Gorin isn't really the author of this
decision, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. If the real
author of this decision is out there, please ask yourself why
effectively *nobody* who actually reads the group thinks there is
racism there. It's not because they're all closet racists. It would
not be the most popular group on USENET if that were the case.
Fact is, if somebody has decided they want to supress a certain type of
speech, they will do it. It's not the sort of decision that comes
easily to many people, and while I may not agree with it, every private
institution has the right to make such a decision. Nonetheless, I
think that Stanfordshould definitely be certain that what they're
banning actually *is* racism, or Stanford will look bad not only to the
free-speech advocates, butto the anti-racists (like me) as well.
And anybody who wants to libel me by calling me or my newsgroup racist
had better be very, very certain they know what they're saying.
This statement is meant for Stanford internal use only on su.etc.
Anybody who thinks they can quote from it outside su.etc should first
take some lessons on how easy it is to forge usenet messages, and how
impossible it is to actually prove anybody is truly the author of
something on USENET.
5. Cost of Maintaining Newsgroup [by ?]
My staff "implemented" the RHF cutoff for the Data Center's machines.
I conservatively estimate that RHF, with our expiration schedule,
occupies at most 400Kbytes of disk space on a news server. At
prevailing disk prices, the disk capital cost for this space is about
$20. Amortized over four years, with interest, the total "marginal"
cost for a newsgroup like RHF is probably in the $7-$10 range,
including an allocation of power, cooling, floor space, etc. (I'm not
sure that such a marginal cost analysis is entirely meaningful, but I
also can't think of a more meaningful model).
6. Comment [by Liam Peyton]
Only one person campaigned to remove Rec.humour.funny. No complaint
was ever made to Stanford University. No one consulted the user
community. Yet, the ensuing discussion from all across the continent
was easily (mere seconds) accessed (read and write) from my desk.
∂03-Feb-89 1221 MPS
Matt at the bank called Carolyn. He would like a call.
Will she be home in time to call him? His number
is 859-1225
∂03-Feb-89 1640 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
A MINIMAL MODEL SEMANTICS WITH DEFAULT PRIORITIES
Paul Morris
IntelliCorp
Monday, February 6, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Existing default reasoning systems may be divided into minimality based
formalisms, such as circumscription, and those that depend on a fixed
point construction, like default logic. The fixed point schemes have
appeared to possess an advantage in allowing implicit specification of
arbitrary priorities among defaults. However, they also have
disadvantages, including a lack of cumulativity, and difficulty in
properly representing some situations where a mere possibility of some
contingency is sufficient to overcome a default.
We present a model minimization scheme that supports implicit
specification of priorities among defaults. The system enjoys
cumulativity (like other model preference systems), and gives more
satisfactory results in situations where a possibility overcomes a
default.
∂03-Feb-89 1804 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU "left wing" purges of libraries.
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Feb 89 18:04:54 PST
Date: Fri 3 Feb 89 18:04:45-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: "left wing" purges of libraries.
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: 89.ahmad@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12467853495.6.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
In pursuance of our previous correspondence, this is just to remind
you (gently) that I am awaiting the evidence (i.e. published citations)
that shows a huge preponderance of these purges of libraries.
As I mentioned, I am engaged in a debate on this topic, and the information
I requested will be tremendously valuable. I appreciate your help, as
promised.
-------
∂03-Feb-89 2347 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Admissions folders
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Feb 89 23:47:02 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02726; Fri, 3 Feb 89 23:48:46 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 23:48:46 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902040748.AA02726@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Admissions folders
I just remembered that Pat asked me to pick up some admissions folders
for you from Sharon Hemenway's office between 4:00 and 4:30 today.
Sorry for forgetting this; I hope there is some way for you to get
them over the weekend.
∂04-Feb-89 0046 Mailer re: capital punishment
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Feb 89 00:46:42 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Sat, 4 Feb 89 00:45:03 PST
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 00:45:03 PST
From: singh@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Harinder J. Singh)
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: singh@glacier.stanford.edu, su-etc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: re: capital punishment
In-Reply-To: Your message of 03 Feb 89 1824 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.602585102.singh@>
[In reply to message from jmc@sail.stanford.edu sent 3 Feb 89 1824
PST]
WHY NOT?
Golleeee, Perfesser, not at a loss for words, are you?
``Rather awkward, James, that the tables were turned.
Most unsportsmanlike, what?? (...sniff, sniff...)''
∂04-Feb-89 0734 op@polya.Stanford.EDU re: rec.humor.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Feb 89 07:34:08 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA09549; Sat, 4 Feb 89 07:33:04 -0800
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1989 7:33:03 PST
From: Oren Patashnik <op@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: rec.humor.funny
In-Reply-To: Your message of 03 Feb 89 0830 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.602609583.op@polya.stanford.edu>
> I don't have certified liberal credentials - quite the reverse.
I know. But, despite its preponderance of liberals, People For claims
to be bipartisan. John Buchanan, its chairman, is a Republican minister
from Alabama, who served in the House for about 20 years; he was a Bush
delegate in 1980.
> However,
> if you establish some preliminary interest in People for the American
> Way, I would be glad to overcome my prejudices and co-operate with
> them on this issue.
Yesterday I called them and they said they prefer to have local people
(us) do their own work, since bringing in an outside group produces
unnecessary antagonism. But I'm sending them news clippings and
excerpts from su.etc, and they said if things don't work out
satisfactorily they'd evaluate the situation to see if they wanted to
get involved (most of their school censorship deals with elementary
and secondary schools, but they do occasionally do college stuff).
I'll let you know if I hear anything more from them.
--Oren
∂04-Feb-89 0940 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Censorship battle
Received: from glacier.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Feb 89 09:40:16 PST
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu; Sat, 4 Feb 89 09:38:50 PST
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 09:38:50 PST
From: John B. Nagle <jbn@glacier.stanford.edu>
Subject: Censorship battle
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
You are going to win this, and for a very simple reason. The
administration has discovered that they don't have the power to stop
distribution of news through the computer networks. There are now so
many computers interconnected in so many ways, especially around a
place like Stanford, that no authority without police powers well beyond
U.S. standards can do very much to stop information transfer amongst
mutually interested parties. Because of this fact, the University
administration will ultimately back down rather than admit their
powerlessness in the matter.
This just might be a watershed event in the history of censorship.
It would be an interesting paper topic for someone in the social
sciences.
There's another impication of this episode that hasn't been
mentioned, and that it might be preferable not to bring up until the censorship
issue is resolved, to avoid clouding the issue in the mass media.
It's the fact that the AIR staff has had a very difficult time shutting
down the news flow. The news propagation mechanism is so robust that
the system itself resists censorship with some success. This is a
consequence of the fact that the distribution mechanism is "infectious".
As you know, the basic USENET mechanism is such that when two sites connect,
all news articles known to one site but not the other are transmitted
in the appropriate direction. Since connection is typically by automatic
telephone dialing, many sites have redundant connections. Within
Stanford, internal networks tend to be used as the data paths, but
this is unusual for USENET as a whole, and nothing prohibits Stanford
machines from dialing other local machines and obtaining news, despite
any censorship at some "gateway".
This mechanism is similar enough to "worm" and "virus" propagation
that if the mass media gets hold of this information the result would
probably be some very confusing articles. However, should you wish to
publicize this fact, you might be able to hold a reporter's attention
long enough for them to get it right. At some juncture, this might
be useful.
John Nagle
∂04-Feb-89 1410 CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Feb 89 14:10:53 PST
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 14:09:54 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Arthur P Coladarci" <CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks for your note about rec.humor.funny. If the
Steering Committee of the Senate puts the matter on
the Senate Agenda, I will voice your wish to partici-
pate in the discussion. Written matter is welcome
any time by the Steering Committee. Why not send it
along? That group meets a week from Thursday--and
every two weeks thereafter. I will distribute any
material you wish.
∂05-Feb-89 0054 VAL re: lunch Monday
[In reply to message rcvd 04-Feb-89 12:37-PT.]
Fine.
∂05-Feb-89 1052 harnad@Princeton.EDU Categorization Update
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Feb 89 10:49:36 PST
Received: from dictus.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/2.4)
id AA01263; Sun, 5 Feb 89 13:38:59 EST
Received: by dictus.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.68)
id AA01452; Sun, 5 Feb 89 13:37:43 EST
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 89 13:37:43 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8902051837.AA01452@dictus.Princeton.EDU>
To: srh@flash.bellcore.com
Subject: Categorization Update
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) of University of Hawaii closed with:
" Now, I know that you don't *intend* to be proposing a theory of
" meaning. And if there is really any difference between the problem of
" categorization and the problem of reference, then perhaps you're
" not... I think that the strategy of converting some sophisticated
" varieties of philosophical empiricism into a psychological theory is an
" interesting and plausible move to make, whether or not that is exactly
" what you're doing. Just as converting ordinary language philosophy into
" linguistic theory has been a rewarding endeavor for linguists.
" Thanks for your detailed and very informative discussion.
" Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
________________
From harnad Wed Jan 25 23:44:58 1989
To: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Subject: Off the Record
Greg,
Thanks for your courteous final posting. Actually, I DO believe that a
theory of categorization will turn out to be the best we can hope for
by way of a theory of meaning. What it misses, I am resigned to
missing -- for the same reason I am resigned to being a "methodological
epiphenomenalist": I don't expect a theory of categorization to
demonstrably capture intentionality, what makes this message something
more than a series of squiggle-squoggles to me, what it's "like" to
mean... But I do expect it to capture all the rest, namely, how any
device could manage to use these symbols coherently, both in stringing
them out to you, and in applying them to objects and states of affairs
in the world. Yet it's important that I not propose it as a theory of
meaning, because that throws it open to pre-emptive objections that
hinge mainly on these subjective aspects of meaning that I don't think
there's any way to demonstrate one has captured.
It's not a strategic trick or a play on words: It's just calling a spade a
spade (rather than, say, my return ticket to the ideal Rousseauvian
state...).
Stevan
_______________
CATEGORIZATION IS NEITHER A LINGUISTIC NOR AN ONTOLOGICAL PROBLEM
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) of Boeing Computer Services AI
Center, Seattle wrote:
" Linguists have long been aware of the problems with all-or-none
" categories. Stevan... simply defines the word 'categorization' to suit
" his all-or-none criterion, without any regard for the way humans
" actually assign categories. But consider the classic examples of
" 'semantic vagueness'. We have the mental illusion that mountains and
" waves are discrete objects. Questions like 'How many mountains are
" there in the Cascades?' or 'How many waves are there in the ocean?' are
" semantically well-formed, but impossible to answer from a conceptual
" point of view. There are no natural discrete boundaries to these
" categories, such that you can always tell where one mountain or wave
" leaves off and another begins.
The problem of how we categorize (i.e., sort and label objects
and states of affairs) is basically not a linguistic one, though it of
course makes contact with linguistics at some level (because the
category labels form our lexicon, and language allows us not only to
label categories, but to describe them). For example, how we manage to
sort and label mountains and waves is basically a perceptual problem:
What are the internal representations that allow us to categorize
members and nonmembers of these categories successfully, in those many
cases in which we are able to do so? It is those who ignore (or take
for granted) this enormous core of reliable, correct, all-or-none
categorization performance who are not showing due "regard for the way
humans actually assign categories." The solution to the problem of HOW
people manage to sort and label things as they actually do will not
come from linguistics, it will come from a theory of perceptual and
cognitive representation.
Nor will how we categorize in most cases be determined from our
introspective discourse about how we categorize, any more than how we
perceive will be determined from our introspections about our
perception. The explanation will come from theoretical inference and
the building and testing of causal models for the underlying
mechanism.
I also remind the reader that the question to which these discussions
were addressed was whether or not the representations that allow us to
categorize are "classical," i.e., consist of features that are
necessary and sufficient to sort members from nonmembers, NOT whether
or not we can sort EVERY instance of ANYTHING we ever encounter in an
all-or-none fashion. The question under discussion is simply moot for
cases in which we CANNOT sort members from nonmembers (e.g., "vague"
cases). Note that this point is a logical, not an empirical one;
its only empirical aspect is the evidence (and it's all over the map --
unless you're in the grip of an introspective theory) that there do
indeed exist myriad categories that we can and do sort and label in a
reliable, correct, all-or-none fashion.
" A child might use the word 'doggie' on different occasions to refer to
" four-legged things, furry things (e.g. a blanket), things that move,
" etc. Overextensions and underextensions seem to involve a fine-tuning
" of categorization that looks more like the so-called 'classical' type.
Indeed it does -- and the process leads ultimately to our asymptotic
core of perfectly "classical" categories. My only quarrel with this
terminology has been that to call this "overextension" and
"underextension" is to adopt too omniscient or ontological a view.
According to my theory, ALL categories are provisional and approximate,
including our adult ones. Their context of interconfusable alternatives
could always in principle be widened so as to show up our former
representations as having been over- or underextended (based on
hindsight). At a given point in its experience a child's category may
accordingly NOT be over- or underextended relative to the actual sample
of alternatives he has so far encountered and the feedback he has so
far received from the consequences of miscategorization; the
over/underextension may only be relative to OUR categories and their
larger and more representative contexts. Subsequent experience may
force the child to revise his categories and eventually converge on
ours, but that does not necessarily mean they are over- underextended
at THIS point.
Sometimes we expect too much from children and other category learners
on the basis of the data available to them; for similar reasons we
sometimes also attribute too much to them (as in the chimpanzee
"language" studies). It is only by taking account of the categorizer's
actual sorting performance in its actual context of confusable
alternatives that one can infer a category's actual extension and
intension, and hence its underlying representation. (On the other hand,
over- and underextension CAN be be defined during this actual learning
phase WITHIN the child's actual local context of alternatives, while
miscategorization with feedback is going on; this, however, is probably
more perspicuously described as the formation or revision of the
child's own provisional categories, guided by the consequences of
miscategorization, rather than as the "fine-tuning" of OUR categories.)
Stevan Harnad
-------------
Todd Gross (tag@jimi.CS.UNLV.EDU) of University of Nevada, Las Vegas
wrote:
" This is the hall of mirrors: harmful effects of miscategorization can
" depend on any of a chain of actors. The connection between
" objective/arbitrary and consequential/inconsequential is appearing less
" concrete. The symbol grounding, as it were, would appear to have
" several quagmires.
There's no hall of mirrors, and it's all quite simple: It doesn't
matter how long the "chain of actors" may be, the only question is
whether there are objective consequences OUT THERE if I miscategorize.
Nor does it matter if the consequences are physical, biological or
social. They just have to be objective and out there. If there are NO
consequences out there that arise from miscategorization, then (take
your choice which you call it, I don't mind) you are either dealing
with an arbitrary category (in the second sense discussed, i.e., a
subjective "category") or with no category at all.
Example: If I play the numbers according to how the spirit moves me, and
I use the spirit to tell me which is a "good" number, then my
"category" of "good" numbers is probably arbitrary. It may still not
be; I may, unbeknownst to me, be picking only prime numbers as "good";
and, more improbably, there might be a glitch in the lottery machine
that actually makes it favor prime numbers. If any of this is true,
then the category is not arbitrary. If not, though, then it is.
On the other hand, I may be an important man in the neighborhood; what
I think may count. So if I say a number is "good," people may use that
cue for other purposes. Suppose they use it, not for the lottery, but
to buy stock according to a complicated numerological formula that
picks out the stock as a function of my number. Then everybody buys it;
and my cult is big. So the massive buying drives the stock up. Analysts
notice a correlation: The "good-number" stocks rise. So for everyone
else but me, there's really a "good" category out there: "The good
numbers are the ones HE [i.e., me] picked." That feature doesn't pick
out anything out there for me, though, because ANY arbitrary number I
pick will be "good."
The distinction is important. This is not just subjective quibbling
over what to call a "category" and what to call "arbitrary." At the
heart of this discussion is the question of how categories need to be
represented internally so as to generate our performance -- both in
categorizing objects and in using the names of categories to talk about
categories. For the nature of this internal mechanism it is critical
whether the task is an objective one (with a right and wrong of the
matter, and feedback from the consequences of getting it right or
wrong) or merely a subjective one (in which anything goes). The former
kind of representation is obviously much more highly constrained than
the latter, and it is the one that is responsible for the core of our
categorization performance. The latter kind of representation is
probably much more involved in relative similarity judgments and tasks
than in absolute categorical judgments and tasks.
Does all this now make the point clear? If not, you might consider
Wittgenstein's argument about why there could not be a private
language. The basic point is the same. (He just went astray on some later
points...)
Stevan Harnad
--------------
FEATURE DETECTION, SYMBOLIC RULES AND CONNECTIONISM
I am redirecting to connectionists a segment of an ongoing discussion
of categorization on comp.ai that seems to have taken a connectionistic
turn. I think it will all be understandable from context. The issue
concerns whether category representations are "nonclassical" (i.e.,
with membership a matter of degree, and no features that provide
necessary and sufficient conditions for assigning membership) or
"classical" (i.e., with all-or-none membership, assigned on the basis
of features that do provide necessary and sufficient conditions).
I am arguing against the former and for the latter. Connectionism seems
to have slipped in as a way of having features yet not-having them too,
so to speak, and the discussion has touched base with the familiar
question of whether or not connectionist representations are really
representational or ruleful:
anwst@cisunx.UUCP (Anders N. Weinstein) of Univ. of Pittsburgh,
Comp & Info Sys wrote:
" [We must distinguish] the normative question of which things are
" *correctly* classified as birds or even numbers, and the descriptive
" question of how in fact our neural machinery functions to enable us to
" so classify things. I agree also with Harnad that psychology ought to
" keep its focus on the latter and not the former of these questions.
A kind of "correctness" factor does figure in the second question too:
To model how people categorize things we have to have data on what
inputs they categorize as members of what categories, according to what
constraints on MIScategorization. However, it's certainly not an
ontological correctness that's at issue, i.e., we're not concerned with
what the things people categorize really ARE "sub specie
aeternitatis": We're just concerned with what people get provisionally
right and wrong, under the constraints of the sample they've
encountered so far and the feedback they've so far received from the
consequences of miscategorization.
" I think Harnad errs... that reliable categorization *must* be
" interestingly describable as application of some (perhaps complex) rule
" in "featurese" (for some appropriate set of detectable features)...
" Limiting ourselves (as I think we must) to quick and automatic
" observational classification... If... the effects of context on such tasks
" are minimal... there must be within us some isolable module which can
" take sensory input and produce a one bit yes-or-no output for category
" membership... But how does it follow that such a device must be
" describable as applying some *rule*? Any physical object in the world
" could be treated as a recognition device for something by interpreting
" some of its states as "inputs" and some as "yes-or-no responses." But
" intuitively, it looks like not every such machine is usefully described
" as applying a rule in this way. In particular, this certainly doesn't
" seem a natural way of describing connectionist pattern recognizers. So
" why couldn't it turn out that there is just no simpler description of
" the "rule" for certain category membership than: whatever a machine of
" a certain type recognizes?
For the points I have been trying to make it does not matter whether or
not the internal basis for a machine's feature-detecting and
categorizing success is described by us as a "rule" (though I suspect
it can always be described that way). It does not even matter whether
or not the internal basis consists of an explicit representation of a
symbolic rule that is actually "applied" (in fact, according to my
theory, such symbolic representations of categories would first have to
be grounded in prior nonsymbolic representations). A connectionist
feature-detector would be perfectly fine with me; I even suggest in my
book that that would be a natural (and circumscribed) role for a
connectionist module to play in a category representation system (if it
can actually deliver the goods).
To rehabilitate the "classical" view I've been trying to rescue from
well over a decade of red herrings and incoherent criticism all I need
to re-establish is that where there is reliable, correct, all-or-none
categorization performance, there must surely exist detectable features
in the input that are actually detected by the categorizing device as a
("necessary and sufficient") basis for its successful categorization
performance. I think this should be self-evident to anyone who is
mindful of the obvious facts about our categorization performance
capacity and is not in the grip of a California theory (and does not
believe in magic).
The so-called "classical" view is only that features must EXIST in the
inputs that we are manifestly able to sort and label, and that these
features are actually DETECTED and USED to generate our successful
performance. The classical view is not committed to internal
representations of rules symbolically describing the features in
"featurese" or operating on symbolic descriptions of features. That's
another issue. (According to my own theory, symbolic "featurese"
itself, like all abstract category labels in the "language of thought,"
must first be grounded in nonsymbolic, sensory categories and their
nonsymbolic, sensory features.)
[By the way, I don't think there's really a problem with sorting out
which devices are actually categorizing and which ones aren't. Do you,
really? That sounds like a philosopher's problem only. (If what you're
worried about is whether the categorizer really has a mind, then apply
my Total Turing Test -- require it to have ALL of our robotic and
linguistic capacities.) Nor does "whatever a machine of a certain type
recognizes" sound like a satisfactory answer to the "question of how in
fact our neural machinery functions to enable us to so classify
things." You have to say what features it detects, and HOW.]
[Related to the last point, Greg Lee (lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu),
University of Hawaii, had added, concerning connectionist
feature-detectors: "If you don't understand how the machine works, how
can you give a rule?" I agree that the actual workings of connectionist
black boxes need more analysis, but to a first approximation the answer
to the question of how they work (if and when they work) is: "they
learn features by sampling inputs, with feedback about
miscategorization, `using' back-prop and the delta rule." And
that's certainly a lot better than nothing. A fuller analysis would
require specifying what features they're detecting, and how they
arrived at them on the available data, as constrained by back-prop and
the delta rule. There's no need whatsoever for any rules to be
explicitly "represented" in order to account fully for their success,
however. -- In any case, connectionist black boxes apparently do not
settle the classical/nonclassical matter one way or the other, as
evidenced by the fact that there seems to be ample room for them in
both nonclassical approaches (e.g., Lakoff's) and classical ones
(e.g., mine).]
I also see no reason to limit our discussion to "quick, automatic,
observational" categorization; it applies just as much to slow
perceptual pattern learning and, with proper grounding, to abstract,
nonperceptual categorization too (although here is where explicitly
represented symbolic rules [in "featurese"?] do play more of a role,
according to my grounding theory). And I think context effects are
rarely "minimal": All categorization is provisional and approximate,
dependent on the context of confusable alternatives so far sampled, and
the consequences (so far) of miscategorizing them.
Stevan Harnad harnad@confidence.princeton.edu harnad@pucc.bitnet
--------------
ON DISCUSSING CATEGORIZATION -- AND ON NET DISCUSSIONS IN GENERAL
On Psychnet, George Lakoff (lakoff@cogsci.berkeley.edu) wrote:
" I think a well-informed discussion of contemporary [categorization]
" research could be interesting and useful. The discussion that began in
" comp.ai was started by some folks who had read my book and wanted to
" discuss the results surveyed there. Unfortunately, the discussion was
" soon joined by others who had neither read my book nor any of the
" relevant post-Roschian literature... The resulting discussion was not
" at all fruitful...
"
" [Harnad] has suggested discussing "Rosch's Approach to Categorization."
" But it has been ten years since Rosch gave up all claims that her
" results constituted any theory of mental representation for categories.
" Her experiments produced vital (and earthshaking) data, but it has been
" more than a decade since she has had an "approach to categorization"...
"
" Is there any interest in (1), say starting with the work surveyed in
" Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, and going on from there?
The discussion indeed began with Lakoff's book. But apart from that --
plus the part about Rosch's recanting and the idea (mine) that a
discussion of categorization would be useful -- I'm afraid I can't
agree with the rest of what Lakoff says here, or in the longer posting
from which this is excerpted. Lakoff apparently has a book on
categorization (which I have not read), and he does not feel that a
discussion of categorization that fails to begin and end with his book
can be fruitful. I too have a book on categorization (which Lakoff has
not read), but I feel that a perfectly fruitful discussion is possible
with otherwise competent and informed interlocutors who have not read
my book, with me supplying any requisite material for the discussion
on-line (and vice versa) if necessary, rather than assigning chapter
and verse as a prerequisite to any discussion.
My own reading of the comp.ai discussion so far (most of which I have
archived, if anyone wants to see it) is that it began with Lakoff's
book and then gradually shifted (as such Net discussions often do) in
several directions, among them one which caught my interest, because
I had already been thinking about it for quite a while, namely, whether
or not disjunctive categories are "classical." The title for the
discussion soon dropped Lakoff's name (as likewise often happens in Net
discussions as the topic evolves) and became just "Categorization,"
while its focus became certain important logical and methodological
features of categorization research. Although most of the postings
expressed disagreement with me (and with one another) on a variety of
points (as again often happens in these discussions), I nevertheless
found the discussions useful. I tried to present and support a coherent
position; it is left to those who read the postings to judge who made
the most sense.
As to Rosch: She may have recanted, but the influence of her original
(and in my view wrong-headed) ideas persists in the work of her
successors in the so-called "nonclassical" approach to categorization.
And it is that approach, and its logical and methodological basis, that
I am criticizing (and offering an alternative to) in my own ongoing
contributions to this discussion.
Let me also try to put this discussion in a more general context:
I happen to be very excited and optimistic about the great potential of
this remarkable (and relatively unexplored) new form of intellectual
communication, which I've dubbed "Scholarly Skywriting." I believe that
this new medium represents as radical and powerful an innovation in our
means of communicating and advancing ideas as did the advent of writing
and of printing. I have launched several discussions like this
intentionally to explore skywriting's possibilities and to demonstrate
them to the scholarly community. Right now I think the factor most
responsible for retarding the Net's realization of its enormous
potential is the under-representation of the best minds in most of the
academic disciplines other than computer science. I hope that through
demonstrations like this it may be possible to draw them in so they
can share in shaping the Net's destiny. (Psychnet, for example, has
been rather earthbound so far; perhaps this discussion will at last
succeed in launching it skyward.)
I can understand Lakoff's disappointment that the discussion didn't
stay focused on his book, but the fact that skywriting has a mind and
a scope of its own is one of its greatest virtues; let's explore it
fully and freely, and leave book-reviewing to the conventional book
review journals.
Stevan Harnad
-------------
∂06-Feb-89 0852 HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU NASA
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Feb 89 08:52:15 PST
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 08:48:41 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Joyce Kiefer" <HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: NASA
To VTSS Faculty and Students:
Re. NASA Trip this coming Friday, Feb. 10
If you plan to go and have not already contacted me, please let me
know by Tuesday at the latest that you are coming. We'll have
carpools that will meet at the VTSS Office and depart promptly at
noon. We should be back on campus between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. Bring
your camera. If you plan to drive, please give me the licence
number of the car you plan to take, so we can get you a parking
permit. We have maps of the NASA/Ames Research Center at the VTSS
Office.
Look forward to to seeing you Friday.
Joyce
PS Look on the VTSS bulletin board for pictures of our last
adventure to the tank collection at the Littlefield ranch.
To: FACULTY/STUDENT(EB.RBT,EK.7XL,FE.ALF,A.ALICE@MACBETH,
B.BEARDSLEY@MACBETH,B.BOND-JAMES@MACBETH,B.BUNSEN@MACBETH,
C.CADDY@MACBETH,CUBFAN@JESSICA,DRELL@SLACVM.BITNET,
E.E-CUMMINGS@MACBETH,E.EPR@MACBETH,GALISON@CSLI,J.JBBT@MACBETH,
J.JPWIZ@MACBETH,JMC@SAIL,L.LUAU@MACBETH,M.MAE@MACBETH,MASTERS@CIVE,
N.NEJ@MACBETH,NASS@SUWATSON,ORTOLANO@CIVE,P.PAMOO@MACBETH,
P.PAST@MACBETH,R.REDHEAD@PORTIA,R.ROADRUNNER@MACBETH,R.RSMIII@MACBETH,
R.RTSHOOTIN@MACBETH,T.THING@MACBETH,T.TIGRON@MACBETH,
V.VALENTINE@MACBETH,W.WEDGE@MACBETH,W.WILDSTRUBEL@MACBETH,
WINOGRAD@SCORE,Z.ZTOPP@MACBETH)
∂06-Feb-89 0901 JMC
Check date of dermatology appointment
∂06-Feb-89 0930 JMC
Boucher
∂06-Feb-89 1000 JMC
bunzel
∂06-Feb-89 1000 JMC
hook
∂06-Feb-89 1000 JMC
Weber
3-2015, try 9:30am
∂06-Feb-89 1000 JMC
John Schwartz, 3-3761, try again 3pm
∂06-Feb-89 1540 MPS
John Schwartz, 3-3761 called. He said you
can have his secretary get him out of any meeting
he is in
∂06-Feb-89 1706 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
su-events@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
CIRCUMSCRIBING EQUALITY
Peter K. Rathmann
Stanford University
Marianne Winslett
University of Illinois
Monday, February 13, 3:15pm
MJH 301
One important facet of common-sense reasoning is the ability to draw
default conclusions about the state of the world, so that one can, for
example, assume that a given bird flies in the absence of information
to the contrary. A black mark against the circumscriptive approach to
common-sense reasoning has been its inability to produce default
conclusions about equality; for example, one cannot in general
tentatively conclude that President(USA) $\not =$ Fido using
circumscription. In this talk I will give a model theory and
second-order axiom for circumscribing equality.
∂07-Feb-89 0933 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU The impossible
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Feb 89 09:32:59 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA24696; Tue, 7 Feb 89 09:28:45 -0800
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1989 9:28:11 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: nilsson@tenaya, latombe@coyote, genesereth@score, jmc@sail,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim, binford@coyote, winograd@csli, shoham@score,
shortliffe@sumex-aim, jones@score
Cc: chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: The impossible
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.602875692.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
I will now attempt to do the (almost) impossible! I have been asked by
Jean-Claude to organize a meeting of the AI faculty to discuss the courses we
plan to offer next year. Since the text for the new catalog has to be
provided at the end of the month, the meeting should take place soon. I am
holding the following dates and times on Nils' calendar:
2/22 - 10:00-11:00, 11:00-12:00
2/23 - 4:00-5:00
2/24 - 9:30-10:30, 1:00-2:00, 4:00-5:00
Please let me know, as soon as possible, which of the above dates and times
will fit into your schedules. I will schedule the meeting at a time that is
available to the majority.
Thanks, in advance, for your quick response.
∂07-Feb-89 1026 HK.GRH@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Appointment with President Kennedy
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Feb 89 10:26:12 PST
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 89 10:25:01 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "G. Robert Hamrdla" <HK.GRH@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Appointment with President Kennedy
Professor McCarthy,
President Kennedy has said that he will be glad to see you in
response to your request for an appointment. In view of his
schedule, I suggest that limiting the appointment to fifteen minutes
will facilitate scheduling it. Should you and he agree more time
is necessary then of course it can be scheduled.
Please call Joan Parker, who handles the calendar, at 3-2481 to
schedule your appointment. She will be expecting your call.
I suggest that those persons who might wish to add their
sentiments not send electronic mail to President Kennedy because, as
you suggest, the volume may not permit him to read it all. Nor would
it do any good, quite honestly, to send it to me. Perhaps the best
way to proceed is for you to mention during your appointment some of
the points that others might make and to ask President Kennedy how
he prefers to handle the situation.
Thanks.
Bob Hamrdla
To: John McCarthy(JMC@SAIL)
∂07-Feb-89 1417 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU [Jean-Claude Latombe <latombe@coyote.stanford.edu> : AI faculty
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Feb 89 14:17:39 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA14563; Tue, 7 Feb 89 14:13:11 -0800
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1989 14:12:59 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: nilsson@tenaya, latombe@coyote, genesereth@score, jmc@sail,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim, binford@coyote, winograd@csli, shoham@score,
shortliffe@sumex-aim, jones@score
Subject: [Jean-Claude Latombe <latombe@coyote.stanford.edu> : AI faculty
meeting ]
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.602892779.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
I'm afraid I've made a mistake. This meeting has to have 100% attendance.
I appreciate your cooperation in trying to fit this into your schedule. Thanks.
---------------
Return-Path: <@Score.Stanford.EDU:latombe@coyote.stanford.edu>
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA17901; Mon, 6 Feb 89 18:20:58 -0800
Message-Id: <8902070220.AA17901@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from coyote.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Mon 6 Feb 89 18:20:04-PST
Received: by coyote.stanford.edu; Mon, 6 Feb 89 18:26:37 PST
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 18:26:37 PST
From: Jean-Claude Latombe <latombe@coyote.stanford.edu>
Subject: AI faculty meeting
To: chandler@score.Stanford.EDU
Joyce, could you organize a meeting of the AI faculty? The purpose
of the meeting is to discuss the courses we plan to offer next year.
Since the text for the new catalog has to be provided at the end of the
month, the meeting should be earlier.
My own possible dates are:
Feb 10 afternoon
Feb 15 any time
Feb 16 morning
Feb 22 any time
Feb 23 after 3 pm
Feb 24 any time
The persons to invite to the meeting are: Mike Genesereth, Nils Nilsson,
John McCarthy, Ed Feigenbaum, Tom Binford, Terry Winograd, Yoav Shoham,
Ed Shortliffe, and Roy Jones.
Thank you.
Jean-Claude
∂07-Feb-89 1431 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU re: The impossible
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Feb 89 14:31:24 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA15747; Tue, 7 Feb 89 14:27:30 -0800
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1989 14:27:20 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: The impossible
In-Reply-To: Your message of 07 Feb 89 1132 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.602893640.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
One down, more than a dozen to go! Thanks, John. Will you please put a
temporary "hold" on available dates for the moment?
∂07-Feb-89 1546 MPS phone
Tom Philp, SJ Merc, 940-4464
∂07-Feb-89 1705 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU Evidence
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Feb 89 17:04:58 PST
Date: Tue 7 Feb 89 17:03:10-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Evidence
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: 89.ahmad@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12468890859.139.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Professor,
I continue to await the concrete evidence that you promised to show
the preponderance of "left-wing purges" of libraries in the United
States. I appreciate your effort to help me by providing the
irrefutable evidence that you said existed.
Thanks once again. This information will help me considerably.
-------
∂07-Feb-89 2112 heit@meme.Stanford.EDU Re: An important question raised by the killing of rec.humor.funny
Received: from meme.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Feb 89 21:12:39 PST
Received: by meme.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Tue, 7 Feb 89 21:12:55 PST
From: heit@meme.Stanford.EDU (Evan Heit)
To: su-etc@meme.Stanford.EDU
Cc: g.gorin@macbeth, s.street@macbeth, cphoenix@csli, jmc@sail
Reply-To: heit@psych.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: An important question raised by the killing of rec.humor.funny
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 89 21:12:52 PST
I would like to add to Chris Phoenix's posting that _The Complete Book of
Ethnic Humor_, which may be checked out from Green library, contains the
infamous joke about the Scot and the Jewish ventriloquist that led to the
censorship of rec.humor.funny. It also contains far, far more offensive
jokes.
Who says this book should be "omitted" from the library?
∂07-Feb-89 2256 brad@looking.uucp Winning against your admins
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Feb 89 22:56:11 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa07285; 8 Feb 89 1:29 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Wed, 8 Feb 89 01:27:30 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA23580; 8 Feb 89 01:26:34 EST (Wed)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Winning against your admins
Date: Wed Feb 8 01:26:31 1989
Message-Id: <8902080126.AA23576@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
Now that the Stanford situation has become public on the net, I am
prepared to use my own influences to help in the battle. They are not
inconsiderable. When the first story appeared here locally, net people
sent in hundreds of e-mail letters of support, and around 140 letters to
the editor of the newspaper, critical of the reporting. This was a new
record for the paper, although only about 20 were printed.
If I post the story of the ban to rec.humor.funny a great deal of mail
will be generated, even if I don't deliberately encourage it.
So the question is, who is the best person to get this mail? Who will it
impact on the most? Street? Gorin? somebody else?
I can also make the mail more poignant by saying, "let's not innundate them
with mail. But if this has a special revelence to you because you are a
Stanford alumnus, an educator at another University or a senior
researcher or engineer..., you might want to express your thoughts, either
for or against this ban, to the people involved."
It is widely accepted that individual mail is far more convincing than
a petition. Particularly if the mail reveals that the sender is an outsider
Stanford is concerned about.
Let me know where you think pressure is best applied.
∂07-Feb-89 2328 harnad@Princeton.EDU Lakoff's Replies
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Feb 89 23:28:07 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/2.5)
id AA11023; Wed, 8 Feb 89 02:21:00 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.69)
id AA02309; Wed, 8 Feb 89 02:19:44 EST
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 02:19:44 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8902080719.AA02309@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: epsynet%uhupvm1.bitnet@confidence.Princeton.EDU
Subject: Lakoff's Replies
George Lakoff has asked me to post on the Bitnet Psychology Newsletter
the following two replies by him to me. I actually already have a
response to them prepared, but I think I'll let interested readers
swill these for a while first.
-- Stevan Harnad
___________________________________________________________________
From: lakoff@cogsci.berkeley.edu (George Lakoff)
To: harnad@Princeton.EDU
Reply 1:
Categorization Studies Versus ``Skywriting''
George Lakoff
Harnad's ``skywriting'' is basically a cross-continental bull session,
which is fine. But Harnad does misrerepresent me a bit: the point is
not whether one has read ``Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things,'' book,
but whether one knows about the other research surveyed there. I
tried, in personal communication, to discuss with Harnad such phenomena
such as radial categories, metonymic categories, basic-level
categories, classifier systems, and categories arising from the effects
of frame semantics. But since Harnad had never heard of these, the
discussion got nowhere.
Of course, just about everyone knows the classical theory. It is the
theory we all grew up with, and that many fields are based on.
That makes it easy to defend, especially if the people one is talking
to have no knowledge of the research leading one to give it up
and replace with a more realistic theory. To insist on a discussion
where the relevant data cannot be discussed is to load the dice
in favor of the conservative view.
It should be pointed out that my book and the book Harnad has edited
have very different subject matters. My book is primarily concerned
with abstract categories, while the authors in the book Harnad edited
are primarily (though not exclusively) concerned with categorical
perception. In choosing to edit a collection by various authors on the
subject matter of categorial perception, Harnad is choosing to look at
those cases where there do exist clear boundaries -- and choosing
studies that do not address question of the internal structure of
abstract categories. But, the question of whether the classical theory
is right depends one whether it is correct for ALL categories,
especially abstract categories. To determine that, you have to look at
detailed studies of the structure of such categories, as many
researchers have done. Classical categorization does not fare well in
such studies.
Another point: Rosch did not ``recant'' in favor of classical
categorization. Indeed, she has correctly observed that her data is
inconsistent with classical categorization. She simply refused to give
any theory of mental representation for categories at all (presumably
since the theories that had been attempted up to the late 70's had all
failed -- especially the classical theory).
We have all been brought up with the classical theory, and many folks
have a vested interest in not finding out what's wrong with it.
Skywriting is a good way to keep one's prejudices, and feel that one is
discussing the issues openly while not confronting the issues at all.
Happy skywriting!
------------------------
Reply 2:
Dear Stevan:
I guess I just feel that skywriting of this sort does more harm than
good. The reason is that I used to engage, some years back, in such
discussions about prototype theory, and found repeatedly that what I
called prototype theory was not the same thing that other people used
the term for. The root of the misunderstanding, I discovered, had to do
with a large of range of post-Roschian studies that I happened to have
come across but that others hadn't. I was so frustrated by such
pointless discussions that I figured it would be easier to write a book
surveying the results than to just keep arguing at cross purposes. When
I actually sat down and starting writing, it turned out to take four
years rather than the six months I had anticipated, simply because
there is a lot to review. This experience has convinced me that careful
reading and surveying is really necessary here and that the skywriting
approach without any reading is just not going to get at the kinds of
phenomena that have been discovered. I already spent my four years
surveying those results, and the book is readily accessible. It would
take another four years to do an adequate descriptive job on the
skywriting circuit, and it's just not worth it to me.
In addition to the skywriting bull sessions (which I don't want to
take part in), it would be a good idea to have a separate informed
discussion. Any takers?
Happy skywriting.
George
∂08-Feb-89 0705 holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: rec.humor.funny
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Feb 89 07:05:28 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA16097; Wed, 8 Feb 89 07:01:33 -0800
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 07:01:33 -0800
From: Mary Holstege <holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902081501.AA16097@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: rec.humor.funny
In-Reply-To: <Ll#fr@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
It mightn't be a bad idea to have on hand both the moderator's monthly
statement and a sampling of the contents of the bboard. It shouldn't make
a difference, but for a lot of people it does, and I think many folks,
incited by the lurid imaginings of the Daily and the Chron, have an idea that
the bboard is riddled with jokes by and for Klansmen and misogynists.
Good luck. --mh
∂08-Feb-89 0930 JMC
bunzel, weber
∂08-Feb-89 0930 JMC
seat belt
∂08-Feb-89 0930 JMC
Livermore form
∂08-Feb-89 1053 MPS Teller
He can notl help you with vonNeumanns quote. Never
heard it.
∂08-Feb-89 1112 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU A Granularity Question
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Feb 89 11:11:45 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05073; Wed, 8 Feb 89 11:13:20 PST
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 11:13:20 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902081913.AA05073@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@sail
Subject: A Granularity Question
[John, I sent this to qlisp, but I don't think you got it. GO4
intercepted it.]
In the latest version of my system, spawning a task takes about 27
microseconds. For reference, adding 2 floating point numbers takes
about 90 microseconds, including type checking. For some reason,
multiplying 2 floating point numbers takes only about 45 microseconds,
about half the cost of adding them. The overhead for a function call
(with few arguments) is about 10 microseconds.
In the Boyer-without-specials program, there is not much difference
between spawning continuously and spawning dynamically. They both run
in just under 1.9 seconds, in parallel, and the serial code runs in
11.2 seconds. The continuous version always spawns 45,837 tasks,
while the dynamic version averages 6400, with 10 percent deviation.
Both yield a speed-up of 6 out of a possible 8.
Garbage collection and errors while running are still a severe
problem, however.
THE MAIN QUESTION: If I said this system is useful for fine-grained
parallelism, would that be improper? What does it mean to be a
fine-grained Lisp system?
-dan
∂08-Feb-89 1319 griff@cascade.Stanford.EDU free speech-campus report
Received: from cascade.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Feb 89 13:19:47 PST
Received: by cascade.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.0)
id AA29021; Wed, 8 Feb 89 13:18:54 PDT
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 13:18:54 PDT
From: griff@cascade.Stanford.EDU (Peter Griffin)
Message-Id: <8902082118.AA29021@cascade.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: free speech-campus report
Hello,
I have been following your attempts to get the removal of the newsgroup
reversed. It seems to me that todays article in campus report on free
speech by the general counsel supports your views. Two particularly
inspiring passages are
"In thinking about First Amendment principles, it is important to keep
always in mind that these are individual rights; they do not depend on
the agreement of the majority that the views expressed are within some
pale of acceptable ideas. Even if all people of good will deplore and
detest an opinion, they may not prohibit or punish it because of its
content".
The second passage is Mr. Justice Holmes 1919 opinion, which is a basis
for First Amendment law.
I wish you well when you meet President Kennedy, and am also optimistic
that you will succeed.
Peter Griffin
∂08-Feb-89 1425 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com A Granularity Question
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Feb 89 14:25:33 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05939; Wed, 8 Feb 89 14:26:25 PST
Received: from bhopal ([192.9.200.13]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA01290g; Wed, 8 Feb 89 14:19:16 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA02389g; Wed, 8 Feb 89 14:21:37 PST
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 14:21:37 PST
From: Ron Goldman <arg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8902082221.AA02389@bhopal>
To: pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Dan Pehoushek's message of Wed, 8 Feb 89 11:10:54 PST <8902081910.AA05059@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: A Granularity Question
I think calling Dan's system suitable for fine-grained parallelism would be
improper. Usually fine-grain parallelism is reserved for SIMD operations
usually using vector or array processors (e.g. adding two vectors) where there
is virtually no overhead. It's important that the work actually be done in
parallel too! For your system, you only get your 27 msec "spawning" time
when you don't pass the work to another processor. Think about the following
code fragment on a machine with hundreds of processors:
(dotimes (i 100)
(setf (aref a i) (+ (aref b i) (aref c i))))
if this resulted in a few instructions to ready 100 processors, a few
instructions to do the addition and assignment, and a few instructions to
clean up, then I would say it was indeed an example of fine-grained
parallelism. A system that queued up 100 tasks, a scheduler that caused
them to be run on many processors, and a way to wait until all the work
had been done doesn't seem very fine-grained.
As to the definition of what a fine-grained Lisp system would be, I would
conclude that it would have a compiler that could make use of special
vector or array hardware.
Ron
∂08-Feb-89 1436 HAUNGA@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: [Jean-Claude Latombe <latombe@coyote.stanford.edu> : AI faculty
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Feb 89 14:36:20 PST
Date: Wed 8 Feb 89 14:33:34-PST
From: Ana Haunga <HAUNGA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Jean-Claude Latombe <latombe@coyote.stanford.edu> : AI faculty
To: chandler@Polya.Stanford.EDU
cc: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU, latombe@Coyote.Stanford.EDU,
genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, binford@Coyote.Stanford.EDU,
winograd@CSLI.Stanford.EDU, shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU,
shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, jones@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.87.602892779.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <12469125770.17.HAUNGA@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Yoav Shoham is out of town and will not return until March
sometime.
-------
∂08-Feb-89 1716 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Ruth Lawrence
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Feb 89 17:16:47 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA20196; Wed, 8 Feb 89 17:12:50 -0800
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 17:12:50 -0800
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902090112.AA20196@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Ruth Lawrence
So? I see no evidence of tremendous research ability, yet. Just that she
is working on hard problems; she's had the "attention" of mathematicians
for some time ... but not because of the quality of her work.
So the jury is still out, in my opinion. (I do wonder why she hasn't
gotten her doctorate yet, though. After all, she's had four years in
which to do it!)
Matt
∂08-Feb-89 1723 Mailer Re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
John McCarthy says:
> What I said was that if the upper atmosphere is
> really affected by small amounts of certain gases, we might be
> able to discover some substances whose injection would produce effects
> that we might like. I remarked that this is not an idea that people
> who regard Americans mainly as polluters are likely to think of or
> even take seriously.
Of course, in order to figure out just how to control global warming, it
will be necessary to undertake a few experiments. If one of these
tests doesn't work out well, to which planet does John suggest that we
then emigrate?
Les Earnest
∂08-Feb-89 1742 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Robert W Floyd <RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 08-Feb-89 17:23-PT.]
We are already performing experiments on the earth's
atmosphere, and have been for thousands of years.
The novelty is to propose doing so consciously.
∂08-Feb-89 2010 king@glacier.stanford.edu RHF
Received: from glacier.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Feb 89 20:08:07 PST
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu; Wed, 8 Feb 89 20:06:31 PST
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 20:06:31 PST
From: Robin King <king@glacier.stanford.edu>
Subject: RHF
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Please add my name to those protesting the removal
of RHF. I have sent a message to Ralph Gorin staing
why I oppose his actions.
I still receive RHF here at CIS but think it's outrageous
that they would screen others' reading material. Quite
insulting!
Robin King,
#056 CIS Bld. EE Dept.
∂08-Feb-89 2323 watmath!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET re: Winning against your admins
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Feb 89 23:23:11 PST
Received: from watmath.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA25101; Thu, 9 Feb 89 02:21:17 -0500
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Wed, 8 Feb 89 09:15:36 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA24501; 8 Feb 89 09:14:35 EST (Wed)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 9:14:34 EST
Subject: re: Winning against your admins
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Feb 07, 89 at 2334
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902080914.AA24501@looking.UUCP>
From: watmath!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET (Brad Templeton)
An odd coincidence was the local paper, the Kitchener Waterloo Record on
Saturday Dec 3. It contained a very nasty column denouncing me as a racist,
yet the same paper on the back pages had a little wireservice article all
about the net calling it a grand social experiment. Gene was quoted there,
too. The editors didn't put the two together.
The same paper, on the opinion page had a lead letter from me that was
critical of the newspaper for not adequately reporting minority election
results! A strange combo.
See who you feel is the best person to get this info. I think it should
not be a major opponent, as such a person might just toss away the file.
Somebody in the middle would be best. Another idea would be to set up
a mail alias for people to send to. This would collect the messages, but
also forward them to Street and Gorin until they told you to shut off
the alias. But the rest of the messages would come in so you could make
a stack of them for the senate.
There were some nice quotables in the letter pack I got. Things like,
"the question is not just whether UW should censor rec.humor.funny. The
question is whether UW can remain a great university."
Hit them where they live. There are many Stanford alumni out on the
net, and they will make their voice known if necessary, not just with
email but with phone calls to. The Provost at UW apparently got so mad
at the calls he hung up on one alumnus.
Let me know. Whoever you pick will be overwhelmed. I got 113 letters
in just one 36 hour period after the KW Record story. After that
I put out a message telling people not to write letters.
The University lawyer should also be aware that I don't want to be
libelled in this. I want the "full of racist jokes" issue to be cleared
up. Even the SJM editorial didn't really clear that up fully.
I think the not-racist issue is an important tack. Recently there's been
greater awareness of the fact that the best way to promote racism is to
attack non-racist things as racist. Tell them that they're the unwitting
racists in their attempt at supression. (But say it nicely, of course.)
Internalized oppression? Haven't heard that phrase before, but the many
Jews who supported me in the original debate did get accused of being part
of an uncle Tom syndrome.
∂09-Feb-89 0049 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
To: RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Bob Floyd says:
> We are already performing experiments on the earth's
> atmosphere, and have been for thousands of years.
> The novelty is to propose doing so consciously.
Heavy burning of fossil fuels began less than two centuries ago. Were it
not for the absorbtion of CO2 by the oceans we would all have died as a
result of this experiment. The frightening thing is that the scientists
of that period did not realize either the extent to which the atmosphere
was being polluted or the extent to which the ocean would act as a buffer.
In other words, we survived by dumb luck. That precedent is not a
sound foundation on which to build.
John McCarthy says:
.I agree that theory and laboratory experiments might have to be supplemented
.by experiments in the atmosphere. Proposed experiments with the atmosphere
.will have to be evaluated for safety. However, before experiments can be
.proposed, someone has to think seriously about what chemicals not presently
.in the atmosphere might have useful effects. Les, do you agree that the
.chance of finding something useful is good enough to justify doing the
.research?
I certainly would not argue against laboratory research, but experiments
in the atmosphere are rather frightening. As I mentioned in an earlier
posting, you don't get many tries to get it right.
I am reminded of the plans and experiments in the '50s to use cloud
seeding and other weather modification techniques to benefit mankind.
Trouble is, one person's benefit is often another's disaster. That whole
scheme consequently went away when faced with litigation, both real and
threatened.
Doing weather modification on a global basis would have the same problem
greatly amplified, even if we were quite sure it would work. Undertaking
it would involve a colossal political problem.
Les Earnest
∂09-Feb-89 0553 WASPRAY@vx.acss.umn.edu DARPA IPTO HIλistory
Received: from vx.acss.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 89 05:53:11 PST
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 07:48 CST
From: WASPRAY@vx.acss.umn.edu
Subject: DARPA IPTO HIλistory
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"jmc@sail.stanford.edu",WASPRAY
Perhaps you have heard that my colleague Arthur Norberg and I are preparing
a history of the DARPA Information Processing Techniques Office, their
management style, and their influence on the development of computer science.
I will be in Stanfordλλλλλλλλthe Stanford area from the morning
of Tuesday, Feb. 28 through the early afternoon of Friday, March
3.
Would it be possible for me to interview you about this subject then? I am
interested in learning of λλλmore about DARPA funding of your research and other
research in artificial intelligence and programming languages, and of yourλλλλλ any
observations or assessment you care to make about the IPTO programs.
Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning are already booked, but any other time inλ in that period would be λλλλλλλλλis available. If you can make free this much time, I have
found that sessions of about two hours work well for this kind of historical
probing.
I will have done some background reading in advance of my visit to Standλford,
and I would welcome any suggestions you have in that regard.
I do hope we will have the opportunity to meet.
Bill Aspray
∂09-Feb-89 0700 JMC
bunzel 723-0783
∂09-Feb-89 0700 JMC
Mary Madison 853-5295
∂09-Feb-89 0719 S.SEOWON@Lear.Stanford.EDU atmospheric experiment
Received: from Lear.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 89 07:19:34 PST
Date: Thu 9 Feb 89 07:16:04-PST
From: SEOWON CHOI <S.SEOWON@Lear.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: atmospheric experiment
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12469308268.172.S.SEOWON@Lear.Stanford.EDU>
Theories in atmospheric science, at least in fields that i know of, have not
advanced enough to provide good models that are necessary to do laboratory
experiments. Lorenz's model, which results in deterministic chaos,
uses one-dimensional model with Boussinesque approximation (viscosity varying
linearly with temperature). Nevertheless he writes about how it is possible
for a flutter of butterfly's wing in one part to cause a storm in another
part.
Even if there are reasonable models, experiments in atmosphere may not
give useful results due to lack of controllable parameters, which
is probably why they are not used.
-------
∂09-Feb-89 0800 JMC
seat belt T-trim 695 El Camino, 324-3436
∂09-Feb-89 0845 JMC
Livermore
∂09-Feb-89 0952 MPS meeting
They meet next week, but the agenda is hand carried
to them today, so I will bring over your packet
today.
Pat
∂09-Feb-89 0954 MPS
there is an administrative meeting right not
that I have to attend, being selected as the staff
representative for this quarter. It will last for
about 1 hour. If you need me, call Thea on 723-2273
and she can get me.
Pat
∂09-Feb-89 1048 harnad@Princeton.EDU Response to Lakoff
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 89 10:48:02 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/2.5)
id AA23426; Thu, 9 Feb 89 13:30:58 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.69)
id AA03699; Thu, 9 Feb 89 13:26:15 EST
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 13:26:15 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8902091826.AA03699@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: srh@flash.bellcore.com
Subject: Response to Lakoff
In "Categorization Studies Versus `Skywriting',"
George Lakoff (lakoff@cogsci.berkeley.edu) wrote:
" ``skywriting'' is basically a cross-continental bull session...
`Skywriting' is scholarly communication through individual postings
(with or without a moderator) to an electronic network that can in
principle be read and participated in by all the scholars in the field,
worldwide. Whether it is used for bull sessions or for serious discussion
and the advancement of scholarly inquiry depends entirely upon the
motivation, competence and quality of the contributors. Since few have
yet realized the potential of this remarkable and radically new
medium, it is not surprising that there are different preconceptions
about what it is or might be; Lakoff, however, seems to be making his
judgment into a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Read on:
" I tried, in personal communication, to discuss with Harnad phenomena
" such as radial categories, metonymic categories, basic-level
" categories, classifier systems, and categories arising from the effects
" of frame semantics. But since Harnad had never heard of these, the
" discussion got nowhere.
Concerning the personal communication in question here -- [for the
relevant verbatim portions, see the end of this posting] -- I think
anyone familiar with my style and tenacity in this medium will hardly
doubt it if I say that I certainly would not have balked at a
discussion on that occasion if any possible basis for it had been
provided. But as it happened, the basis Lakoff provided in that
(electronic) communication was not much more than the passage you see
above -- a string of specialized topic headings, without explanation or
discussion.
Now, Lakoff claims he is NOT insisting that any fruitful discussion of
categories must be a discussion of his book, or based on a reading
of his book; but I rather suspect that if I sent him a personal
communication that said "What about Non-Weberian anisotropy,
approximateness, the intergral-to-separable shift, context coding,
equivalence classes, the grounding problem, the boundary effect, and
the iconic/categorical transformation" (which is a sample of some very
relevant topics from my book), it is unlikely that Lakoff would have
heard of these, or that a discussion could get anywhere.
As it happens, I replied to that personal communication from Lakoff
(which also included reproaches for my discussing his book on the Net
without having read it -- reproaches he subsequently withdrew as having
been based on a misunderstanding when I pointed out that I had NOT been
discussing his book). My reply was that I was prepared to discuss any
of the phenomena he had mentioned if he considered them relevant to the
topic at hand, but that I was not prepared to run out and read chapter and
verse by him as a prerequisite to the discussion -- nor did I expect
him to do so with what I had written. It is not, of course, that
skywriting needn't be grounded in earthbound reading! It's just that
one cannot enter a skywriting discussion and say, "Whoa, this
discussion is useless until you have read what I've written." It also
happens that I am not entirely innocent of George's ideas on these
matters (I've read shorter papers and heard related talks by him), and
hence there are reasons why his rather lengthy book, though it's on my
agenda, is not high on my agenda (nor is my equally long book high on
his, apparently).
Yet Lakoff's only response to my expression of willingness to continue
the discussion was an offer to send me electronic versions of sections
of his book! Now it may just be my cognitive limitations, but, except
in technical domains such as mathematics, I've never yet encountered a
(coherent) idea or phenomenon that I couldn't fore-arm a motivated,
competent interlocutor to discuss fruitfully with me by first giving
him the requisite background material in a few lucid paragraphs.
Assigning chapter and verse as a precondition for discussion just is
not my style.
" To insist on a discussion where the relevant data cannot be discussed
" is to load the dice in favor of the conservative view.
This is an instance of the self-fulfilling prophecy. To be discussed,
the relevant data need only be DESCRIBED first! What Lakoff really
seems to mean is "To insist on a discussion of categorization without
first having read my book..." The only dice I was using in favor of
the "conservative" view were logic, obvious (but ignored) facts about
our categorizing performance and capacity, methodological criticism, and
common sense.
" In choosing to edit a collection by various authors on the subject
" matter of categorical perception, Harnad is choosing to look at those
" cases where there do exist clear boundaries -- and choosing studies
" that do not address the question of the internal structure of abstract
" categories. But, the question of whether the classical theory is right
" depends on whether it is correct for ALL categories, especially
" abstract categories. To determine that, you have to look at detailed
" studies of the structure of such categories, as many researchers have
" done. Classical categorization does not fare well in such studies.
The book doesn't just contain chapters by authors on bounded
categories; it also contains a theoretical synthesis by me, describing
how higher-order abstract categories can be grounded in those bounded
perceptual categories. As to the "internal structure" of categories
(concrete and abstract) -- that's precisely the internal substrate that
models for our actual categorization performance and competence (our
actual ability to sort and label instances) are attempting to
INFER. Categories don't wear their internal structure on their
sleeves. [I am using the term "internal structure" literally: I mean
the structures and processes that go on inside our brains that make it
possible for us to sort, label and describe instances as we do.]
In the Net discussion I've explained in some detail why the Rosch-type
studies can't tell you what the internal structure of categories is.
(In a word, it's because they don't really address the problem of how
we categorize at all.) Rosch has already conceded that her findings do
not tell us how categories are internally represented (though it's not
clear that her current successors in what is still the prevalent line
of research on categorization have conceded this, in their endless
rounds of unsuccessful "nonclassical" models and counter-models). Now
if there is anything about the true internal structure of categories
that can be learned from linguistic analysis, phenomenology or
introspection, we won't know it until we see whether that putative
"structure" can actually subserve categorization:, i.e., make it
possible for a device to successfully sort and label inputs as we do.
According to my approach (and I'm open to reasoned alternatives), the
natural way to get to abstract categorization is bottom-up, from
concrete perceptual categorization. (The "top-down" approach is up
against the symbol grounding problem; its definitions are either
circular and hence empty, or they are merely parasitic on the theorist's
own grounded symbols.) Perceptual categorization seems to be continuous
at a subcategorical level of resolution and categorical above. In fact,
above the level of categorical-perceptual "grain," all all-or-none
categories (as evidenced by our all-or-none capacity to sort and label
their members and nonmembers correctly), whether concrete or abstract,
should be perfectly "classical" -- for reasons that are primarily
LOGICAL, and hence must stand until someone refutes them.
The reasoning for this, already presented repeatedly in the ongoing
discussion, follows. [You see that I not only refrain from sending
anyone off to read my book, I even spare them from reading or
re-reading the prior Net discussion -- it only costs me a few
keystrokes to re-describe it, and it keeps the discussion usefully
rolling]:
Where our actual behavioral performance shows that we are capable of
correct, reliable, all-or-none sorting and labeling of inputs (whether
concrete or abstract), there must exist a detectable invariant basis
for our success in the inputs themselves (or in the inputs in which the
atomic labels of their representations are grounded). This is a purely
logical point. This invariant, objective, external basis for our
successful categorization performance in turn provides the "necessary
and sufficient conditions" for assigning membership. Therefore all such
categories (and there are MANY -- they form the core of our lexicon)
must have classical internal representations. (Q.E.D.)
Those internal representations may not be available to introspection
(but who promised that?). They may not fall out of our explicit
linguistic "definitions." But inferring the internal substrates for
our categorization performance capacity (or for any other cognitive or
sensorimotor capacity, for that matter) is not what introspection or
linguistics (or ontology) were designed to do anyway. That's a task for
cognitive theory, if and when it actually faces up to it.
Let me again block some standard misunderstandings: The following are
NOT valid rebuttals of the foregoing argument:
(1) The existence of graded "categories" like "big": The fact that
THEIR membership is a matter of degree does not imply that the
membership of all-or-none categories like "bird" are a matter of
degree. Paying attention to actual categorization performance makes
this quite clear, since we can sort all members and nonmembers of
the category "bird" in a correct, reliable, all-or-none fashion, but
certainly not the members and nonmembers of the "category" "big."
(2) The existence of uncertain or indeterminate cases, such as
"pterodactyls": The internal representations of categories can only
represent what we are actually ABLE to categorize, not what we are
UNABLE to categorize! Cognitive representations are not omniscient or
ontological. Our categories are the internal substrates for our
provisionally successful sorting and labeling of inputs so far,
based only on what has been sampled to date, and guided and
constrained by the consequences of miscategorization. We are not
omniscient; nobody promised that ALL of our inputs would be succesfully
categorizable, or that all categorization problems would be solvable;
our representations are not ontological. What we cannot categorize
simply does not have (or does not yet have) a category representation
(or a reliable, or complete, category representation); our internal
approximation is not close enough.
(3) Our inability to define certain categories, such as "games": Setting
aside the candidates that are actually uncertain or indeterminate, as
above, our successful sorting of the games we CAN sort and label
correctly is already evidence [pace Wittgenstein] that the invariant
basis for the sorting must exist. The fact that we cannot define them
is just a limitation on our introspection, not a fact about internal
representation. (This is analogous to Pylyshyn's argument against
mental imagery; the same argument also applies to "typicality"
judgments taken as evidence for "nonclassical" representations.) Nor is
it relevant that for certain man-made categories people decide by fiat
which are and are not the members. Social feedback is as good a basis
as any for deciding which sortings are and are not "correct." But
successful all-or-none sorting (relative to the man-made criterion
of correctness), if it is possible at all, must still find a
"classical" external basis in the inputs themselves. (Purely subjective
"categories," on the other hand, certainly don't have "classical"
representations -- but then neither are they "categories" at all;
Wittgenstein gets this one right for a change, in his argument against
the possibility of a "private language.")
(4) The fact that not all categories are based on a shared monadic
"feature": This is the point that prompted my original entry into this
discussion in comp.ai. There's absolutely nothing wrong with
disjunctions of monadic features. These disjunctive "metafeatures" are
themselves features -- detectable states of affairs -- shared by every
instance, in a perfectly "classical" fashion. This persistent
misunderstanding has been perpetuated in part by Wittgenstein's vague
"family resemblance" image, and partly by a category error [or
linguistic lapse] arising from the (I think Rosch-inspired) use of the
hopelessly type-crossed portmanteau phrase "necessary and sufficient
features of categories" -- with its conflation of ontological necessity
with pragmatic and epistemic prerequisites -- in place of "features
providing necessary and sufficient conditions for assigning category
membership." A disjunctive feature (or a conditional, polyadic,
probabilistic or any other reliably detectable state of affairs) is
perfectly capable of providing necessary and sufficient conditions for
correctly assigning category membership -- if and when we are indeed
capable of successfully assigning all-or-none category membership.
(5) The apparent dissociation of abstract categories from concrete
sensory categories: This too is just a failure of introspection. The
fact that it doesn't "feel" as if my categories of "truth," "goodness"
and "beauty" are grounded in sensory representations is as irrelevant
as my inability to define them or to find their internal
feature-features or representations by introspection. The only thing
that matters is what I can sort and label reliably and correctly as
"good," "true" and "beautiful" (or as instances of "goodness,"
"truth," and "beauty"). For the cases I cannot reliably sort
and label, I do not yet have a category; but for those that I CAN
categorize in a reliable all-or-none fashion, there MUST exist an
invariant (= "classical") basis in the instances... etc.
So I agree completely with Lakoff that we need to address the question
of the internal structure of ALL categories; it's just that I have
given principled reasons why you can't do this without addressing the
problem of how we actually manage to CATEGORIZE. And it's hard to
imagine how "classical" representation can fare any way but well when
THAT problem is addressed squarely (but I'm open to rebuttals...).
" Rosch did not ``recant'' in favor of classical categorization. Indeed,
" she has correctly observed that her data is inconsistent with classical
" categorization. She simply refused to give any theory of mental
" representation for categories at all (presumably since the theories
" that had been attempted up to the late 70's had all failed --
" especially the classical theory).
One wonders what she did do, then. If her data can't tell us how
categories are internally represented, how can they tell us how they're
NOT internally represented? In any case, there is no "classical
theory," just a classical approach. The theory would have to produce a
model that actually categorizes as we do. I don't have such a working
model yet either, by the way, but at least the features of my first
approximation to a model look as if they might have a fighting chance,
whereas, as I've tried to show, the "nonclassical" approach is doomed
from the start, for mostly logical reasons.
" skywriting of this sort does more harm than good [because when] I used
" to engage... in such discussions about prototype theory... what I
" called prototype theory was not the same thing that other people used
" the term for. The root of the misunderstanding... had to do with a
" large range of post-Roschian studies that I happened to have come
" across but that others hadn't... I already spent my four years
" surveying those results, and the book is readily accessible. It would
" take another four years to do an adequate descriptive job on the
" skywriting circuit, and it's just not worth it to me.
"
" In addition to the skywriting bull sessions (which I don't want to
" take part in), it would be a good idea to have a separate informed
" discussion. Any takers?
George seems to feel that the only basis for informed discussion is
that all participants must first have read what he wrote, or at least
what he read. I'm afraid that if this standard were applied universally
there either wouldn't be much informed discussion of anything, or its
informational basis (and outcome) would be rather uniform. I continue
to suspect that there may be simpler and more straightforward ways to
clear up misunderstandings and provide the requisite information for
informed discussion...
Moreover, I should think that there are few articles, and fewer still
books, that warrant this kind of canonization, particularly so soon
after they have appeared... I can understand George's FEELING, after
finishing his book, that he has just provided the definitive account of
categorization, the sine qua non for all future thinking on the matter.
But such feelings (though very necessary to a creative thinker) must be
tested against reality too.
And skywriting is a fine way of testing them, and of clearing up
misunderstandings -- to which book-readers are JUST as prone as
skywriters: For example, although my own ideas about categorization are
really quite simple and easy to understand in principle, I would not
put my hand in the fire at this point, on the basis of the replies and
comments I've seen so far, including the favorable ones, that ANYONE
has yet adequately understood them, either from their presentation in the
book or on the Net. Yet I am not inclined to call it all a cosmic
bull-session; perhaps ideas with deeper implications take longer to
grasp and assimilate. I am patient, and optimistic. In any case, that's
one of the functions I see for skywriting: explaining, clearing up
misunderstandings, pointing out implications, dealing with new
evidence, rebutting (or acquiescing to) counterexamples, etc.
(I also suspect, by the way, that the root of the misunderstanding in
the prototype discussion Lakoff mentions was a basic incoherence in
"prototype theory" itself, which is virtually synonymous with
"nonclassical category representation theory.")
" Skywriting is a good way to keep one's prejudices, and feel that one is
" discussing the issues openly while not confronting the issues at all.
Skywriting, like ordinary writing, is no more or less than what you do
with it. I leave it to the reader to judge which of us has been
confronting the issues and which has been merely stonewalling. George
no doubt formed his conceptions about what could and could not be done
on the Net in the days of "flaming" (still very much with us),
dominated by the Net's current demography: a vast playground for
students and hackers engaged in Electronic Trivial Pursuit. But close
attention to the half dozen discussions I've conducted so far for
example, should reveal that there's something very different beginning
to happen here, something that gives us a glimpse of serious scholarly
skywriting's revolutionary potential once the inevitable change in
demography, motivation and quality occurs. Let's hope these demo's will
help to hasten that destiny.
This is my LAST posting devoting space to discussing the empty question
of what can and cannot be discussed. Let me close with the promised
passages of the "personal communication" Lakoff referred to:
L: If you think you can account for categorization with classical
L: categories, how, exactly, do you handle the cases of BALAN, HON, ANGER,
L: OVER, and THERE-constructions? Those are just the radial cases; we can
L: address the metonymic cases later. While you're doing OVER, be sure
L: to include your account of the two levels of prototype structure
L: discovered by Brugman. When you do all those, we can start you on the
L: rest of the cases in the literature -- the Greek genitive, the Russian
L: aspectual prefixes, the English particle system -- all the tough cases
L: in the literature that support the theory I've outlined.
H: I have no idea what the examples you just posted to me were, but if you
H: wish to explain them to me and engage in a serious self-contained
H: exchange, private or net-wide, I'll be happy to do it. I promise to
H: supply all the information needed on my end on-line, without referring
H: you to chapter-and-verse by me, and I hope you can do the same.
L: The reason I wrote a long book about categorization (when I hate
L: long books) is that there is just a lot to say. The evidence is
L: simply hairy and takes a long time to lay out. I could e-mail
L: you a few chapters, but that wouldn't really help. So I'm afraid
L: there's nothing short and self-contained to send, only the
L: hard cases which are in print.
∂09-Feb-89 1325 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Robert W Floyd <RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 09-Feb-89 00:49-PT.]
Human effects on the atmosphere began with deforestation
of places like Greece and Lebanon several thouusand
years ago. The deforestation raises the CO2 level
and the resultant desertification changes the atmospheric
temperature and humidity distribution, which in turn
affect other variables. American Indians burned large
areas of the prairie, chapparal, etc. to encourage
forage; this must have had measurable (to us) effects
on the atmosphere.
∂09-Feb-89 1405 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU James Larus talk on Monday
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 89 14:05:50 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02957; Thu, 9 Feb 89 14:06:49 PST
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 14:06:49 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902092206.AA02957@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: James Larus talk on Monday
On Monday, February 13 at 10:00, Jim Larus from Berkeley will be
talking about his "Curare" parallel Lisp system in AEL 109 here at
Stanford. I have unfortunately deleted my message with the abstract;
if someone else has it, could you mail it to this list?
Joe
∂09-Feb-89 1413 WASPRAY@vx.acss.umn.edu RE: re: DARPA IPTO HIλistory
Received: from vx.acss.umn.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 89 14:12:57 PST
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 16:10 CST
From: WASPRAY@vx.acss.umn.edu
Subject: RE: re: DARPA IPTO HIλistory
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU",WASPRAY
Thursday, March 2, 9:30 AM is fine. I look forward to seeing you then.
∂09-Feb-89 1423 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU [csl@sierra.STANFORD.EDU: James Larus Seminar, February 13, 1989]
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 89 14:22:21 PST
Received: from Sesame.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03017; Thu, 9 Feb 89 14:23:26 PST
Received: by sesame.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C)
id AA03745; Thu, 9 Feb 89 14:19:33 PST
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 14:19:33 PST
From: mkatz@sesame.stanford.edu (Morris Katz)
Message-Id: <8902092219.AA03745@sesame.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@gang-of-four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: [csl@sierra.STANFORD.EDU: James Larus Seminar, February 13, 1989]
From: csl@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Eileen Schwappach)
Date: Sat 4 Feb 89 16:39:24-PST
Subject: James Larus Seminar, February 13, 1989
To: CSL-EVERYONE@sierra.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: ferrigno@sierra.STANFORD.EDU
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(219)+TOPSLIB(128)@SIERRA>
The following is the abstract for James Larus' Seminar on Monday, February 13
at 10 a.m.. The seminar will be held in AEL 109.
Restructuring Symbolic Programs
for
Concurrent Execution on Multiprocessors
James Larus
University of California at Berkeley
Curare, the program parallelizer described in this talk, automatically
transforms a sequential Lisp program into an equivalent concurrent program.
The source language is Scheme, augmented with a few declarations. Curare
detects a program's data dependences and identifies its recursive functions
that could benefit from concurrent execution. The restructured loops execute
code from different iterations of their body on concurrent server processes.
The execution model is independent of the concurrent Lisp system that runs the
transformed program.
This transformation process is complicated by two of Lisp's features. Its
ubiquitous pointers require extensive analysis to detect data dependences.
And, Lisp's dynamic execution behavior requires optimizations to improve a
program's concurrency and flexible scheduling of the parallel tasks to achieve
good performance.
Measurements show that Curare's approach achieves good performance for many
different loops and for real programs.
-------
∂09-Feb-89 1556 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU A Granularity Question
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 89 15:55:58 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03457; Thu, 9 Feb 89 15:56:59 PST
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 15:56:59 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902092356.AA03457@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: arg@lucid.com
Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Ron Goldman's message of Wed, 8 Feb 89 14:21:37 PST <8902082221.AA02389@bhopal>
Subject: A Granularity Question
>As to the definition of what a fine-grained Lisp system would be, I would
>conclude that it would have a compiler that could make use of special
>vector or array hardware.
Ron is probably correct about the common understanding of
"fine-grained parallelism". However, I don't think built-in vector
primitives are a prerequisite to "fine granularity", nor, possibly,
generally usable in Lisp. Although it would be nice to have a few
"special case" vector primitives, they would be special, not general.
As a quick example of something that might be difficult to vectorize,
I created two arrays, one containing BIGNUMS, and the other containing
COMPLEX numbers. I then used the following two functions to add them:
;; Serial version
(defun whoop (n a b c)
(dotimes (i n)
(setf (aref a i) (+ (aref b i) (aref c i)))))
;; Parallel version. QDOTIMES is a macro which creates a balanced,
;; recursive computation out of the iterative one.
;; It spawns a task for every iteration.
(defun tdoo (n a b c)
(qdotimes (i n)
(setf (aref a i) (+ (aref b i) (aref c i)))))
TDOO ran in 175 milliseconds, on 8 processors, on a 1024 element
arrays, while spawning 1024 tasks (an unnecessarily large number, as
dynamic spawning has shown). WHOOP ran in 1140 milliseconds, on 1
processor, with the same arrays. On 100 elements, WHOOP ran in
116 milliseconds, and TDOO ran in 23 milliseconds.
∂09-Feb-89 1613 morris@carcoar.Stanford.EDU Re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
Received: from carcoar.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 89 16:13:07 PST
Received: by carcoar.Stanford.EDU (5.51/inc-1.0)
id AA08396; Thu, 9 Feb 89 16:09:29 PST
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 16:09:29 PST
From: morris@carcoar.Stanford.EDU (Kate Morris)
Message-Id: <8902100009.AA08396@carcoar.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <1XmsqR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc: morris@carcoar.Stanford.EDU
I seem to be agreeing with you twice in one week; wonder if the DSA'll
revoke my membership...
I don't want to be quoted on what follows.
I was involved in organising the You Can Make A Difference conference.
The initial plan for the Thursday evening panel was that we invite speakers
from "both sides". The topic was to be Ecology and the Economy; we wanted
to invite traditional economists and ecologists (including Paul Ehrlich).
It's interesting to note that both ecology and economy come from the same
(Greek?) root, ecos, or world. We had hoped that we'd get an interesting
discussion/confrontation (that was the idea behind most of the sessions; it
worked really well in some cases, not so well in others). Unfortunately,
Ehrlich took control of the panel away from us (he called some of our
panelists and invited them to be part of another panel at the same time; he
ignored the mainstream economists, because he didn't want to talk to
them). We ended up being co-sponsors with Population Resources. *I*
certainly learned a bit about politics from working on the conference...
-Kate
∂09-Feb-89 1628 CLT Timothy's appointment with Dr. Maneatis
Friday 17 Feb at 10:30
∂09-Feb-89 1729 beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU hand mathematician beats computer again!
Received: from ucscd.UCSC.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 89 17:29:06 PST
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.61/1.34)
id AA00862; Thu, 9 Feb 89 17:27:33 -0800
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 17:27:33 -0800
From: beeson@ucscd.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8902100127.AA00862@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: hand mathematician beats computer again!
Enclosed copy of mail from Nick Burgoyne to Al Kelley re Mr. P and Ms S. problem. (I still can't get confirmation that the computer actually included the file,
hence the repeated attempts.)
From blufox@ucscc.UCSC.EDU Thu Feb 9 09:52:30 1989
Received: from ucscc.UCSC.EDU by ucscd (5.61/1.34)
id AA22136; Thu, 9 Feb 89 09:52:27 -0800
Received: by ucscc.UCSC.EDU (5.61/1.34)
id AA07185; Thu, 9 Feb 89 09:52:23 -0800
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 09:52:23 -0800
From: blufox@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (Al Kelley)
Message-Id: <8902091752.AA07185@ucscc.UCSC.EDU>
To: beeson@ucscc.UCSC.EDU
Subject: challenge!
Status: R
well, i certainly like this one!
---
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 89 22:23:51 -0800
From: sbrb@ucscd.UCSC.EDU (20021000)
To: blufox@ucscc.UCSC.EDU
Subject: the miss S and miss P problem
My letter in response to Mike Beeson's calculations was perhaps too
flippant. It seems that the conditions m, n < 100 should be dropped
(here sum = m+n and product = m*n). Then the problem becomes perhaps
more interesting. In particular the solution is no longer unique. If
one limits the sum < 200, for example, then there are 9 solutions. I
leave it as an exercise (in C and in Prolog ?) for you to find them.
Of course sum = 17, product = 52 is the first solution. The next one
is sum = 65, product = 244, etc.
There are almost certainly and infinite number of solutions.
I still did most of the calculations by hand. But did find it helpful
to use a 10 line Pascal program for some of the arithmetic.
∂09-Feb-89 1945 JMC
ask Carolyn about forms
∂09-Feb-89 2000 JMC
Gunther re Bob Jones
∂09-Feb-89 2015 brad@looking.uucp mailing Stanford admins
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 89 20:15:32 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa01150; 9 Feb 89 23:06 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Thu, 9 Feb 89 22:42:35 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA03458; 9 Feb 89 22:41:14 EST (Thu)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: mailing Stanford admins
Date: Thu Feb 9 22:41:09 1989
Message-Id: <8902092241.AA03454@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
Ramsey Haddad has posted the email IDs of Street, Gorin and Cliff Johnson
(who is he?) to news.groups. This will cause some mail, but not much as
news.groups articles are not 1/10th as well read as rec.humor.funny
articles.
Nonetheless, it indicates you may want to move quickly if you want to control
what is said on the net. (∃If I get the *real* facts out first,
it will reduce confusion and wild action.)
On the matter of whether the racism is real or perceived -- I have come to
think that's even more important.
While freedom of speech protects Nazi marches as well as everyday
speech, it is the general feeling of those who are middle-of-the-road that it
is *annoying* that freedom of speech protects Nazis. Most will admit it
has to, but begrudge this.
Many don't bother. They say it shouldn't protect nazis, KKK or anybody
else they feel is almost universally denounced.
The true proponents of free speech will already be behind you. For the
middle grounders, the issue of whether there is racism or not will be
important.
After all, the real purpose of protecting free expression is that
**bureaucrats not be allowed to decide for people what is and is not
good speech**. Instead, individuals are to decide for themselves.
This hits home the best when it is clear that the bureaucrats
have erred. It provides proof that we must be protected from the
bureacrats, not from the speakers.
In this case, scared bureacrats, acting on a whim and little knowledge,
cancelled something because it "might be racist." Yes, you can trump out
a couple of people, like your opponent, who will say it is, and that
shows, when contrasted with the many who think it isn't racist, that some
people do indeed think it might be racist.
But are you to tolerate supression on this sort of grounds? Even the
middle-of-the-roaders will see that we should not. It's a much more
compelling case, I think.
For your information, as the joke has come out a little manged, here is
the text of the actual problem joke. Note that it came from rec.humor
in the first place.
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
Sender: funny@looking.UUCP
From: brian@radio.uucp (Brian Glendenning)
Subject: I wonder whodunnit?
Organization: Radio Astronomy, University of Toronto
Approved: funny@looking.UUCP
Keywords: rec.humor, rec_humor_cull, racist (mildly), chuckle
From prabhu@mitisft Tue Oct 4 16:00:31 1988
A Scotsman and a Jew went to a restaurant. After a hearty meal,
the waitress came by with the inevitable check. To the amazement
of all, the Scotsman was heard to say, "I'll pay it!", and he actually
did.
The next morning's newspaper carried the news item:
"JEWISH VENTRILOQUIST FOUND MURDERED IN BLIND ALLEY".
∂10-Feb-89 0713 harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu Searle
Received: from elbereth.rutgers.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Feb 89 07:13:10 PST
Received: by elbereth.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.0/3.01)
id AA18394; Fri, 10 Feb 89 08:57:14 EST
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 89 08:57:14 EST
From: harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8902101357.AA18394@elbereth.rutgers.edu>
To: bitur003%tufts.bitnet@rutgers.edu, dreyfus@cogsci.berkeley.edu,
jaf%cunyvms1.bitnet@rutgers.edu, pschurchland@ucsd.edu
Subject: Searle
ON UNDERSTANDING SEARLE ON UNDERSTANDING
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) of USC-Information Sciences Institute
posted his letter to THE NEW YORK REVIEW concerning AI in which he wrote:
" Searle... play[s] rather fast and loose with words like
" "understanding"... he is still willing to state baldly, "It is just a
" plain fact about me that I do not understand Chinese." This "plain
" fact," however, might be questioned... Searle is never willing to say
" enough about what constitutes understanding to support why he should
" come to so obvious a conclusion... he does not seem willing to
" acknowledge that introspection may ultimately be a very poor judge of
" his understanding. If some body of native Chinese speakers are all
" willing to acknowledge that he understands Chinese... who is he to
" argue on the basis of his potentially deceptive powers of introspection?
Look, I'm a critic of Searle's, but with enemies like this, Searle can
afford unilateral disarmament! Read the above passage again, and
look what you're brushing aside with this sort of hand-waving! I'm not
the final authority on whether or not I understand Chinese? Let's hope
it's not up to a body of natives of any kind to "acknowledge" that I'm
not in pain either! "Fast and loose" indeed; to criticize Searle's
argument one must first set aside one's current dogmas or wishful
thinking and UNDERSTAND it!
" a good deal has been achieved in the study of mind over these
" intervening eight years... Most notable is the... recent contribution
" of Marvin Minsky in The Society of Mind... there is nothing about
" [Minsky's] definition which would deny that Searle, or anyone else in
" his Chinese room, is actually understanding Chinese.
Without prejudice as to whether or not much has been achieved in the study
of mind lately, surely this is not a matter of "definition," and if
there is a theory in which it is, so much the worse for that theory.
Stevan Harnad
∂10-Feb-89 0856 MPS Meeting
Library Committee meeting is at 4:30, February 17th
in Terman 529. John Weyant, 3-3506
∂10-Feb-89 1010 PAF keyboards et al
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, but it seems that my quals scores
weren't sufficient to pass; since this is my second and final attempt, I'm
hastily preparing a case with my advisors for an appeal.
-=PAF
∂10-Feb-89 1110 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU The impossible.....
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Feb 89 11:09:56 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA15883; Fri, 10 Feb 89 11:05:36 -0800
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1989 11:05:20 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: nilsson@tenaya, latombe@coyote, genesereth@score, jmc@sail,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim, binford@coyote, winograd@csli,
shortliffe@sumex-aim, jones@score
Subject: The impossible.....
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.603140720.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Please put a tentative hold on your calendars for 2/23 at 4:15 as a possible
(hopefully probably) time to meet with Nils in MJH-220 to discuss the courses
we plan to offer next year. As far as I know, this will work for McCarthy,
Feigenbaum, Winograd, Shortliffe, Jones and Nilsson. I have not yet heard
from Latombe, Genesereth and Binford......hopefully this will work for them
as well. This meeting has to be scheduled before the end of the month, so if
there is a conflict, please let me know ASAP. Thanks.
∂10-Feb-89 1629 MPS Computers
Ivar Tonisson, 851-1509 called about exporting
computers and software to Tallin. Said you knew
about this. Would like a call.
Pat
∂10-Feb-89 1756 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
CIRCUMSCRIBING EQUALITY
Peter K. Rathmann
Stanford University
Marianne Winslett
University of Illinois
Monday, February 13, 3:15pm
MJH 301
One important facet of common-sense reasoning is the ability to draw
default conclusions about the state of the world, so that one can, for
example, assume that a given bird flies in the absence of information
to the contrary. A black mark against the circumscriptive approach to
common-sense reasoning has been its inability to produce default
conclusions about equality; for example, one cannot in general
tentatively conclude that President(USA) $\not =$ Fido using
circumscription. In this talk I will give a model theory and
second-order axiom for circumscribing equality.
∂11-Feb-89 1349 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU Re: book burning, etc.
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Feb 89 13:49:38 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA17333; Sat, 11 Feb 89 13:47:47 PST
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 89 13:47:47 PST
From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Message-Id: <8902112147.AA17333@csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, cphoenix@CSLI.Stanford.EDU, heit@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: book burning, etc.
I asked some people around the dorm what their response would be. In most
cases, it was "two wrongs don't make a right" or something like that. I
don't think anyone was in favor of it.
On the other hand, the threat of a book-burning may make the Admin. realize
that something is seriously wrong. Especially if we can get a commitment
for publicity from some off-campus papers--I'd think something like this
would deserve mention at least statewide, for the shock value if nothing
else. I'm sure they wouldn't want that, so soon after we just dropped
five places in the ranking...
I'm going to try to get some idea from the Judicial Affairs office of
what their position is as to the relation of rhf to the Free Speech statement.
It seems that the main question is the one I raised on su-etc: Do we allow
outsiders free speech, or just Stanford people? I'd think it would have
to be the former. I'll let you know what turns up.
Chris
∂11-Feb-89 1522 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU "left wing" purges
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Feb 89 15:21:59 PST
Date: Sat 11 Feb 89 15:20:13-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: "left wing" purges
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: 89.ahmad@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12469920693.145.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks for your note -- and I do hope that you are able to provide me
with the substantiation behind your statement.
Incidentally, did Mr. Sidney Hook say how he found out that communists
were responsible for stealing his books from libraries. Was anyone caught
red-handed and found to be card-carrying Red. (Slight pun intended). Also,
I was curious about Dr. Hook himself. I seem to recall reading somewhere
that Dr. Hook considers himself a socialist -- wouldn't that make *him*
"left-wing"?
I thank you for your preliminary efforts to present the evidence to
substantiate your previous assertions about "left-wing" purges of
libraries. I am sure that with some additional effort, you will be able
to provide the concrete evidence. The evidence will be helpful.
Incidentally, I don't understand how the ACLU is involved in this.
Were you suggesting that the ACLU has been behind these "left wing"
purges of libraries. Surely, they couldn't have steeped *that* low.
Thank you, Professor, and I look forward to receiving the evidence at
your earliest convenience.
Incidentally, I would appreciate receiving a copy of the petition
you have initiated regarding this joke file. From what I have
understood so far, it does seem that the University has exceeded
its rights.
-------
∂11-Feb-89 1528 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU re: book burning, etc.
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Feb 89 15:28:31 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA18377; Sat, 11 Feb 89 15:26:38 PST
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 89 15:26:38 PST
From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Message-Id: <8902112326.AA18377@csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, cphoenix@CSLI.Stanford.EDU, heit@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: book burning, etc.
Having the book-burning at the end of a senate meeting is a great idea.
I had been picturing it as a separate occurrence, but I think your idea
is much more powerful.
I don't really know anyone in the ASSU, but I'm willing to hunt them down and
talk to them about it. The question is, is there anyone or group out there
who is not too apathetic to do anything, and doesn't have a vested interest
in keeping the administration happy with them, and has enough clout to maybe
change some minds? If AIR won't listen to you, or the CS department, or the
Free Speech statement (That clause about free speech including symbolic
expression seems to include rhf), who can we go to?
This is why I suggested getting external media in on this. I didn't mean,
threaten Kennedy directly, but I'm starting to think that they will just
ignore any internal protest. The threat of external censure, in the form
of reduced alumni support or something, might make them sit up and take
notice. There's an idea--how about the Alumni Association? They're probably
not too happy with SU now anyway, given how the frats have been treated.
I hate to have to try things like this. They should be able to see for
themselves that 1) censorship is bad, and 2) this is censorship.
If they don't see 2, after the Free Speech statement, they're even stupider
than I thought they were. If they see 2 but not 1, they're paving the way
for fascism. If they see both, but don't do anything, they're just scared
of rocking the boat. This seems likeliest to me. And as far as I know, the
best way to get them to change their mind is to scare them more from some
other direction, such as alumni funding.
E-mail is really too slow to plan very effectively. I'd like to get together
in person sometime soon. I'm free every day after 4:30, except Wednesdays
every week and today and Monday evening this week. Tuesday, I'm also free
before 3:00.
I'm not too clear on what I am supposed to ask about the Senate procedures.
Could you explain this further?
Thanks,
Chris
∂11-Feb-89 2326 tucker@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Voltaire
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Feb 89 23:26:20 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA21554; Sat, 11 Feb 89 23:22:24 -0800
Message-Id: <8902120722.AA21554@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Voltaire
In-Reply-To: Your message of 11 Feb 89 02:52:00 -0800.
<vnRQj@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 89 23:22:23 -0800
From: Andy Tucker <tucker@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Here's everything _Bartlett's_ has to say on the Voltaire quote, from a
footnote to the actual quote:
``This sentence is not Voltaire's, but was first used in quoting
a letter from Voltaire to Helvetius in _The Friends of Voltaire_ [1906]
by S. G. Tallentyre (E. Beatrice Hall). She claims it was a paraphrase
of Voltaire's words in the _Essay on Tolerance_: Think for yourselves
and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.
``Norbert Guterman, in _A Book of French Quotations_ [1963], suggests
that the probable source for the quotation is from a line in a letter to
M. le Riche [February 6, 1770]: "Monsieur l'abbe, I detest what you
write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue
to write."''
A search on Socrates comes up blank on both books, so I can't check the
sources _Bartlett's_ is quoting.
∂12-Feb-89 1920 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: Faculty Senate Debate on rec.humor
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Feb 89 19:20:50 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Sun, 12 Feb 89 19:18:37 PST
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89 19:18:37 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Faculty Senate Debate on rec.humor
In-Reply-To: Your message of 11 Feb 89 2123 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.603343115.siegman@>
Coladarci has a draft version of your Usenet description and has
circulated it to the Steering Committee, which meets this Wed., 2/15/89.
Seems to me that's adequate for the minute -- I doubt it will go on the
full Senate agenda until several meetings downstream.
∂12-Feb-89 1925 heit@meme.Stanford.EDU Book burning
Received: from meme.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Feb 89 19:25:50 PST
Received: by meme.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Sun, 12 Feb 89 19:26:06 PST
From: heit@meme.Stanford.EDU (Evan Heit)
To: cphonix@csli, jmc@sail
Reply-To: heit@psych.stanford.edu
Subject: Book burning
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89 19:26:03 PST
Besides you two, I have not received much support about the proposed book
burning. I will talk to someone I know on the Faculty Senate and get back
to you soon (Mon. or Tues.)
--Evan
HK.RWB@forsythe
``signers''
∂12-Feb-89 2323 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Petition list
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Feb 89 23:23:52 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00136; Sun, 12 Feb 89 23:25:14 PST
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89 23:25:14 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902130725.AA00136@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Petition list
Here's the list. It has 120 names. Most people didn't list their
affiliations, but I knew a number of them and ran finger to find out
others. In cases where I wasn't sure, I left it blank. The people
with affiliations outside Stanford are all Stanford alumni.
Name Email Affiliation
Brian Roberts cymru@csli.stanford.edu CSLI
Dick Gabriel RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Lucid & Comp. Sci.
Luis F. Arean arean@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Paul Flaherty paulf@defiant.Stanford.EDU IR/Networking
Don Stark stark@bill-the-cat.Stanford.EDU Elec. Eng.
Joseph Brenner doom@Portia.stanford.edu
Anil R. Gangolli gangolli@wolvesden.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Chris Phoenix cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU
kathryn henniss henniss@csli.Stanford.EDU Linguistics
Ismail Dalgic dalgic@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
John Chapin jchapin@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Matthew Allen chicago@Portia.stanford.edu
Randall R. Brynsvold rrb@mrfrosty Applied Physics
Bill Poser poser@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Chris Alexander chrisa@jessica.stanford.edu AIR/Music Dept.
Mary Holstege holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Warren Redlich P.REDLICH@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU GSB
Joe Pallas pallas@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Dave Hemker photon@Portia.stanford.edu Chem. Eng.
Greg Byrd byrd@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Ramsey W Haddad haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Jens Christensen jens@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Harinder Singh singh@glacier.stanford.edu Elec. Eng.
Peter Karp karp@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Mark Stantz stantz@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Comp. Sci.
Donald F. Geddis geddis@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Peter Griffin griff@mer.Stanford.EDU
June Genis GA.JRG@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU SDC
Kelly Roach ROACH@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Dave Combs combs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu SUMEX
Jonathan S. Shapiro bagels!shap@apple.com Bell Labs & Stanford
Andy Freeman andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Lance Berc lance@orc.olivetti.com Olivetti Research Ctr.
Steve Esterly esterly@cellbio.stanford.edu Neurobiology
Evan Heit heit@meme.Stanford.EDU Psychology
Per Bothner bothner@decwrl.dec.com DEC WSL
Deepak Jain jain@Portia.stanford.edu Civil Eng.
Will Equitz equitz@isl.Stanford.EDU
Morris Katz mkatz@sesame.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Peter Smith peter@orcas.Stanford.EDU Psychology
Scott D. Mainwaring sdm@psych.Stanford.EDU Psychology
Igor Vaysman P.VAYSMAN@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU GSB
Ramin Zabih rdz@Gang-of-Four Comp. Sci.
Dan Pehoushek pehoushe@Gang-of-Four Comp. Sci.
James R. Kennedy robert@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Christopher T. Dodd dodd@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Arul A. Menezes arul@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Robert D. Jackson jackson@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Tovar TVR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU CCRMA
Roger Crew crew@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Chris Lundin GP.CML@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU SDC
Michael E. Wolf wolf@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
castor fu foo@Portia.stanford.edu Physics
Ed Sznyter ews@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Eyal Mozes eyal@coyote.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Carl Schaefer carl@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Lou Galbiati galbiati@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Mary Jo Doherty doherty@decwrl.dec.com DECWRL & Comp. Sci.
Michael Wolverton mjw@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Gio Wiederhold WIEDERHOLD@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci., EE, Med.
David M. Alexander david@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Narinder P. Singh SINGH@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
David E. Smith DE2SMITH@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Ron Nash NASH@CSLI.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Miriam Blatt blatt@eleebana.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Shashank Shekhar shashank@coyote.stanford.edu Mech. Eng.
William Lipa lipa@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Martin C. Rinard martin@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Russ Jucovics jucovics@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Michael Kharitonov misha@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Carl Witty cwitty@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Liam H. Peyton peyton@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Paul Asente asente@wsl.dec.com DEC WSL
David Kriegman kriegs@asp.stanford.edu
Tracy Larrabee larrabee@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Scott Seligman seligman@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Rajesh L. Patel patel@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
keith taylor taylor@Portia.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Constance Stillinger collie@Portia.stanford.edu
Jamison Gray jamison@Sun.COM Sun Micro.
Chuck Karish karish@forel.Stanford.EDU
John B. Nagle jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Ctr. for Design Res.
Andy C. Hung achung@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Roland Conybeare roland@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Arthur Keller ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Nita Goyal nita@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Andy Tucker tucker@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Hakan Jakobsson JAKOBSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Leslie A. Gordon leslie@sierra.STANFORD.EDU
Jonathan Yu valium@stud.stanford.edu Medical School
Walter Henry whenry@lindy.Stanford.EDU Univ. Libraries
Eric M. Berg A.Eric@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU Price Waterhouse
Jim Waters waters@umunhum.stanford.edu AIR/IRIS
Inderpal Singh Mumick mumick@cayuga.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
John Klemm GQ.JNK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU SDC
k sorhaindo s.sycho@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
Phil Stubblefield Phil@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Barry Eynon eynon@lindy.Stanford.EDU
Joe Weening weening@Gang-of-Four Comp. Sci.
Larry M. Augustin lma@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Fred Harris COLAZAR@CSLI.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Leslie Kaelbling leslie@teleos.com Comp. Sci.
Alex Bronstein S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Sami Shaio sami@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Rob Caplan ovni@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Mitchell A. Yee GA.MAY@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Steve Tjiang tjiang@goretex.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
RL Bob Morgan morgan@jessica.Stanford.EDU IR/Networking
Peter Rathmann PKR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Denise Chuk dino@Portia.stanford.edu
Stanislaw Krupowicz STK%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU CCRMA
Louis J Bookbinder GE.LJB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Controller's Office
Jean-Francois Rit rit@coyote.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Robin King king@glacier.stanford.edu
Nils Nilsson nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Oren Patashnik op@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Les Earnest les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
James S. Vera
L. Ravi Narasimhan oski@Portia.stanford.edu Chemistry
Ross Finlayson rsf@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
∂12-Feb-89 2328 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Messages
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Feb 89 23:28:11 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00167; Sun, 12 Feb 89 23:29:34 PST
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89 23:29:34 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902130729.AA00167@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Messages
Several messages were clearly not meant for the petition, but two were
questionable. I included this person:
Return-Path: <stantz@sierra.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 12:31:48 PST
From: stantz@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Mark Stantz)
To: jmc@gang-of-four
Subject: Null msg.
That's all his message was, just "Subject: Null msg." I didn't
include the following person:
Return-Path: <bloomers@Portia.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 10:58:00 PDT
From: Jason Bloomstein <bloomers@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@gang-of-four
Subject: rec.humor.funny
Dear Prof. McCarthy,
I am the Daily writer who wrote Monday's rec.humor.funny news story.
I would like to immediately say that I apologize greatly for incorrectly
attributing a quote to you.
I am doing a follow-up on the matter, particulary to set straight the
Computer Science Department's actions on the matter. I read over some
of the latest messages on su-etc, and I would hope you would take the
time to answer a few more questions.
I read that you are circulating a petition around the CSD to protest
AIR's decision to purge rec.humor.funny. How many have signed the
petition and/or how many have voiced support for it? What is the
number of CSD faculty who have taken up the issue and protested
Ralph Gorin's actions.
Also, when you called the Daily and said that rec.humor.funny would only
be broadcasted on your computer, and you couldn't speak for all of CSD,
could you give me the name of the person who would de ci
decide for the CSD on whether rec.humor.funny will continue to be
received on CSD computers?
Please either write back or call me anytime at 321-6403. Thank you and
I apologize again for Monday's aricle.
Jason Bloomstein (bloomers@portia)
con-Feb-89 0311 GQ.JNK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Rec.Humor.Funny
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 03:10:53 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 03:09:46 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "John Klemm" <GQ.JNK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Rec.Humor.Funny
Professor McCarthy,
I sincerely thank you for taking on the REC.HUMOR.FUNNY issue as
doggedly as you have. Due to some pressure I'm feeling as a
Data Center employee because of my involvement in a similar issue
in the past (as I'll explain below), I haven't felt comfortable
about pursuing it as fully as I'd like. But there is an interesting
similarity and an interesting contrast between the past issue and
the present one that you might find useful to know about...
Below is a "letter" that I started to write to I-don't-know-who
back in 1982 when CIT's JOKES file became a serious problem. Most
of the history of that file is given in the letter. Looking at it
now, I think I was overly dramatic in places, naive in others;
but I'll give it to you below as I found it in my archive file
tonight:
--------
I am the "owner" of the file of jokes being purged from one of
the computers at CIT (Center for Information Technology) -- that
is, I designed the file, created it, added the first records, and
oversaw its existence on the computer. As an instructor who
teaches people how to use the computer, I designed the file as a
demonstration data base that would entertain as it instructed.
Working with the jokes data base teaches the same principles as
working with any other data base in the system.
Anyone who could sign on to the computer could see any jokes in
the file or add jokes to the file. In an attempt to "protect"
people who might not want to see "offensive" jokes, people adding
records were asked to categorize jokes as "clean", "sick",
"dirty" or "filthy". When users were looking at jokes, they
would not see jokes in one of the non-clean categories unless
they responded that they wanted to see such jokes.
The jokes file has been available since January 1979, and has
been very popular. Since September of 1980, the file has been
accessed 3100 times to display or add jokes. The file currently
has 1300 jokes.
In three years, I received many compliments for the file,
particularly from users who learned how to use SPIRES, our data
base system, by experimenting with a file they could enjoy.
Never before had I heard of a complaint.
Jokes of every type were added to the file, by practically every
category of person that could be found in our community. In the
file was something, I daresay, to amuse (or likewise to offend)
everyone.
Some jokes did offend two fellow staff members, Brenda McKee and
Henry Organ. Mr. Organ's letter to CIT director Ed Shaw
complaining about the file did not receive a quick reply. I do
not know why that was the case, since I am fairly low in the
bureaucracy here; however, I do know that the letter and the way
to respond to it were discussed among the CIT Directors for weeks
without a satisfactory decision being made.
The issue was not simple: on one hand, there is the possibility
of offensiveness; on the other is the possibility of restricting
or censoring expression.
Apparently because no response seemed forthcoming, Mr. Organ went
to the media, writing letters to the Daily and the Peninsula
Times-Tribune. The subsequent media interest seemed to force Mr.
Shaw to officially make the decision he had been leaning toward:
eliminate the file. Since the media interest (it was easy to
predict) was in the novelty of the file (a collection of jokes,
after all) rather than in the issues involved, eliminating the
file would effectively close the subject, at least at the circus
level.
But I don't think it closes the subject completely. Mr. Shaw
said in a memo to the other CIT Directors that we could not set
ourselves up as censors of materials in publicly accessible
files. (By the way, that is why CIT's response has been that we
cannot remove individual jokes from the file, not that it is
physically impossible to do so.) Thus, our only choice was to
destroy the file, unless one of our users chose to support it, in
which case it would become the responsibility of the individual
user, rather than of CIT. (I contend that it was only because
Mr. Organ's letter went to the director of CIT that the file
suddenly "belonged" to CIT in a practical sense instead of to me,
but that is not the issue I want to pursue here.)
Destroying a useful and entertaining file because of a complaint
about a few records in it seems like closing a public restroom
because it has graffiti on the walls. Or worse, like closing a
library because someone complains about one of the books.
Personally, I think this is a very repressive act of censorship,
as wrong as Mr. Organ's unreasonable request for removing
offensive jokes.
What was created as an amusing instructional tool by a staff
member suddenly belongs in toto to the University and is to be
eliminated. Perhaps other warnings should be issued: Researchers,
don't share your data -- it might offend someone and have to be
taken away. Teachers, guard yourselves -- an offensive reading
assignment could mean its confiscation.
Why does the fact that the data is kept in a computer complicate
matters? What if the jokes, rotten as they might be, were
printed on paper and available in the library? Would the
librarian have a popular book burned because one or two (or even
100) people complained about a page or two?
A friend pointed out what a funny April Fool's joke this might
have made. I really wish it were funny enough to put in the
file.
-----------
Silly ending. And I don't know who I thought I'd be sending it to.
Anyway, it certainly strikes me as odd that the reason that file was
shut down was because "anybody" could add jokes to it, and CIT
couldn't take on the role of censoring individual jokes. (I did
suggest to John Sack, my boss at the time, that I would gladly make
the effort myself, but I understand why that was not an acceptable
solution. My taste in humor wouldn't match John's, nor Henry
Organ's. That's why I personally think Brad of Waterloo is kidding
himself if he truly believes his file is inoffensive.)
One of our problems today, according to Gorin's letter, is that "no
one" can add jokes to the RHF file except the moderator.
This just proves to me that it is only the perceived offensiveness
of the material, not who can or can't create it or remove it, that
is what's bugging these people. They're willing to discard a
useful tool that helps or entertains many to avoid irritating
anyone who might publicly cry out "Offensive!" in the media.
My take on this is that no one in IR wanted the problems that arose
with the CIT Jokes file (lots of local media coverage, and even AP
and New York Times mentions) to possibly arise with RHF if someone
ever complained about the file, like Henry Organ did in 1982. The
Waterloo problems were enough to set this whole thing off. I don't
believe any of the principals in today's case ever read the
newsgroup; I think they set up the justifying policy (as outlined in
Gorin's letter) after reaching the decision to get rid of it.
I don't believe anyone in IR thinks they'll be following their
policy through to other newsgroups, unless individuals complain
about specific ones. But of course, it's the fighting of the policy
at that level that makes the most sense.
Anyway, I just thought you might be interested in this material.
If not, please forget I ever sent it! Hmmmm.... if so, please
forget it was me who sent it! Please don't distribute this in any
way without my permission; I had enough problems with this issue
before!
John Klemm
To: JMC@SAIL
∂13-Feb-89 0510 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM hakmem mystery solved
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 05:10:48 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 357071; Mon 13-Feb-89 07:26:14 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 82230; Mon 13-Feb-89 04:20:00 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 04:18 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: hakmem mystery solved
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890213121832.5.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Item 42 wants a more conventional proof that
N
====
\ L N + 1 L N + 1
> BINOMIAL(N + L, L) ((1 - X) X + X (1 - X) ) = 1.
/
====
L = 0
(Other than: Set n=20 and observe that it is the probability that one player or
the other wins at pingpong.)
This identity is peculiar in that setting x = 1/2 gives a closed form for a finite,
nontelescoping, nonterminating hypergeometric. ("Terminating" meaning that the
terms off both ends spontaneously vanish.)
By the binomial theorem, the infinite version of the above sum = 2(!). Thus the
problem can be rephrased as Sum(l>=n+1) = 1. This is a relation between 2F1s of x
and 1-x, which immediately suggests the linear transformations. Sure enough,
A&S 15.3.6 and 15.3.3 give
[ A B ]
[ ] π (B + A)
F [ B + A + 1 ,1- Z] COS(---------)
[ A B ] 2 1 [ --------- ] 2
[ ] [ 2 ]
F [ B + A + 1 , Z] - -----------------------------------------
2 1 [ --------- ] π (A - B)
[ 2 ] COS(---------)
2
as a 2F1 which degenerates (terminates) into a polynomial of degree a-1 when a is a
positive integer. (For the above case, a=1. This cancels the "hidden 1" implicit
in F notation, which normally serves to "terminate on the left". This "explains"
the closed form for x=1/2 in the original problem as being a "canceled termination".)
Setting z to the golden ratio gives
K
====
\ K
> (N - K) FIB(N - K - 1) BINOMIAL(N + K - 1, N) = (- 1) K ,
/
====
N = 0
where here, the "termination" consists of just the n=k term. This can be reversed,
====
\
> N BINOMIAL(- K, K - N) FIB(N + 1) = K,
/
====
N >= 0
so that, now, the "almost canceled termination" is at n=0 (with true termination
at n=k). (And divergence for noninteger k.) For k=6, the terms of this sum are
0 - 252 + 504 - 504 + 420 - 240 + 78 = 6, i.e., much larger than the sum.
It makes you wonder how many other hypergeometric nontrivialities are up for grabs
in the combinatorial tautology department of Filene's Basement.
∂13-Feb-89 0825 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Pat Simmons
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 08:25:18 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA24696; Mon, 13 Feb 89 08:21:11 -0800
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1989 8:21:08 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: davis@score
Cc: rwf@sail, jmc@sail
Subject: Pat Simmons
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.603390068.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Pat just called me and asked me to let you know she isn't feeling well and
won't be in in today.
∂13-Feb-89 1000 JMC
brian reid
∂13-Feb-89 1028 RH.ERW@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 10:28:40 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 10:27:30 PST
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
From: "Eileen Walsh" <RH.ERW@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
These are remarks prepared by University President Donald
Kennedy for delivery to the Faculty Senate Feb. 9, 1989
I want to talk to you today about two unrelated topics,
each of which concerns the general issues of freedom of
expression.
First, a few words about the Ujamaa incident, with
which most of you are no doubt familiar. Some weeks ago, a
full report of that episode was published in the Campus
Report and the Daily, and I hope you have read it or will
make a point of reading it. As you know, two freshmen put up
a poster in the black theme house, after changing a sketch
of Beethoven into a caricature of a black person. The report
describes the events up to the poster and those that
followed.
Yesterday's Campus Report and Daily contain an essay by
the University's general counsel and a member of his staff
giving the history of student disciplinary action in cases
centrally concerned with expression, and their veiws about
how such cases should be treatd. Perhaps I should mention
here that the judicial affairs officer has informed me of
her decision not to prosecute in the Ujamaa case.
The general counsel's paper ought to receive the
careful attention of our community. It discusses the primacy
of free expression of ideas in our society, particularly at
a university. But the point I want to make is that the
article is about discipline _ the behavior we prohibit and
punish through our student judicial system. More
particularly, it is not about opinions we personally hold on
particular issues, what books we choose to read or to have
in the University libraries, or what material we decide to
receive or retain in our computers.
That brings us to the second topic, which concerns a
quite different question. It was raised when it became known
that Stanford computer users were receiving a ``jokes
file,'' as part of a ``bulletin board'' sent by electronic
mail from an upstream computer. This bulletin board is the
vehicle for a variety of informal communications carried out
by a national users network in which we are included; thus
users can have access to restaurant reviews, travel hints
and all manner of innocent amusements when not busy with
their work. Although the computer facility is a Stanford
utility, built and maintained by the University for academic
purposes, there has been no objection to these forms of
frivolity. The jokes file, however, turns out to contain
racist and sexist material, some encrypted and some in plain
text. Within the limits of available technology, it has been
deleted.
You will perceive at once that the question whether
Stanford should restore the file has nothing to do with the
matter of punishment or prosecution, and thus does not
relate at all to the set of constitutional issues so
carefully discussed by Schwartz and Brest. I think you will
also feel, as I do, that is an issue that (1) involves
freedom of expression and (2) should be decided by the
faculty. One of your members has put it on the Senate's
agenda, which is just where it ought to be. I think it's a
tough issue. It is not one that is answered by the law _
neither the external law nor our internal commitment to
First Amendment principles dictates the outcome; I don't
think there is the slightest question of our legal right to
agree to accept, or to exclude, someone else's file on
Stanford computers.
I wanted to make ajl couple of points before you take up
the matter. First, I want to express my deep appreciation to
Ralph Gorin, director of Academic Information Resources, for
his handling of the issue. Ralph has taken a lot of heat,
and I'm particularly grateful because the decision to remove
the file pending full debate was not one he agreed with. It
was an administrative decision that fell to him to
implement, which he has done with grace.
Ralph's view was that the discussion should have
preceded any action; whether or not he was right, I think it
is very important to recognize that the status quo is not
some blessed state of being, and that the decision to leave
things as they are is no less a decision than the choice to
do otherwise. In this case, for instance, there was never an
advertent decision in favor of receiving each of the vast
number of files we do currently receive. So we did decide to
remove the file, and it will stay removed until the faculty
considers whether to replace it. This is the place for that
consideration to occur.
-30-
∂13-Feb-89 1052 VAL
I am sick and will have to stay home for a few days.
∂13-Feb-89 1138 aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Draft Minutes from Strategic Planning Committee Mtg
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 11:38:04 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA23596; Mon, 13 Feb 89 11:36:26 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1989 11:36:24 PST
From: AAAI <aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: reddy@fas.ri.cmu, feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu, simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu,
minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu, nilsson@score.stanford.edu,
mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu, amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu,
bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com, hart@kl.sri.com,
buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu, davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
Cc: aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Subject: Draft Minutes from Strategic Planning Committee Mtg
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.603401784.aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Below are the draft minutes. If any part is incorrect, please send your
comments to me.
-Claudia
January 28, 1989
Minutes
AAAI Strategic Planning Committee Meeting
Attendees:
Woody Bledsoe
Danny Bobrow
Ed Feigenbaum
Randall Davis
Saul Amarel
Nils Nilsson
Peter Hart
Raj Reddy
John McCarthy (part-time)
Claudia Mazzetti
I. Motivation for this meeting
A. Decrease funding for AI in '88-'89; DARPA will decrase funding from
$38M to $31M - a 20% drop. AI experimental research is being funded
less now than in the mid-'60s. The degree of disaster is calculated
at an overall 25% drop in total AI federal funding by 1990. This
situation will impact grad student populations; they will go into
other parts of CS.
B. Increase national awareness for the need to establish a Cabinet-level
department on information technology similar in function to Japan's
MITI
C. Overall goals of the meeting are to: push funding up; identify
possible national initiatives and identify ways to push AI at the
executive level of government
II. General Discussion on National Initiatives
A. Any National Project must involve other members of the computer
science community; it can be a CS project which has an AI center to
it.
B. Discussion about Federal Advisory organizations and Washington
political scene
1. National Academy's CSBD, although it has excellent members, is
not the right organization to push through any national project.
2. Senator Gore has an interest in computer networking and other
computer-related issues; State Department over the years has pushed
the Super Computer Project while the Energy Department (because of its
national labs) is interested in how to utilize the super computer.
Saul then recounted the process and progress in funding computer science
on the federal level. In 1986, a senatorial committee report recommended
that computer science research double its funding which was sent to
Congress. That recommendation is still on the books and has not been
inacted. The Strategic Computer Initiative's initial funding of $25M
over time has been diluted to about $10M. Any initiation of a national
project such as the Strategic Computer is a long term committment. It's
taken almost 8 years to fund SCI.
3. It is a perception that AI doesn't show any excitement anymore so
funding is being diverted to other areas. Recommendation: place
senior AI professionals into key federal positions.
C. Specific Initiative Proposals
1. General Comments: Hart noted that any AI project can exist within
already known national projects (eg Genome and SCC); we need to reach
the organizers of this national scientific projects to discuss where
AI can be intergrated into those projects
AI has failed to apply and upscale its techniques to large-scale
problems. If we are to create national awareness of the importance of
AI, then we need to work on this problem of upscaling.
2.National Productivity and Competiveness Inititive (Saul and Randy)-
focuses on economic competitivness and productivity; improve white
collar productivity by speeding up the
design and testing phases of any new development; this project would
incorporate large scale computation and cognitive problem solving which
will involve jointly the CS and AI communities.
3. Educational Initiative (Danny) - "Learning faster and better";
getting employees to understand their job better in order to operate
in a more complex, competitive environment. Saul noted that there
is not enough people to work on this problem.
4. Knowledge Delivery (Digital Library, Books for the People) (Ed)
5. Intellient Communications (John McCarthy)
6. Intelligent Office Building (Nils) - an automated office
7. Mobile Hospital (Ted Shortliffe & Caz)
8. CSCW Initiative ( Danny)
9. Auto System Initiative (Raj)
10. Outline of Proposal
a. define grand challenge
b. what is the missing science
c. give background information about the problem
d. define one and two year plan
e. define measurements of progress and success
f. define how and when technology will be transferred
III. Increase public awareness of AI
A. Mobilize key people (eg Simon, Newell) to talk to key federal
officials
B. Initiate awareness in secondary schools by giving lectures and
distribute sample AI software for students to use; CMU can create the
"World of AI" for distribution to the schools.
C. Form a PAC
D. Get onto the speakers' agenda at the National Press or Commonwealth
Club.
∂13-Feb-89 1349 amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu Re: Draft Minutes from Strategic Planning Committee Mtg
Received: from maestro.rutgers.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 13:48:56 PST
Received: by maestro.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.1/3.03)
id AA00675; Mon, 13 Feb 89 16:42:58 EST
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 16:42:58 EST
From: amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu
Message-Id: <8902132142.AA00675@maestro.rutgers.edu>
To: aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Cc: amarel@aramis.rutgers.edu, reddy@fas.ri.cmu,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu,
simon@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu, minsky@ai.ai.mit.edu,
nilsson@score.stanford.edu, mccarthy@sail.stanford.edu,
bledsoe@cs.utexas.edu, bobrow@xerox.com, hart@kl.sri.com,
buchanan@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu, davis@wheaties.ai.mit.edu,
aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.88.603401784.aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Draft Minutes from Strategic Planning Committee Mtg
Claudia, A couple of facts in II.B.2 need correction:
The two sentences starting with "In 1986..." should be changed as
follows: In Nov 1987, the OSTP (Office of Science and Technology
Policy) issued [under the President's Science Advisor signature] a
FCCSET (Federal Coordinating Council on Science Engineering and
Technology) report recommending doubling federal basic research
funding for computer science/engineering over a five year period. The
report was presented to Congress, and discussed in several committees.
It is now at the stage where individual federal agencies are drafting
implementation plans consistent with the report.
On the Strategic Computing Initiative: It took about 3 years from
concept to initial funding in '84; the congressional committment is
for 10 years; annual budget of about $110M last year - about $35M for
large applications (e.g., pilot's associate), the rest for "tech base"
of which about $25M was basic AI in FY87. Difficult to tell what part
of the current $32M AI budget at Darpa/Isto comes from the SCI. The
important fact is that basic AI research grew by a factor of 2
at Darpa because of the SCI [from $21.6M in FY84 to $43M in FY86].
This is the type of impact that an "appropriate" national initiative
can have on the strengthening of AI support.
Saul
∂13-Feb-89 1416 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Japan trip
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 14:16:08 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02631; Mon, 13 Feb 89 14:17:29 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 14:17:29 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902132217.AA02631@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: clt@sail, jmc@sail
Subject: Japan trip
A couple of weeks ago, Pat got estimates for the expenses of the trip
to Japan for the parallel Lisp workshop. With airfare to Tokyo, train
to Sendai, hotel, and an estimate of food costs, it should be about
$2000 per person. Does this look affordable under the current plan of
having three of us go there?
∂13-Feb-89 1528 CLT news from Pullen
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, arg@LUCID.COM,
weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
I just talked to Pullen.
Paperwork is in progress for the Qlisp task based on our proposal for
funding through Feb90 (Lucid through March89) so it looks like it will happen.
Also the Darpa bureaucracy is grinding away on the paper work for the overruns.
In particular the ARPA order for the Qlisp part is being processed.
So Pullen thinks it will eventually go through, though it will still
take a couple months minimum.
∂13-Feb-89 1705 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU student question
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 17:05:51 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 13 Feb 89 17:03:39 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1989 17:03:38 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: student question
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.603421418.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
Some student asked me on her homework:
"which papers have already been assigned?"
"which papers will be assigned?"
For the 1st question, do you remember? I think there Lifschitz's "intro"
paper, and yours in Ginsberg's, in the Circumscription section.
For the 2nd question I feel like answering that this is a graduate seminar
and not a high-school class, and they should browse through ALL the materials
(packet and Ginsberg's book) and not bug us with such childish questions. But
I probably shouldn't write that...
Alex
∂13-Feb-89 1708 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: student question
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 17:08:38 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 13 Feb 89 17:06:28 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1989 17:06:25 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: re: student question
In-Reply-To: Your message of 13 Feb 89 1707 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.603421585.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
OK, will do. Was my list complete for the 1st question?
∂13-Feb-89 1836 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: student question
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 18:36:53 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 13 Feb 89 18:34:40 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1989 18:34:39 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: re: student question
In-Reply-To: Your message of 13 Feb 89 1833 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.603426879.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Right. Thanks.
A.
∂13-Feb-89 1940 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil [Jack_Schwartz.ISTO.DARPA@a.darpa.mil: Language BAA]
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 19:40:31 PST
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA20214; Mon, 13 Feb 89 21:33:13 EST
Posted-Date: Mon 13 Feb 89 21:43:30-EST
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00575; Mon, 13 Feb 89 21:43:32 EST
Date: Mon 13 Feb 89 21:43:30-EST
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: [Jack_Schwartz.ISTO.DARPA@a.darpa.mil: Language BAA]
To: ISTO-PI-LIST@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <603427410.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
The following BAA appeared recently in the CBD. This has
already been circulated in hardcopy form to the community.
This is an UNOFFICIAL notification. See the CBD for the
official version. Note that this is NOT the ISTO-wide
BAA; this one specifically concerns technology support
for prototyping. Please respond to Jack Schwartz ASAP
if you are interested in attending the information meeting.
Thanks.
---------------
Posted-Date: 30 Jan 89 16:30 EDT
Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 16:26:07 EST
Received: from a.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA11957; Mon, 30 Jan 89 16:26:07 EST
From: Jack_Schwartz.ISTO.DARPA@a.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <8901302132.AA17048@a.darpa.mil>
Received: by a.darpa.mil (5.51/5.51)
id AA17048; Mon, 30 Jan 89 16:32:27 EST
Date: 30 Jan 89 16:30 EDT
To: cps@vax.darpa.mil, Jack_Schwartz.ISTO.DARPA@a.darpa.mil
Subject: Language BAA
!
Transmission via CBD Express V. 3.0
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
1. P!!
2. 0129!!
3. 89!!
4. 97AE!!
5. 22209-2308!!
6. A!!
7. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Contracts
Management (CMO), 1400 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209-2308!!
8. A -- BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA#89-08): NEW LANGUAGE IN RAPID
CONSTRUCTION OF SOFTWARE PROTOTYPES!!
9. BAA#89-08!!
10. 053189!!
11. R. H. Register (Contracts), (202)694-1771; Dr. Jack T. Schwartz
(Technical), (202)694-5922.!!
12. N/A!!
13. N/A!!
14. N/A!!
15. N/A!!
16. N/A!!
17. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Information Science
and Technology Office (DARPA/ISTO) is interested in receiving
proposals to develop Initial Designs for a new language for rapid
construction of software prototypes. Prototypes written in this
language are to serve for assessing the internal consistency and
user-acceptability of major software designs, including distributed
and parallel defense software systems. The Common Prototyping
Language to be designed initially is seen as part of larger
subsequent efforts to develop a comprehensive Prototyping System
which will provide additional tools realizing a high-productivity
software design and prototyping environment. DARPA's present
intent is to proceed initially with approximately four competitive
design studies, of which approximately two will be selected at a
later time for full design elaboration. The proposed new very high
level prototyping language is to serve after implementation as a
tool for developers of large Ada systems. Goals for the system
include rapid adaptability; ability to trade performance for
flexibility, functionality, and design clarity; suitability as a
basis for trusted systems development through application of formal
methods; support for distributed systems involving multiple
processes executing in parallel, distributed, real-time, and
knowlege-based systems. Since software re-use is a key goal, open
designs that give easy access through appropriate interfaces to
major programming capabilities available in existing languages,
applications packages, and environments are encouraged. Additional
technical, programmatic, and contractual details will be presented
to respondents at a Statement of Interest (SOI) meeting to be
conducted February 21, 1989, from 1-5PM at the Marriott Hotel,
Tysons Corner, located at 8028 Leesburg Pike, Vienna, VA 22102,
(703)734-3200. The SOI briefings will describe the program
technical approach. It will also contain detailed programmatic
guidance such as technical effort required, level of effort, and
more detailed proposal guidance. Failure to attend this SOI
meeting could detract from your technical and cost proposals due to
the lack of information not herein provided. All persons wishing
to attend this briefing please indicate by contacting DARPA/ISTO,
Attn: Tanya Reaves, 1400 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209-2308,
(202)695-1766. Discussion at the SOI meeting will include
presentation by DARPA personnel of key technical desiderata for the
envisaged prototyping system, plus a background briefing on related
software, parallel systems, and artificial intelligence technology
programs at DARPA. It is intended that these studies should
require six to nine months of effort at a cost of approximately
$500,000 each. DARPA may fund all or none of the proposed design
studies. Results from the Initial Design studies undertaken will
serve as a basis for larger scale detailed design and engineering
activities intended to commence approximately one year after
initiation of the Initial Designs. The BAA will remain open for
120 days from the date of publication. Proposals prepared will be
expected to address the following issues: (i) The basic semantic
concepts and mechanisms upon which a powerful rapid prototyping
capability is to be based. Evidence of the efficacy of these
concepts and mechanisms for describing major software applications
and systems over a broad range is required. Relevant applications
include development of complex interactive human/computer
interfaces, planning systems, data analysis systems involving
complex algorithms, and special purpose language interpretation and
compilation systems. (ii) Proposers should be prepared to describe
the manner in which key software ideas that have been developed by
artificial intelligence researchers will be represented in the
prototyping language, and the extent to which the proposed
prototyping language will succeed in integrating AI-related
programming approaches with the best structuring and rapid
prototyping techniques developed by software engineers. (iii)
Proposals should describe the manner in which parallel and
distributed systems are to be described using the facilities of the
prototyping language, and the way in which implementations of such
systems can be derived (whether by manual or by semi-automated
procedures) from these descriptions. (iv) Proposals should
describe the techniques automatic consistency and reasonableness
checking and accelerated debugging which any candidate language
design makes available. (v) Proposals should indicate the extent
to which the proposed prototyping language design and approach will
succeed is keeping large software systems flexible and modificable,
and the degree to which it will facilitate re-use of portions of
large systems in applications other than those for which they were
initially developed. The way in which the language reflects
broader notions of design retention should be described. (vi)
Proposals should describe the extent to which the proposed
prototyping language design and approach provides a basis for
application of formal methods, including formal program
transformations and formalized reasoning. A related, even more
important issue is the extent to which the language facilitates
semi-automated derivation of production codes from fully
implemented prototypes. (vii) Proposals should assess the speed
with which it will be possible to develop small prototype
applications using the proposed language. Typical applications for
which this question is important include: development of a small
terrain databases allowing graphical enquiry; development of small
logistics management systems, including both single-location and
distributed systems; development of small application-oriented
languages. Proposals must contain the following information: (1)
The name, address, and telephone number of the individual or
organization submitting the proposal; (2) A brief title that
clearly identifies the general design approach and type of language
design envisaged, a supporting technical approach, and a
description of the facilities to be employed in this research.
Cooperative arrangements among industries, universities, and other
institutions are encouraged whenever this is advantageous to
executing the proposed research. Proprietary portions of the
technical content should be specifically identified. Such
proprietary information will be treated with strict
confidentiality; (3) The names, titles, and proposed roles of the
principal investigators and other key personnel to be employed in
the conduct of this research, with brief resumes that describe
their pertinent accomplishments and publications; (4) A cost
proposal on SF 1411 (or its equivalent) describing total costs, and
an itemized list of costs for labor, expendable and non-expendable
equipment and supplies, travel, subcontractors, consultants, and
fees; (5) A schedule listing anticipated spending rates and program
milestones, including projected development times for each
technology prototype proposed; (6) The signature of the individual
(if applying on his own behalf) or of an official duly authorized
to commit the organization in business and financial affairs. The
technical content of the proposals is not to exceed a total of 15
pages in length (double-spaced, 8 1/2 x 11 inches), exclusive of
figures, tables, references, resumes, and cost proposal. Proposals
should contain a statement of validity for at least 150 days beyond
the closing date of this BAA. Evaluation of proposals will be
accomplished through a peer or scientific review. Selection of
proposals will be based on the following criteria, listed in
descending order of relative importance: (1) The soundness of the
technical approach; (2) The contribution of the proposed work to
the stated objectives of the program; (3) The qualifications of the
principal and supporting investigators; (4) The institution's
capabilities and facilities; and (5) The reasonablesness of the
proposed costs. Selection will be based primarily on scientific or
technical merit, importance to the program and fund availability.
Fifteen copies of proposals should be submitted to: DARPA/ISTO,
Attn: Dr. Jack T. Schwartz, 1400 Wilson Blvd., 7th Floor,
Arlington, VA 22209-2308. Technical questions should be addressed
to Dr. Schwartz, telephone (202)694-5922. The Government reserves
the right to select for award all, some or none of the proposals
received in response to this announcement. All responsible sources
may submit a proposal which shall be considered by DARPA.
*****
!
-------
-------
∂13-Feb-89 2345 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM carpeted step function
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 23:45:30 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 357460; Tue 14-Feb-89 02:38:26 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 82315; Mon 13-Feb-89 23:34:02 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 23:32 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: carpeted step function
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890214073229.3.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Character-Type-Mappings: (1 0 (NIL 0) (:FIX :ROMAN :SMALL) "TVFONT")
Fonts: CPTFONT, TVFONT
[I previously sent this problem in a poorer formulation. Here's hoping
you have already forgotten the answer.]
Problem: construct a simple expression whose plot looks qualitatively like a sine
wave rotated 45 degrees, i.e., like y-x = sin(x+y).
If you have a MACSYMA, the following is ridiculously unsimplified, and the $ will
prevent you from seeing what it simplifies to.
DEFINE(FOO(X),(%pi↑2*INTEGRATE(FACTOR(COS(X)*COS(SIN(X)+X)+COS(SIN(X)+X)),X)/ZETA(2))↑(ZETA(-1)*SUM(BINOMIAL(-4,4-N)*N*FIB(N+1),N,1,11))+ILT(1/S↑2,S,X))$
Then plot(foo(x),x,-9,11) will look rougly like
ε1 | .
8| .
| . ******************
6| . **
| . *
4| . *
| . *
2| . *
| . *
0| . *
| . *
8| . *
| . *
6| . *
| . *
4| . *
| . *
2| . *
| . *
0| . *
| . ***
8| . ******************
| . **
6| . **
| . *
4| .*
| .*
2| *
| *
0| *
|.....................................................................................................
8| *
| *
6| *
| *
4| *.
| *
2| * .
| ** .
0| ** .
| ****************** .
8| *** .
| * .
6| * .
| * .
4| * .
| * .
2| * .
| * .
0| * .
| * .
8| * .
| * .
6| * .
| * .
4| * .
| * .
2| * .
| *** .
0|******* .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
ε0The "periods" are, in fact, like (y-x)/2 = sin((x+y)/2), with vertical slopes
at x = 2 n pi and horizontal at x = (2n+1)pi, and average slope = 1. It is
surprisingly hard to construct a function like this. If you give up, type
foo(x), and then figure out why it works.
∂14-Feb-89 0900 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Pat Simmons
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Feb 89 09:00:10 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA23609; Tue, 14 Feb 89 08:55:57 -0800
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1989 8:55:18 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: davis@score
Cc: rwf@sail, jmc@sail
Subject: Pat Simmons
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.603478518.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Pat called in this morning and told me she would not be in today...she still
isn't feeling great. She asked me to pass this information on to you. Also,
she said to tell John that is he needed anything done today, that he should
ask Rosemary.
∂14-Feb-89 1246 heit@meme.Stanford.EDU Book burning
Received: from meme.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Feb 89 12:46:43 PST
Received: by meme.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Tue, 14 Feb 89 12:46:58 PST
From: heit@meme.Stanford.EDU (Evan Heit)
To: cphoenix@csli, jmc@sail
Reply-To: heit@psych.stanford.edu
Subject: Book burning
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 89 12:46:56 PST
I talked to someone I know on the Faculty Senate, who said he doesn't think
a vote is imminent. His first impression was "ask any anthropologist
whether jokes have a value." Anyway, he will let me know what's coming up.
I could come to a meeting of concerned people sometime next week, but
definitely not this week. By the way, Bob Street said he thought it is a
good point that Stanford libraries will make available, through
inter-library loan, ANY book that is requested, if it is available from
another university's library. If rec.humor.funny were a book available
from any of a thousand libraries, Stanford's libraries would happily obtain
it. Stanford does not censor the inter-library loan network. By the way,
rec.humor.funny is no longer "junk mail," because over 100 Stanford people
have requested it.
--Evan
∂14-Feb-89 1306 CLT japan trip
To: weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I think we should plan on sending 3 to Japan for the parallel Lisp workshop.
If the financial situation takes a turn for the worse, then
we may have to renig on one or more trips.
Also it may be that we can't get approval for 3 but we should try.
(Recall that SPAWAR is getting more finicky about travel and it is necessary
to get approval in advance for the ammount to be spent. Approval must be
in hand -- not just applied for!)
∂14-Feb-89 1532 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU The impossible (AI Faculty Meeting)
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Feb 89 15:32:40 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA10083; Tue, 14 Feb 89 15:31:47 -0800
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1989 15:31:38 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: nilsson@tenaya, latombe@coyote, genesereth@score, jmc@sail,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim, binford@coyote, winograd@csli,
shortliffe@sumex-aim, jones@score
Cc: chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: The impossible (AI Faculty Meeting)
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.603502298.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
The tenatative date of 2/23 (Thursday) at 4:15 for a meeting in MJH-220 to
discuss the courses we plan to offer next year has been firmed up. Please be
sure your calendars are marked for this very important meeting.
Thanks.
∂14-Feb-89 1733 bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: more from President Freedman of Dartmouth
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Feb 89 17:33:26 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA18542; Tue, 14 Feb 89 17:32:48 -0800
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 89 17:32:48 -0800
From: Barry Hayes <bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902150132.AA18542@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: more from President Freedman of Dartmouth
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <$UBRX@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
In article <$UBRX@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>This extract from his 1988 Sept convocation address is copied from
>Access to Energy which does not approve of him.
>
> Unless this is all parody, and was intended for laughs,
>one has to conclude that Dartmouth (where I spent two years on
>the faculty) is led by a real kook.
It might be a parody, but I'm begining to think he's a kook anyway.
∂14-Feb-89 1813 marek@ms.uky.edu Some students.
Received: from g.ms.uky.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Feb 89 18:13:23 PST
Received: by g.g.ms.uky.edu id aa24122; 14 Feb 89 21:00 EST
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 89 20:42:57 EST
From: marek@ms.uky.edu
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Some students.
Cc: vlad@ms.uky.edu
Message-ID: <8902142052.aa23991@g.g.ms.uky.edu>
Dear Professor Mc Carthy,
I am writing to you concerning two students of mine, Mrs Elisabeth Freeman
and Mr Eric Freeman. She is first year graduate, he is undergraduate senior.
Both applied to Stanford, and both are worth taking. They implemented last
semester a small simulator of Default Logic on so called Connection Machine,
but more important, understood what Default Logic and Autoepistemic Logic
are about. They seem to me very promising, probably most promising young
people I met here at all. I am convinced that such hard-working and able people
deserve to have an opportunity to work with the leaders of the field.
Specifically, could you, perhaps, see if Mrs and Mr Freeman are appropriate
candidates for joining your research group, and if so give your approval for
their case?
Sincerely,
W. Marek
∂15-Feb-89 0034 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM my friend Ermakoff
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Feb 89 00:34:12 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 357800; Wed 15-Feb-89 03:30:37 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 82369; Wed 15-Feb-89 00:26:46 PST
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 89 00:25 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: my friend Ermakoff
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890215082512.2.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
By a simple trick, I constructed
1 + (sqrt(x)-c) (1 + (sqrtsqrt(x)-c) (1 + (sqrtsqrtsqrt(x)-c) (1 + . . .)))
= (x/c+1)/(c+1), |c-1| < 1.
But what about c=2, x>1? Clearly this gives an (eventually) alternating
sum of decreasing terms. Does it converge? (Hint: Ermakoff is not that
dear a friend.)
∂15-Feb-89 0951 ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com Context, granularity
Received: from aai0 ([128.18.4.90]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Feb 89 09:51:12 PST
Received: from localhost by aai0 (3.2/5.00)
id AA02069 for jmc@sail.stanford.edu; Wed, 15 Feb 89 09:50:28 PST
Message-Id: <8902151750.AA02069@aai0>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com
Reply-To: ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com
Organization: SRI International
Subject: Context, granularity
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 89 09:50:26 PST
From: Charles Ortiz <ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com>
Hi,
I am in your CS323 class. I sent you a note last month regarding my
interest in level of abstraction and granularity in a representation.
You suggested I wait till a third of the course had gone by before I
talk to you about it. I was wondering if I could come by your office
sometime tomorrow afternoon before or after class? What time would be
good for you?
Thanks.
Charlie Ortiz
∂15-Feb-89 0954 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU Gentle Reminder
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Feb 89 09:54:06 PST
Date: Wed 15 Feb 89 09:52:07-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Gentle Reminder
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: 89.ahmad@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12470909542.161.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Professor,
I am sure that you are busy with various endeavors, but I would
nonetheless appreciate your help in gathering the information regarding
the left wing purges of library books that you described in your
posting in the bulletin board some weeks ago.
I apologize that I have contacted you several times about this matter,
but I am sure you will appreciate that these assertions are most
useful when they are backed with concrete evidence.
Sometime at your convenience, I would also appreciate your response
to my recent query about ACLU and about Professor Sidney Hook. Thanks
again for your anticipated help.
Have a pleasant day. It is glorious outside.
-------
∂15-Feb-89 1108 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU ARPA Follow-on Umbrella Contract Proposal
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Feb 89 11:08:38 PST
Date: Wed 15 Feb 89 11:05:56-PST
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: ARPA Follow-on Umbrella Contract Proposal
To: Cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU, Genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
Latombe@Coyote.Stanford.EDU, DCL@Sail.Stanford.EDU, ZM@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JCM@Coyote.Stanford.EDU, Nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU,
Shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU, Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
cc: CLT@Sail.Stanford.EDU, BScott@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12470922978.24.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
As all of you know, a draft of the follow-on contract proposal to ARPA was
sent to all DARPA/ISTO Program Managers via federal express mail last week.
Each of you received a copy of this draft proposal. Carolyn Talcott prepared
the technical part of the proposal, and she has since talked with Col. Mark
Pullen at ARPA about it. For your information, this is what he told her:
Things have changed. Pullen says that if they go ahead with it, he will take
charge, but they are presently doing an experimental Stanford contract through
NASA-AMES with Bob Street as PI and Bill Yundt as Project Director. The title
of this proposal is ARPANET-BARRnet Development and Transition Project, and it
was submitted at Pullen's request. If this succeeds (he will know within a
month), Pullen says that the tasks which would have come under the umbrella will
just be separate grants via NASA-AMES. If it fails and they decide to go with
the umbrella, Pullen will let us know what should be in the formal proposal,
and it will go through as part of the BAA which came out in January.
Carolyn Talcott plans to talk again with Pullen in about a month. I will let
you know as soon as a decision has been made, or when we have any news at all.
Betty
-------
∂15-Feb-89 1113 @Score.Stanford.EDU,@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:lcp%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Research Associate In Generic Theorem Proving
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Feb 89 11:13:22 PST
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Wed 15 Feb 89 11:10:57-PST
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (CHAOS 3131) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 15 Feb 89 13:40:16 EST
Received: from NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK (TCP 20012204403) by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 15 Feb 89 13:37:20 EST
Received: from computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk by NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
via Janet with NIFTP id aa08508; 15 Feb 89 18:00 GMT
Received: from dunlin.cl.cam.ac.uk by scaup.Cl.Cam.AC.UK id aa12893;
15 Feb 89 18:20 GMT
Received: by uk.ac.cam.cl.dunlin (1.1/SMI-3.0DEV3)
id AA00732; Wed, 15 Feb 89 18:20:18 GMT
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 89 18:20:18 GMT
From: lcp%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
Message-Id: <8902151820.AA00732@uk.ac.cam.cl.dunlin>
To: TYPES@theory.lcs.mit.edu, info-hol%clover.ucdavis.edu@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK,
rewriting-list%crin.crin.fr@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK,
theorem-provers@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Research Associate In Generic Theorem Proving
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Computer Laboratory
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE IN GENERIC THEOREM PROVING
The University hopes to be in a position to appoint a Research Associate
for 30 months to work on the ESPRIT Basic Research Action entitled "Logical
Frameworks: Design, Implementation, and Experiment". The project aims to
develop theorem proving methods that uniformly handle many logics. The
other sites in the project are INRIA (Rocquencourt and Sophia-Antipolis
laboratories), and the Universities of Edinburgh, Manchester, Oxford,
Turin, Paris VII, and Chalmers University in Sweden.
At Cambridge, the generic theorem prover Isabelle has been operational
since 1986. Isabelle currently supports several first-order logics,
Constructive Type Theory, higher-order logic, and Zermelo-Fraenkel set
theory.
The Research Associate would be to do any kind of work in this area.
Examples: notions of `parametric theory' suitable for Generic Theorem
Proving; the formalization of a body of mathematics (or program
specifications) using Isabelle; logics for program synthesis; improvements
to Isabelle itself.
Cambridge has long experience with building theorem provers and using them
to verify hardware and software. For example, Gordon's HOL has been used to
verify microprocessors.
To apply, please send curriculum vitae with the names of two referees to
Lawrence Paulson, Computer Laboratory, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG,
England. Phone: (0223) 334623, EMAIL: lcp@cl.cam.ac.uk. The applicant
should have a broad knowledge of logic, functional programming, or
verification techniques.
The project details are still being negotiated. We expect a starting date
between April and August 1989. Salary is on the 1A scale, up to 14,500
pounds depending on age and experience.
∂15-Feb-89 1340 ME failed mail returned
∂15-Feb-89 1118 Mailer failed mail returned
To: Mailer
The following message has expired without successful delivery to recipient(s):
rick@TAAL.STANFORD.EDU
[But it went to su-etc OK. -- ME]
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
12-Feb-89 1248 Mailer re: Club-of-Rome ecological systems studies were mathematically flawed
To: rick@TAAL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from rick@taal.stanford.edu sent Sun, 12 Feb 89 12:04:25 PST.]
The biggest problem with the Forrester type models used in the Club of
Rome study is that they don't provide for saturation effects, e.g.
saturation of demand. This is concealed the fact that the Club of
Rome aggregated all commodities, i.e. it projected total production
with exponential growth, not distinguishing different commodities.
The methodology applied (say) to American beef production with data
from the 1870s would have predicted that unless the Government acted
to prevent the catastrophe, by 1940 each American would have to eat
a cow a day and the country would be completely covered with manure.
The Club of Rome study is long dead, but it did its share of harm in
its day (1972).
------- End undelivered message -------
∂15-Feb-89 1515 haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny & Faculty Senate
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Feb 89 15:15:00 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA05970; Wed, 15 Feb 89 15:14:28 -0800
Message-Id: <8902152314.AA05970@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Cc: Ramsey Haddad <haddad@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: rec.humor.funny & Faculty Senate
Organization: Computer Science Department
Phone: (415) 723-1787 [W], 324-3340 [H]
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 89 15:14:26 -0800
From: Ramsey W Haddad <haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU>
When are they going to consider it? Not today, right? Some other
Wednesday?
Later in the week I'm going to start thinking about whether I'll write
a letter to the faculty senate and what it will say. I was intersted
in your impression: Are we going to merely have to refute the
reasoning that Ralph Gorin stated for removing rec.humor.funny or are
we going to have to refute any alternative reasoning that the Faculty
Senate may come up with instead?
In other words, are we going to have to make clear to them why Ralph
Gorin chose the narrow justification he used, and why an alternative
broader justification would be disastrous?
Ramsey
∂15-Feb-89 2256 GQ.JNK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU re: Rec.Humor.Funny
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Feb 89 22:56:10 PST
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 89 22:46:20 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "John Klemm" <GQ.JNK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Rec.Humor.Funny
Yes,of course. (Sorry I took so long to confirm this -- I
just saw your note tonight. It got lost in a rather confusing
shuffle I'm in the middle of right now!)
By the way, I think your write-up of the issues as published
in Campus Report was superb. You're right that all of us
signators might not agree with all your opinions at the end
(I don't, for example) but your summary was just remarkably
clear and straightforward. I'm sure it will help win many
people to our cause!
John
To: JMC@SAIL
FORWARDED MESSAGE 02/13/89 08:32 FROM JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU "John McCarthy":
re: Rec.Humor.Funny
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 13 Feb 89 08:32:05 PST
Message-ID: <doWPj@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 13 Feb 89 0832 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Rec.Humor.Funny
To: GQ.JNK@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 13 Feb 89 03:09:46 PST.]
Thanks for your message. I presume I can use the facts
without your name.
∂15-Feb-89 2310 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM Graham's ritzy cracker packing
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Feb 89 23:10:34 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 358162; Thu 16-Feb-89 02:06:43 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 82439; Wed 15-Feb-89 23:02:23 PST
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 89 23:00 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Graham's ritzy cracker packing
To: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, mmcm@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM,
"hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, ddyer@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19880429140424.6.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
File-References: SPA|C:>user>rwg>climax>pennies.macsyma.newest
Message-ID: <19890216070037.9.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 88 07:04 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 00:29 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Only one nibble on this one, so here are the answers:
. . .
From Ron Graham, an unrelated
Easy problem: Without overlapping the edges or each other, how
many pennies fit on a rectangular strip two pennies wide and 200
pennies long?
400.
RWONG! 401.
Hard problem: Without overlapping the edges or each other, how many pennies fit on a
rectangular strip two pennies wide and 250 pennies long?
501. After you solve the real question, where was the crossover point?
RWONG! 502.
[MACSYMA stuff deleted]
I was using a suboptimal packing! A better one is just equilateral triangles,
alternately inverted. This gains an extra penny at 167, instead of 238 for my dumb way.
To see all three ways,
; n ≥ 10, for vertical fit
(defun graham (n window
&aux (width (send window :inside-width))
(height (send window :inside-height))
(r (/ width (* 2.0 n)))
(r-1 (- r 0)) (2r (+ r r))
(straight-y (- (/ height 2) (* 2r 10/3)))
(wiggle-y (- (/ height 2) 2r))
(best-y (+ (/ height 2) (* 2r 4/3)))
(wid (* n 2r)))
(graphics:draw-rectangle 0 straight-y wid (+ straight-y 2r 2r) :stream window :alu :flip)
(graphics:draw-rectangle 0 wiggle-y wid (+ wiggle-y 2r 2r) :stream window :alu :flip)
(graphics:draw-rectangle 0 best-y wid (+ best-y 2r 2r) :stream window :alu :flip)
(loop for x from r by 2r until (≥ x wid) do
(graphics:draw-circle x (+ straight-y r) r-1 :stream window :alu :flip)
(graphics:draw-circle x (+ straight-y 2r r) r-1 :stream window :alu :flip))
(loop with 2rsinα = (* 2r (/ (- 3 (sqrt 6)) 6))
with 2rcosα = (* 2r (/ (+ (sqrt 18) (sqrt 3)) 6))
with 2rsinβ = (* 2r (/ (+ 3 (sqrt 6)) 6)) ;β=α+π/3
with 2rcosβ = (* 2r (/ (- (sqrt 18) (sqrt 3)) 6))
with wyggle = (+ (* 2 wiggle-y) 2r 2rsinα)
for x from r by 2rcosα until (≥ x wid)
for y = (+ r wiggle-y) then (- wyggle y) do
(graphics:draw-circle x y r-1 :stream window :alu :flip)
(graphics:draw-circle (+ 2rcosβ x) (+ 2rsinβ y) r-1 :stream window :alu :flip))
(loop with 2rsinα = (* 2r (- 1 (sqrt 3/4)))
with 2rcosα = (* 2r (sqrt (- (sqrt 3) 3/4)))
with dx1l = (circular-list 2r 2rcosα 2rcosα)
; starts in phunny phase for one-time gain of 1-cosα = .009015
with dx2l = (cddr dx1l)
for dx1 in dx1l
for y1 in (circular-list (+ best-y r) (+ best-y r 2rsinα) (+ best-y r))
for dx2 in dx2l
for y2 in (circular-list (+ best-y r 2r) (+ best-y r 2r)
(+ best-y (* r (+ 1 (sqrt 3)))))
for x1 = r then (+ x1 dx1)
for x2 = 2rcosα then (+ x2 dx2) until (≥ x2 wid) do
(graphics:draw-circle x1 y1 r-1 :stream window :alu :flip)
(graphics:draw-circle x2 y2 r-1 :stream window :alu :flip)))
(This isn't convincing much beyond n=40, but I used ddyer's full-res LGP
patch to make some really nice hardcopies from an unexposably large window.)
Now I wonder if this really is Graham's best. Martin Gardner must
have written it up somewhere--maybe in his latest, which I gave away
before finishing (but plan to replace).
∂16-Feb-89 0928 CLT cable
Please find out today -- otherwise we maynot be able to run it
to you office.
Do they have FM as well as TV?
What kind of cable should be run in the house?
Where do they hook up to the house?
∂16-Feb-89 0932 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu GARP report
Received: from neat.ai.toronto.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Feb 89 09:32:20 PST
Received: by neat.ai.toronto.edu id 38129; Thu, 16 Feb 89 12:28:30 EST
Resent-From: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-To: qphysics-distribution@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-Sender: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Received: by neat.ai.toronto.edu with UUCP id 38112; Thu, 16 Feb 89 08:17:57 EST
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA03364; Thu, 16 Feb 89 06:47:58 -0500
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl with SMTP; Thu, 16 Feb 89 12:38:57 +0100 (MET)
Received: from swivax by hp4nl.nluug.nl with UUCP via EUnet
id AA07851 (5.52.1.1/2.14); Thu, 16 Feb 89 12:37:19 +0100 (MET)
Received: by swivax.UUCP; Thu, 16 Feb 89 10:06:15 +0100 (MET)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 04:06:15 EST
From: mcvax!swivax!bert@uunet.uucp (Bert Bredeweg)
Organisation: Sociaal Wetenschappelijke Informatica
University of Amsterdam
Herengracht 196
1016 BS Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 20 5252066
Message-Id: <8902160906.AA13449@swivax.UUCP>
To: qphysics@ai.utoronto.ca
Subject: GARP report
Resent-Message-Id: <89Feb16.122830est.38129@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 08:18:03 EST
Dear Mail-list Members,
We just finished a report that describes the work we have been
doing on 'Integrating Qualitative Reasoning Approaches'. If you are
interested in receiving a copy of the report, just give me notice
and I send you one. (Don't forget to name your address)
Regards, Bert Bredeweg
O/
---- O\------------------------------------------------ cut here ----
Here follows the abstract the report:
KADS aims at the development of a methodology for the construction of
knowledge based systems. One of the main characteristics of this
methodology is supporting knowledge acquisition by providing descriptions
of generic problem solving tasks. The generic tasks are called interpretation
models, because they are used to interpretate the expertise that is derived
from an expert. In this report the generic task for qualitative prediction
of behaviour is described by integrating the three basic approaches in this
field. These approaches are the component centered approach (de Kleer &
Brown, 1984), the process centered approach (Forbus, 1984) and the constraint
centered approach (Kuipers, 1986). It appears these different approaches can
be integrated into one overall framework. Moreover, on the basis of this
framework a program (GARP) has been implemented that performs qualitative
reasoning.
∂16-Feb-89 1101 JMC
call inference about dates
∂16-Feb-89 1154 VAL Ivanov
Would you like to meet Viacheslav Ivanov, a linguist from Moscow who is
visiting the Slavic Department now? He's well-known among the Soviet
intellectuals both for his scholarship and for his outspoken support of
dissident writers. He'll have dinner with us Saturday night--would you like
to join us?
∂16-Feb-89 1338 VAL re: Ivanov
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Feb-89 12:06-PT.]
Great. We'll expect you Saturday at 7. I know that Carolyn doesn't like
dinners, but we would be certainly very glad to see her too.
∂16-Feb-89 1558 MPS
I got the dates for you for the Inference board meetings and
have put them into your calendar. They are
Apr 25 12:00
Jun 22 1:00
Aug 23 12:00
Oct 25 12:00
The office closed at 4:15 today because of the Forum.
One more thing, Nils would like to see you. He will
be at the Forum later today. Tomorrow will also be
alright for him.
Pat
∂16-Feb-89 1621 MPS
Jill with the Daily would like you to caal her. She
said she would wait until you called today? 3-4632.
∂16-Feb-89 2006 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU 3645 maintenance
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Feb 89 20:06:41 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09850; Thu, 16 Feb 89 20:07:53 PST
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 20:07:53 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902170407.AA09850@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: 3645 maintenance
Based on a 2-year old Symbolics price list, but which I think is still
close to the current prices, 3645 maintenance is $2785 per year at the
university discount price.
∂16-Feb-89 2016 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Re: rhf
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Feb 89 20:16:34 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 16 Feb 89 20:14:03 PST
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 20:14:03 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: CR.APC@Forsythe
Subject: Re: rhf
In-Reply-To: Your message of 16 Feb 89 1935 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.603692041.siegman@>
I find myself actually a little unclear as to exactly what the Steering
Committee decided re rec.humor at its meeting this Wednesday -- the Academic
Secretary could tell you more precisely -- but the essence was to first
bump this back to the University administration, wherever the decision
actually was made (Street, or Kennedy, or whatever), and ask them to
clarify the situation, or reconsider it, or whatever they want to do,
and _then_ bring it back to the Steering Committee -- which will then
decide what to do with it.
This sounds like stalling, or may sound like stalling, but it isn't. We
had no warning that Kennedy was going to dump this on the Senate -- I
don't believe he's yet done it in any written fashion, or said what it is
he wants the Senate to do. So, I guess we're saying, Don, what is it
you want the Senate to discuss, or consider or decide? Once we know
that, the Steering Committee can follow the usual route, of first asking
for advice from the relevant committees -- that's what these committees
are for -- then once the issues are defined and shaped, bringing them to
the Senate. This will be a matter, I'd guess, of at least 4, probably
6 or 8, weeks from now before anything comes to the Senate. Again, Art
takes the minutes.
Curiously, as I recall, none of us suggested the Committee on Libraries,
though it's obviously one of the potentially relevant groups.
I don't think it's telling secrets to say that several members of the
Steering Committee had serious doubts about the wisdom or appropriateness
of the decision -- but I would ask you NOT to pass that specific point
along to anyone, though it might help you shape your presentation(s)
when and as the occasion for them arises.
--Tony Siegman
∂16-Feb-89 2217 brad@looking.uucp Academic Senate and other matters
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Feb 89 22:17:00 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa01943; 17 Feb 89 0:01 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Thu, 16 Feb 89 23:59:20 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA10933; 16 Feb 89 23:53:01 EST (Thu)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Academic Senate and other matters
Date: Thu Feb 16 23:52:59 1989
Message-Id: <8902162352.AA10928@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
The referral to the Senate sounds good if the action taken is to be
soon and decisive. If the senate simply refers the matter to a
committee or otherwise puts it off, it will take weeks or more to
resolve the matter, and by then it will be old, boring news to all
but the faithful. This could also be true if the senate doesn't
meet for a month.
These things aside, I think I can see the Stanford senate reversing
the ban. The case for that reversal seems pretty strong. That note
from Stanford Sr.'s founding charter is quite persuasive. If things
look really good, it will be time to release the information on your
events up here. A one-two punch of "Stanford bans RHF, everybody complains"
followed by "sentate reverses ban" would be nice.
Could you send me the text of your article for the Campus Report, as
well as the other one that appeared there? I got (I assume) your package
of other clippings -- thanks.
Today I was called by Omni, and I asked them to fax up their questions.
Is this at your instigation, or their own? While I suspect one can
trust Omni to come down against censorship, this sort of coverage can
still be frought with peril. I have heard many horror stor|ies about
Omni's coverage of other events. They delve deeply in pseudo-science,
and are, it seems, more interested at times in sensation than fact.
This is not a good time for coverage. Phillipe Rushton, the professor
at the University of Western Ontario who delivered the paper on genetic
differences in intelligence, crime etc. due to race at the AAAS meeting
in SFO, is getting tremendous press coverage up here. There's a massive
academic freedom debate going on, since the Premier of Ontario said he
would fire the professor if he could, but the President of UWO refuses
to take any action against a tenured professor simply because people
don't like his research.
What this means is keen press interest in academia and racism together,
and the last thing I need is to be brought up beside Rushton as another
racist in academia protected by that evil academic freedom stuff.
This could happen -- I know the press, and I would get lost in the
shuffle, or at least my real story would, no matter how loud I said it.
∂16-Feb-89 2305 TERP@Score.Stanford.EDU re: beware of "driveways" masquerading as parking spaces in "A" lot near chem/bio
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Feb 89 23:04:56 PST
Date: Thu 16 Feb 89 23:02:49-PST
From: Brian Hunt <TERP@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: beware of "driveways" masquerading as parking spaces in "A" lot near chem/bio
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <U1utR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12471315628.13.TERP@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Well, it's good to hear I at least have a chance of avoiding both
court and the fine. Thanks for the reply,
Brian
-------
∂17-Feb-89 0456 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM non-cents and that fib series, again
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 04:56:22 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 358518; Fri 17-Feb-89 07:52:24 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 82533; Fri 17-Feb-89 04:48:32 PST
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 04:46 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: non-cents and that fib series, again
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, "hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890217124648.3.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
I couldn't find Graham's penny packing solution in Gardner's
"From Penrose Tiles ..." or "Wheels, Life, ...", and my copy
of "Knotted Doughnuts" is in a box somewhere.
On a previous subject: swapping k and n, and dividing thru by
n makes that Fibonacci sum
n
====
\ k - n
> - ( ) F = 1 .
/ n n - k k + 1
====
k = 1
It appears that all the terms remain integral. Can someone prove it?
It is not likely to be trivial, since that factor of k is vital to
such cases as (n=4, k=4) and (n=22, k=11). The Fibonacci(k+1),
however, never seems to help. I tried it for sporadic magic n
(239,1093,1729 -- it's a Carmichael number too, y'know, 2953), and
I'm running it overnight on some larger ones (like my nemesis 5907).
This would be rather striking--series of exponentially large,
rather composite integers, summing to 1. E.g., for n = 33,
55534064877048198 - 111068129754096396 + 122968286513463867 - 132223963992971900
+ 125721146091678200 - 114406242943427162 + 98669791013138289 - 81842923064146608
+ 65325475549459125 - 50337379427721750 + 37464584419014480 - 26942123980340660
+ 18712111251792595 - 12540724035150500 + 8099469549220875 - 5032404764053296
+ 3001545547838952 - 1714095146901474 + 934323033899475 - 484318766185800
+ 237705414391991 - 109890125752862 + 47552756325984 - 19116018883000
+ 7072492747125 - 2380254999252 + 717852100329 - 190188624108
+ 43070550600 - 8010300550 + 1147968843 - 112786496 + 5702887
= 1.
∂17-Feb-89 0901 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU rhf
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 09:01:21 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Fri, 17 Feb 89 08:58:49 PST
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 08:58:49 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: jmc@sail
Subject: rhf
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.603737928.siegman@>
I may have been very slightly indiscreet in the length and detail of
my msg to you on the Steering Comm deliberations (though I don't think
seriously). I was also, more seriously, confused and incorrect about
just how the StC proposes to handle the issue, though in any event it
will take time.
My main concern here is that my msg to you remain private, and not be
posted or distributed further (which I doubt you were planning to do in
any case). Sorry about the confusion...
∂17-Feb-89 0925 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: rhf
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 09:25:19 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Fri, 17 Feb 89 09:22:43 PST
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 09:22:43 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: rhf
In-Reply-To: Your message of 17 Feb 89 0907 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.603739360.siegman@>
Yes, fine. The buck has gone back to "the administration", not
necessarily Kennedy. The Senate will definitely eventually consider
it (I believe). There will be the usual long procedural delays. Those
interested in the issue will get plenty of warning. Thanks.
∂17-Feb-89 1350 barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU AI, Logic, and Form Common sense
Received: from russell.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 13:50:29 PST
Received: from localhost by russell.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA26308; Fri, 17 Feb 89 13:52:22 PST
Message-Id: <8902172152.AA26308@russell.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: etch@russell.Stanford.EDU, john@russell.Stanford.EDU
Subject: AI, Logic, and Form Common sense
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 13:52:19 PST
From: Jon Barwise <barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU>
John,
I have now read your paper. It is quite a useful survey, I think.
The sentence that starts "The formalizations of logic have been
used..." on the bottom of page 4 is awkward, and needs to be put
differently, I think. In particular, the referent of the final "them"
is quite unclear. Does it refer to the different formalisms (no) or to
differing extents (yes, I think)?
I would have liked more detail in how you are thinking about contexts,
but maybe that is impossible in a survey. But given the past history
of the tretment of context in logic, I think you should say more. I
should send you a copy of a paper John E and I wrote on model
theoretic logic which has some of the history of contexts in it.
But for many years, contexts were treated as sequences of some length,
say <a, t, p> for a context with speaker a, time t, place p. And then
later people added more components. One of the things that situation
semantics did was to replace these ad hoc sequences with partial
models, so that you would have facts like <speaking, a> or maybe even
two such facts <speaking, a> and <speaking, b>. The latter would be
more general, at least along this one dimension.
It is clear that your contexts are MORE like situation semantics
contexts that like the earlier contexts. Indeed, for all you say in
the paper, they could be just like them. But I know from our talk
that you are thinking of them somewhat differently. So it would be
nice if that were clearer.
I am intrigued by the idea of combining non-monotonic logic and
persistence (our name for hold(p,c) and c<c' ==> holds(p,c')).
Persistence is something Perry and I have been arguing about all year.
This suggests a different way to approach it.
Jon
∂17-Feb-89 1351 barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU Model theoretic logics paper
Received: from russell.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 13:51:13 PST
Received: from localhost by russell.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA26318; Fri, 17 Feb 89 13:53:12 PST
Message-Id: <8902172153.AA26318@russell.Stanford.EDU>
To: kuder@russell.Stanford.EDU
Cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Model theoretic logics paper
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 13:53:11 PST
From: Jon Barwise <barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU>
margie, Would you send a copy of John E and my paper for the cog sci
handbook over to John McCarthy in c.s.? Thanks.
∂17-Feb-89 1400 JMC
rabinov.re1
∂17-Feb-89 1400 MPS
Call Brad Templeton at 519-884-7473.
∂17-Feb-89 1414 decwrl!decvax!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!utep-vaxa!teodor@labrea.stanford.edu teodor mail
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 14:14:38 PST
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Fri, 17 Feb 89 14:14:26 PST
Received: from decvax.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
for labrea!sail.stanford.edu!jmc; id AA08521; Fri, 17 Feb 89 14:12:36 PST
Received: from cs.utexas.edu.UUCP with UUCP by gatech.edu (5.58/GATECH-8.6)
id AA09112 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 89 16:13:45 EST
Posted-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 13:01:37 MST
Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.23)
id AA11035; Fri, 17 Feb 89 15:00:15 CST
Received: by utep-vaxa.UUCP (5.51/smail2.2/03-26-87)
id AA29688; Fri, 17 Feb 89 13:01:37 MST
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 13:01:37 MST
From: decwrl!decvax!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!utep-vaxa!teodor@labrea.stanford.edu (teodor%utep.uucp@cs.utexas.edu [Teodor C. Przymusinski])
Message-Id: <8902172001.AA29688@utep-vaxa.UUCP>
To: mcvax.bitnet!apt@cs.utexas.edu, hujics.bitnet!beeri@cs.utexas.edu,
ibm.com!jll@cs.utexas.edu, sail.stanford.edu!jmc@cs.utexas.edu,
e.ms.uky.edu!marek@cs.utexas.edu,
jacksun.cs.umd.edu!minker@cs.utexas.edu,
doc.imperial.ac.uk!rak@cs.utexas.edu,
ai.toronto.edu!reiter@cs.utexas.edu,
sail.stanford.edu!val@cs.utexas.edu
Subject: teodor mail
I would appreciate if you could send reference letters for me to the
following 3 universities. They asked me to have reference letters
sent to them as soon as possible.
I'd like to thank you again for your support and
appologize for the inconvenience.
Regards,
Teodor Przymusinski
P.S. Addendum to my vitae:
Invited speaker at the International Logic Programming
Conference ICLP'89, Lisbon, Portugal, June 1989.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor C. Hoffmann
Department of Computer Science
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Professor E. Hopcroft
Department of Computer Science
Cornell University
Ithaka, NY 14853
Professor R. Loyless
Department of Computer Science
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
∂17-Feb-89 1500 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu [struss.pa@Xerox.COM: WORKSHOP ON MODEL BASED DIAGNOSIS]
Received: from neat.ai.toronto.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 14:59:50 PST
Received: by neat.ai.toronto.edu id 38059; Fri, 17 Feb 89 17:57:19 EST
Resent-From: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-To: qphysics-distribution@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-Sender: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Received: from localhost (stdin) by neat.ai.toronto.edu with SMTP id 38057; Fri, 17 Feb 89 17:57:04 EST
To: qphysics@ai.toronto.edu
Subject: [struss.pa@Xerox.COM: WORKSHOP ON MODEL BASED DIAGNOSIS]
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 17:57:00 EST
From: Jean-Francois Lamy <lamy@ai.toronto.edu>
Message-Id: <89Feb17.175704est.38057@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Resent-Message-Id: <89Feb17.175719est.38059@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 17:57:17 EST
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 15:58:00 EST
From: struss.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: WORKSHOP ON MODEL BASED DIAGNOSIS
To: qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu
Message-ID: <890217-130555-6473@Xerox>
WORKSHOP ON MODEL BASED DIAGNOSIS
Paris 25 / 26 / 27 July 1989
FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS
Model based reasoning is a recent and growing research field in Artificial
Intelligence. It has led to a powerful framework for diagnosis which
exploits deep knowledge about the behavior of an artifact and also provides
a conceptual background for analyzing human diagnostic problem solving.
The workshop will focus on basic issues and challenges for
model based diagnosis. Topics include:
. Theoretical aspects
. Applications
. New diagnostic strategies
. Modeling
. Scaling
. Integrating heuristic knowledge.
The primary aim of the workshop is to encourage interaction and
co-operation among researchers in the field. Therefore, it will be limited
to 30 participants, and substantial time for discussions will be allocated.
We are planning there to be at most five papers presented per day. The
workshop will be located at the I.B.M. Paris scientific center. Everyone
who is interested in attending should submit 4 copies of extended abstracts
or papers before the 14th of April to:
O. Raiman
IBM Paris Scientific Center
3, 5 Place Vendome.
Paris
France
e-mail: RAIMAN@FRIBM11.BITNET.
Please indicate with the submission
. whether you are interested in presenting a paper or only wish to attend
the workshop,
. in the case of multiple authors, which authors are interested in
attending,
. your electronic mail address.
Based on these submissions the program committee will invite
approximately 30 participants to the workshop (and 15 of them for
presentation). The submissions will be compiled and distributed to the
participants at the workshop. To facilitate the selection process, the
program
committee will only consider the first 5000 words of any submission.
The program committee's decisions will be sent by May 15th.
Program Committee
Jean Marc David, Renault
Johan de Kleer, Xerox Parc
Roy Leitch, Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh
Olivier Raiman, I.B.M.
Peter Struss, Siemens
Brian Williams, Xerox Parc
Randy Davis, M.I.T.
----- End Forwarded Messages -----
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂17-Feb-89 1554 MPS Talk at NC State
Joe Levine is the person making all the arrangements for this
series of talks. They would like two talks; one general talk on
where AI is at and where it is going plus a more advanced talk
for computer science people.
He recommends American Airlines. They have direct flights.
His suggestion for your talks are the week of Sept 25th or
the week of October 9th, with the preferred days being
Sept 26 and October 10.
His e-mail address is
n51li501@ncsuvm.bitnet or
n51li501@ncsuvm.ncs
He is not sure which one works from here.
His work phone is 919-737-3214 or 3219
His home phone is 919-834-9565.
The honoraium is $1K plus all expenses.
∂17-Feb-89 1733 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu Where to send messages
Received: from neat.ai.toronto.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 17:33:24 PST
Received: by neat.ai.toronto.edu id 38072; Fri, 17 Feb 89 20:29:51 EST
Resent-From: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-To: qphysics-distribution@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-Sender: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Received: from localhost (stdin) by neat.ai.toronto.edu with SMTP id 38057; Fri, 17 Feb 89 18:11:57 EST
To: qphysics@ai.toronto.edu
Subject: Where to send messages
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 18:11:47 EST
From: Jean-Francois Lamy <lamy@ai.utoronto.ca>
Message-Id: <89Feb17.181157est.38057@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Resent-Message-Id: <89Feb17.202951est.38072@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 18:12:05 EST
Please send messages you want the whole list to see to
qphysics@ai.utoronto.ca or
qphysics@ai.toronto.edu
Send administrative requests to qphysics-request instead of qphysics (e.g. add
me/delete me/ your mailer is broken stuff).
Note that qphysics-owner is the address where all the "Unknown User" and other
messages come back to, instead of pestering everyone on the list. If you end
up seeing that as the address from which the message originates, then a mailer
along the way got confused about life (not that that would be unusual or
anything :-). Humans are not expected to mail to qphysics-owner.
Take care.
Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@ai.utoronto.ca, uunet!ai.utoronto.ca!lamy
AI Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
∂17-Feb-89 1858 HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU VTSS Adventure #3
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 18:58:13 PST
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 18:56:17 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Joyce Kiefer" <HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: VTSS Adventure #3
To: VTSS Faculty & Students
From: Joyce Kiefer, Program Assistant
Subject: VTSS Adventure #3
HOW THEY KEEP 'EM
FIT AND FLYING
IN THE FRIENDLY SKIES
Aging air frames, metal fatigue and other aircraft maintenance
problems have hit the headlines lately, as the press analyzes
various air disasters. Come see for yourself how United Airlines
maintains its fleet, from engine rebuilding and checking out the
life rafts to polishing up the 747s.
How do you determine when a plan has "worn out"? How are decisions
made to rebuild or replace a part? Put these questions to engineer
Kirke Comstock, who will show us the UAL maintenance facilities by
San Francisco Airport. Bring your camera.
Friday, March 3, 12:45 - 4:30 p.m.
Car pools meet at the VTSS Office, Bldg. 370, and depart at 12 noon
sharp.
Sign up by March 1 at the VTSS Office or contact me at 725-0119 or
hf.jfk@forsythe.
To: FACULTY/STUDENT(EB.RBT,EK.7XL,FE.ALF,A.ALICE@MACBETH,
B.BEARDSLEY@MACBETH,B.BOND-JAMES@MACBETH,B.BUNSEN@MACBETH,
C.CADDY@MACBETH,CUBFAN@JESSICA,DRELL@SLACVM.BITNET,
E.E-CUMMINGS@MACBETH,E.EPR@MACBETH,GALISON@CSLI,J.JBBT@MACBETH,
J.JPWIZ@MACBETH,JMC@SAIL,L.LUAU@MACBETH,M.MAE@MACBETH,MASTERS@CIVE,
N.NEJ@MACBETH,NASS@SUWATSON,ORTOLANO@CIVE,P.PAMOO@MACBETH,
P.PAST@MACBETH,R.REDHEAD@MACBETH,R.ROADRUNNER@MACBETH,R.RSMIII@MACBETH,
R.RTSHOOTIN@MACBETH,T.THING@MACBETH,T.TIGRON@MACBETH,
V.VALENTINE@MACBETH,W.WEDGE@MACBETH,W.WILDSTRUBEL@MACBETH,
WINOGRAD@SCORE,Z.ZTOPP@MACBETH)
∂17-Feb-89 1930 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu Yet another TR announcement
Received: from neat.ai.toronto.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 19:30:36 PST
Received: by neat.ai.toronto.edu id 38071; Fri, 17 Feb 89 22:28:13 EST
Resent-From: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-To: qphysics-distribution@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-Sender: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by neat.ai.toronto.edu with SMTP id 38057; Fri, 17 Feb 89 17:52:21 EST
Received: from freesia.learning.cs.cmu.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id aa13795;
17 Feb 89 15:23 EST
Received: from FREESIA.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU by FREESIA.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Feb 89 13:01:57 EST
To: qphysics%ai.utoronto.ca@RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: Yet another TR announcement
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 13:01:54 EST
Message-ID: <7439.603741714@FREESIA.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU>
From: Reid.Simmons@A.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <89Feb17.222813est.38071@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 17:52:36 EST
Available from the Publication Office, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory,
MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139. Author's current address: School of Computer
Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA 15213.
(Reid.Simmons@cs.cmu.edu).
COMBINING ASSOCIATIONAL AND CAUSAL REASONING TO SOLVE
INTERPETATION AND PLANNING PROBLEMS
Reid G. Simmons
Technical Report 1048
August 1988
This report describes a paradigm for combining associational and
causal reasoning to achieve efficient and robust problem-solving
behavior. The Generate, Test and Debug (GTD) paradigm generates
initial hypotheses using associational (heuristic) rules. The tester
verifies hypotheses, supplying the debugger with causal explanations
for bugs found if the test fails. The debugger uses
domain-independent causal reasoning techniques to repair hypotheses,
analyzing domain models and the causal explanations produced by the
tester to determine how to replace faulty assumptions made by the
generator. We analyze the strengths and weaknesses of associational
and causal reasoning techniques, and present a theory of debugging
plans and interpretations. The GTD paradigm has been implemented and
tested in the domains of geologic interpretation, the blocks world,
and Tower of Hanoi problems.
pages 215, cost $9.00
keywords associational reasoning, causal reasoning, planning,
geologic interpretation, debugging
∂17-Feb-89 2109 brad@looking.uucp Philippe Rushton
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 21:09:02 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa20439; 18 Feb 89 0:05 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Sat, 18 Feb 89 00:03:36 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA16098; 17 Feb 89 23:59:52 EST (Fri)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Philippe Rushton
Date: Fri Feb 17 23:59:50 1989
Message-Id: <8902172359.AA16094@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
Rushton, the guy who presented the race-linked behaviour paper at
AAAS, was apparently interviewed on the "Geraldo" show, to be broadcast
on March 8.
∂17-Feb-89 2348 watmath!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET Re: rhf
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 23:48:34 PST
Received: from watmath.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA06426; Sat, 18 Feb 89 02:46:17 -0500
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Fri, 17 Feb 89 11:26:09 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA12895; 17 Feb 89 11:22:04 EST (Fri)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 11:22:03 EST
Subject: Re: rhf
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Feb 16, 89 at 2305
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902171122.AA12895@looking.UUCP>
From: watmath!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET (Brad Templeton)
CNN can't do anything "bad" per se with what you said, but I still would
not have talked to them. If their story is "racism on campus" there there
is just no way that they can help you. The only thing that can help is
if they kill the story. By giving them footage -- any footage -- you
improve the chances they will run the story. To TV people, no footage
means no story.
"no racism found" is not a story. If they do a story on racism on campus,
they will find racism. The only other choice they have is no story.
The only answer to the racism question should be that there is no racism,
and that nobody who has actually seen what is going on even thinks that
there is the slightest suspicion of racism. If you say free speech in
response to a question of racism, to many it sounds like "there is racism,
but it must be protected by free speech." This just makes enemies for
free speech.
I don't know too many censorship jokes, but you might get interest from
the folks at the SFO comedy clubs. They won't be keen on jokes being
banned. They know that any comedy club is full of racist jokes on
a typical night -- far beyond usenet.
Fax number is 519 886 9495, Office number is 519 884 7473.
I have been sending messages to Street pushing for another tack.
I think the best move for him right now is to reverse the ban, saying
that they weren't properly informed about rec.humor.d, or announcing a
policy change on rec.humor.d on my part. That way they pre-empt the
senate and look good, instead of looking bad and evil when they are
overturned by it.
This is the best tack.
∂17-Feb-89 2348 watmath!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET Re: rhf
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Feb 89 23:48:42 PST
Received: from watmath.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA06455; Sat, 18 Feb 89 02:46:23 -0500
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Fri, 17 Feb 89 11:26:16 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA12908; 17 Feb 89 11:22:52 EST (Fri)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 11:22:52 EST
Subject: Re: rhf
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Feb 16, 89 at 2305
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902171122.AA12908@looking.UUCP>
From: watmath!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET (Brad Templeton)
When will CNN broadcast? Headline news or regular CNN? I get both.
∂18-Feb-89 0400 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM that fib series, again
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Feb 89 04:00:41 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 358765; Sat 18-Feb-89 06:56:51 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 82584; Sat 18-Feb-89 03:53:03 PST
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 89 03:51 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: that fib series, again
To: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19890217124648.3.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19890218115115.7.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 04:46 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
. . .
On a previous subject: swapping k and n, and dividing thru by
n makes that Fibonacci sum
n
====
\ k - n
> - ( ) F = 1 .
/ n n - k k + 1
====
k = 1
It appears that all the terms remain integral. Can someone prove it?
It is not likely to be trivial, since that factor of k is vital to
such cases as (n=4, k=4) and (n=22, k=11).
Ack. It *is* trivial.
k - n - n - n - 1
- ( ) = ( ) + ( ) .
n n - k n - k n - k - 1
The Fibonacci(k+1),
however, never seems to help. I tried it for sporadic magic n
(239,1093,1729 -- it's a Carmichael number too, y'know, 2953), and
I'm running it overnight on some larger ones (like my nemesis 5907).
This would be rather striking--series of exponentially large,
rather composite integers, summing to 1. E.g., for n = 33,
55534064877048198 - 111068129754096396 + 122968286513463867 - 132223963992971900
+ 125721146091678200 - 114406242943427162 + 98669791013138289 - 81842923064146608
+ 65325475549459125 - 50337379427721750 + 37464584419014480 - 26942123980340660
+ 18712111251792595 - 12540724035150500 + 8099469549220875 - 5032404764053296
+ 3001545547838952 - 1714095146901474 + 934323033899475 - 484318766185800
+ 237705414391991 - 109890125752862 + 47552756325984 - 19116018883000
+ 7072492747125 - 2380254999252 + 717852100329 - 190188624108
+ 43070550600 - 8010300550 + 1147968843 - 112786496 + 5702887
= 1.
Before coming to, I even integer-tested the terms of n = 11213, the smallest
having 2344 digits!
Anybody know the Fibonacci Quarterly well enough to locate the (fairly
probable) anticipation?
∂18-Feb-89 2005 S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: What's the best way to undo/break rivets?
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Feb 89 20:05:25 PST
Date: Sat 18 Feb 89 20:02:44-PST
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: What's the best way to undo/break rivets?
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Q1yZ#@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12471807131.81.S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
So far I've gotten 4 answers: all hinting at the drill solution. I'll
have to see if I have an appropriately sized drill bit. I'll let you know
what turns out.
Alex
-------
∂18-Feb-89 2148 Mailer re: Parking problems.
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: SU-Etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Tovar <TVR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Perhaps someone will find out who they are and find out their excuses
for deleting spaces unnecessarily, e.g. handicapped spaces far in
excess of demand, and the latest unnecessary "driveway".
Take my word for it; i know from experience... Handicap spaces are definitely
not ALWAYS well in excess of demand. They probably ought to be monitored more
carefully so that they are more appropriately distributed. But i don't know
what i would have done without them back then!
∂18-Feb-89 2203 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM my friend Ermakoff
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Feb 89 22:03:28 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 358843; Sun 19-Feb-89 00:59:34 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 82612; Sat 18-Feb-89 21:55:46 PST
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 89 21:53 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: my friend Ermakoff
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890219055356.1.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
By a simple trick, I constructed
1 + (sqrt(x)-c) (1 + (sqrtsqrt(x)-c) (1 + (sqrtsqrtsqrt(x)-c) (1 + . . .)))
= (x/c+1)/(c+1), |c-1| < 1.
But what about c=2, x>1? Clearly this gives an (eventually) alternating
sum of decreasing terms. Does it converge? (Hint: Ermakoff is not that
dear a friend.)
To: math-fun
Subject: my friend Ermakoff
cc:"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@e,"jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@e,"hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@E
Bcc:"r@tis-w.arpa"@e
By a simple trick, I constructed
1 + (sqrt(x)-c) (1 + (sqrtsqrt(x)-c) (1 + (sqrtsqrtsqrt(x)-c) (1 + . . .)))
= (x/c+1)/(c+1), |c-1| < 1.
But what about c=2, x>1? Clearly this gives an (eventually) alternating
sum of decreasing terms. Does it converge?
No. 2-x↑2↑-n is eventually like 1-ε/2↑n, whose infinite product (representing
the limiting term magnitude) converges (is finite). Since the terms don't
die off, the series just oscillates, presumably about (x/2+1)/3, but with an
amplitude equal to the infinite product, which apparently lacks a nice closed
form.
(Hint: Ermakoff is not that dear a friend.)
Ermakoff's test is very sensitive, but only applies to positive series.
∂19-Feb-89 1507 tantek@Portia.stanford.edu the free tape recorderλ
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Feb 89 15:07:06 PST
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA07259; Sun, 19 Feb 89 15:05:08 PDT
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 89 15:05:08 PDT
From: Tantek Celik <tantek@Portia.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8902192305.AA07259@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: the free tape recorderλ
If no one else has claimed it by now, I would like to have it.
Please contact me as to if/when/how I should pick it up.
Thanks
-Tantek
email:
tantek@portia
∂19-Feb-89 1515 tantek@Portia.stanford.edu re: the free tape recorderλ
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Feb 89 15:15:11 PST
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA08285; Sun, 19 Feb 89 15:13:08 PDT
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 89 15:13:08 PDT
From: Tantek Celik <tantek@Portia.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8902192313.AA08285@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: the free tape recorderλ
ok, I'll be there in a few minutes,
I hope.
_tantek
thanks.
∂19-Feb-89 1539 misha@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: tape recorder giveaway
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Feb 89 15:39:02 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA01517; Sun, 19 Feb 89 15:38:22 -0800
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 89 15:38:22 -0800
From: Michael Kharitonov <misha@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902192338.AA01517@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: tape recorder giveaway
Newsgroups: su.market
In-Reply-To: <s2xNr@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
In article <s2xNr@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>I have an Akai x100-d reel to reel tape recorder to give away.
>I think it's about 15 years old.
I'd really like it! I have quite a few reels recorded in the USSR.
Thanks.
Michael Kharitonov
∂19-Feb-89 1549 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Another Go4 message
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Feb 89 15:49:27 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03393; Sun, 19 Feb 89 15:50:28 PST
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 89 15:50:28 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902192350.AA03393@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Another Go4 message
This message arrived at Gang-of-Four a few days ago:
From eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Thu Feb 16 20:10:58 1989
Return-Path: <eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09857; Thu, 16 Feb 89 20:10:55 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA12572; Thu, 16 Feb 89 20:08:59 PST
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1989 20:08:58 PST
From: Edward A. Feigenbaum <eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Subject: Support
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.603691738.eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Dear John,
I support both your short statement on the newsgroups issue, and your
longer statement as printed in this week's campus review newspaper.
Ed Feigenbaum
∂20-Feb-89 0026 harnad@Princeton.EDU Categorization Update
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Feb 89 00:26:01 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/2.6)
id AA14595; Mon, 20 Feb 89 03:16:52 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.69)
id AA06792; Mon, 20 Feb 89 03:15:18 EST
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 03:15:18 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8902200815.AA06792@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: srh@flash.bellcore.com
Subject: Categorization Update
NO FRAME PROBLEM FOR IMPOSED CATEGORIZATION
mmt@client1.dciem.dnd.ca (Martin Taylor) of D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
writes about Watanabe's "Ugly Duckling Theorem," quoting:
" "When we employ a concept, we usually understand that there is a
" group of objects corresponding to this concept that any two
" members of the group resemble each other more than a member and
" a nonmember [but]... from the formal point of view there exists
" no such thing as a class of similar objects in the world,
" insofar as all predicates (of the same dimension) have the same
" importance" (Watanabe 1969).
"
" [C]ategories cannot be logically derived as groups of objects sharing
" features, but (as I interpret Harnad) as groups of objects toward which
" actions have common consequences, and have been found to have common
" consequences in past experience... [But] We have far more classes than
" those composed of objects with which we have interacted. Most
" categories are determined linguistically, by mutual agreement... Harnad
" insists... someone [can have] "MIScategorized" something, as if the
" category existed outside the linguistic agreement or the feedback from
" experience. Earlier, he also used the term "natural kinds"... [B]oth
" these usages assert a kind of... universe, in which a God has
" prescribed some knowable structure; but we could not know such a
" universe... We can know (and categorize) only what we can sense,
" derive, and discuss. And in those categories there can only be grades
" of usefulness, never error.
Let me clarify some misunderstandings:
(1) I have been writing AGAINST, not FOR the ontological (or "God's
Eye") view of categories. Our internal representations are our
provisional bases for sorting and labeling inputs based on what we've
encountered so far, as guided by feedback from the consequences of
mis-sorting and mis-labeling. Although this categorization mechanism
may be converging on what things "really are," we have no way of
knowing this. At best, our sorting and labeling is an approximation to
reality.
I AM a realist, though: There are things out there. I prefer to avoid
ontological questions, however, because they are simply irrelevant to
modeling human categorization. Our "errors" are determined relative to
their pragmatic consequences, not an omniscient or ontological
criterion. Forget about ontology; this discussion is only about
whether or not our internal representations of categories are
"classical," i.e., whether they are based on detectable features that
provide conditions that are necessary and sufficient to guide our
correct, all-or-none sorting/labeling performance. I'm claiming that
they are indeed "classical," and that there's absolutely nothing wrong
with the "classical" view that Rosch and Lakoff [and perhaps
Wittgenstein] are widely interpreted as having invalidated in favor of
"prototypes," family-resemblances, exemplars, or any other form of graded,
hence "nonclassical" representation.
(2) It doesn't matter what the source of the feedback about
MIScategorization is, just as long as it comes from "out there."
(Purely subjective "categories" would be susceptible, for example, to
Wittgenstein's argument against "private language.") Feedback from a
teacher or a parent or from the "linguistic community" to the effect
that you have mis-labeled something as a "mushroom" is just as good
as feedback from stomach cramps. In the end, unless everyone miraculously
shares a purely subjective delusion, the "linguistic community's" own
labeling of mushrooms will have to be guided by detectable features of
mushrooms.
(3) Watanabe's theorem is relevant to what I've called "ad lib"
similarity judgments, where one sorts as one pleases, guided only by
how similar things "look." He was right that in this case we are being
guided by "weights" on a subset of an infinity of inherent similarities
and dissimilarities (the weight being either arbitrary or governed by
existing NON-ad-lib categories we already have). But I have stressed
that models for categorization should not focus on ad lib similarity
judgments but on IMPOSED categorization tasks, the ones with feedback
from the consequences of miscategorizing.
Apart from our arbitrary subjective "categories," all of our categories
are of the imposed kind, and certainly most of the linguistic ones --
the ones that are labeled by the words in our vocabulary -- are imposed
categories. It's precisely their imposed (i.e., constrained) as opposed
to ad lib nature that makes these categories immune to Watanabe's
theorem: For a "classical" basis for the correct sorting and labeling
of the inputs must be SELECTED out of the Watanabean confusion matrix
whenever the categorization successfully converges. Otherwise there's
no way to explain our success!
Watanabe's theorem is also related to (mostly irrelevant red herrings)
associated with Hempel's Raven paradoxes (of theory confirmation: does
a white swan confirm that all ravens are black?) as well as problems
variously labeled as the "frame" problem (how to specify in general
what remains invariant in a change of circumstances under a symbolic
description?) and the "credit assignment" problem (when a set of
formerly reliable features fails, i.e., miscategorizes, how is one to
determine which features are to blame, or which features deserve the
credit for restoring successful categorization?). These in turn are
related to what I've called the "symbol grounding problem" (how are the
meanings of symbols to be grounded in something other than just more
meaningless symbols?), and ultimately to the problem of
underdetermination: How do you pick out the "right" features to solve a
categorization problem when there are so many confusable candidates?
Which brings us right back to the problem of category learning and
representation, guided by feedback from "error."
So the take-home message is this: The ad lib similarity structure of a
huge Laplacean feature matrix will not give you categorization, but a
"classical" subset selected on the basis of feedback from
miscategorization will.
Stevan Harnad
--------------
ON CONTINUITY AND CATEGORIZATION
To: Fred_L._Bookstein@um.cc.umich.edu
We seem to be addressing some of the same questions in our respective
inquiries into categorization, and I would be interested in knowing
more about your findings, but at some critical points our goals seem
to diverge. You wrote:
" Biological categorizations start in toddlers with clear perceptions --
" elephants look like elephants much more than trees -- BUT get tangled
" up almost immediately in the hard cases (e.g., breeds of dog).
I would agree about category learning in general: Where the features
are obvious, discrete, and jump out at you, they are used, and the
categorization is "easy." As the inter-confusability of the sample
becomes greater -- i.e., as the degree of underdetermination increases,
as the features become more complicated and harder to find in the
available data -- the categorization gets harder, sometimes requiring
more cases, more complicated feature combinations (eventually stated as
verbal "rules" in some cases, once the elementary features-names are
grounded), sometimes even requiring extensions to our senses in the
form of instruments, sometimes even drawing upon hypotheses and
conjectures that are grounded only in potential rather than actual
observations.
The categories we learn are always provisional (i.e., based only on
data encountered so far) and approximate (i.e., our provisional sorting
and the features governing it are based only on the confusable
alternatives we have sampled so far -- it may fail if the "context,"
i.e., the data base, is radically extended by cases encountered in the
future). However, while our sorting and labeling IS (provisionally)
successful, its success MUST be based on our having found [not
necessarily consciously, in fact, usually unconsciously] invariant
features -- i.e., features that provide necessary and sufficient
conditions for our (provisionally "correct") sorting. The feedback
concerning "correctness" must come from whatever the consequences are
of MIScategorizing (i.e., incorrectly sorting and labeling). For
example, in animal taxonomy they could come either from the fact that
some animals bite you and others don't, or from the fact that your
teacher or parent says "right" or "wrong" when you label some animals
one way or another.
In other words, the internal representations of our categories must be
"classical," which is the issue under discussion in this series of
exchanges on the Net.
Now you go on to list five perfectly reasonable kinds of features that
could provide such a classical basis in biological taxonomy:
" [The five bases for evolutionary categorization are:] "reproductive
" compatibility"... natural discreteness... binary "keys" that drive a
" Linnaean hierarchical system [i.e. feature hierarches]... gaps in
" multivariate "morphospace"... similarity at the level of DNA
But then you mention the factor of "continuity," which I suppose you
interpret as favoring "nonclassical" categories:
" crucial variables here are continuous... [not] categor[ical]
" ("macroevolution," saltations)... a myriad of small continuous changes...
" evidence of the intermediates... wiped out... nothing in biology beyond
" the configurations of individual molecules came from categorizations --
" all creatures seem to have a common ancestor, which does not serve the
" same function as the logical "top of a hierarchy", and lower gaps are
" the results of erasures and evolutionary divergence, which pursues
" segregations until previously quantitative differences turn into
" qualitative ones. The problem, as my student put it, is "not 'who came
" first' but rather 'what is a "who"'".
Unfortunately, much of this causal account of how species evolve is
irrelevant to the question of how we manage to sort and label them
now. The ORIGINS of the features we use may have been continuous; in
fact, even now, our categorizations may be based on using a
quantitative cut-off point on a continuous physical parameter (although
I doubt that many of our all-or-none categories are like that).
But even a quantitative threshold applied to a continuum is a
"classical" feature! It still subserves all-or-none categorization and
provides necessary and sufficient conditions for membership. IT is a
LOGICAL point that all-or-none categories -- things we can and do
successfully sort and label in a reliable, correct, all-or-none fashion
-- cannot be based on and represented in terms of "degrees" of
membership. Any continua involved must be quantized at least at the
level of resolution of our categorization performance itself. And BELOW
that level of resolution we of course do not have (or do not yet have)
categories or categorization at all!
Does this clarify the aspect of the problem of "continuity" and
"non-classicality" that I'm addressing? Let me add (or repeat) only
that cognitive theorists, unlike biological taxonomists, cannot be
concerned with ontological questions about what categories "really"
are. Those are for the relevant natural sciences to try to answer.
We can only endeavor to explain how people and devices manage to sort
and label things as successfully as they do on the available data. A
lot of nonsense has been said about the nature of our internal
representations of categories (a purely cognitive question) as a
consequence of conflating epistemic and ontological matters.
Stevan Harnad
--------------
∂20-Feb-89 0458 @WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM yet faster factorials
Received: from WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM ([128.81.57.24]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Feb 89 04:58:12 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 237801; Mon 20-Feb-89 04:53:12 PST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 82636; Mon 20-Feb-89 04:13:28 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 04:11 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: yet faster factorials
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, numerics@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM,
"rivin@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890220121135.7.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Spurred by a suggestion from Igor, I compared the speed of reconstructing
a factorial from primes (INTEGER-FACTORIAL) against recursively folding
together the odd and even factors of the product (si:factorial). The
former seems an improvement (assuming the primes are already cached),
but, of course, nowhere near the analogous hack for binomials, where
it obviates division(s).
Both of these factorials presume "subquadratic" multiply, and strive for
few big*big, vs many small*big. INTEGER-FACTORIAL doesn't actually
power up individual primes, but instead records them in an array
according to which bits are on in the exponent. Then the whole
product is computed in one addition chain at the end. I also added a
hack to stop at arg/2, after which all the primes occur just once,
thereafter using a separate prime-interval-product. But this didn't
seem to buy much.
(= (time (integer-factorial 4444)) (time (si:factorial 4444)))
Evaluation of (INTEGER-FACTORIAL 4444) took 7.366048 seconds of elapsed time including:
0.094 seconds processing sequence breaks,
0.139 seconds in the storage system (including 0.000 seconds waiting for pages):
0.010 seconds processing 35 page faults including 0 fetches,
0.129 seconds in creating and destroying pages, and
0.000 seconds in miscellaneous storage system tasks.
34,940 structure words consed in WORKING-STORAGE-AREA.
Evaluation of (SI:FACTORIAL 4444) took 9.063098 seconds of elapsed time including:
0.117 seconds processing sequence breaks,
0.159 seconds in the storage system (including 0.000 seconds waiting for pages):
0.014 seconds processing 41 page faults including 0 fetches,
0.144 seconds in creating and destroying pages, and
0.000 seconds in miscellaneous storage system tasks.
33,997 structure words consed in WORKING-STORAGE-AREA.
T
(vanilla pinhead (factorial 4444) would take well over a minute.)
For smallish args, it's still competitive:
(= (time (integer-factorial 99)) (time (si:factorial 99)))
Evaluation of (INTEGER-FACTORIAL 99) took 0.009129 seconds of elapsed time including:
0.000 seconds processing sequence breaks,
0.000 seconds in the storage system (including 0.000 seconds waiting for pages):
0.000 seconds processing 0 page faults including 0 fetches,
0.000 seconds in creating and destroying pages, and
0.000 seconds in miscellaneous storage system tasks.
86 structure words consed in WORKING-STORAGE-AREA.
Evaluation of (SI:FACTORIAL 99) took 0.010513 seconds of elapsed time including:
0.000 seconds processing sequence breaks,
0.000 seconds in the storage system (including 0.000 seconds waiting for pages):
0.000 seconds processing 0 page faults including 0 fetches,
0.000 seconds in creating and destroying pages, and
0.000 seconds in miscellaneous storage system tasks.
116 structure words consed in WORKING-STORAGE-AREA.
T
But clearly a special case is due for sufficiently small args.
(= (time (integer-factorial 9)) (time (si:factorial 9)))
Evaluation of (INTEGER-FACTORIAL 9) took 0.001627 seconds of elapsed time including:
0.000 seconds processing sequence breaks,
0.000 seconds in the storage system (including 0.000 seconds waiting for pages):
0.000 seconds processing 0 page faults including 0 fetches,
0.000 seconds in creating and destroying pages, and
0.000 seconds in miscellaneous storage system tasks.
Evaluation of (SI:FACTORIAL 9) took 0.000429 seconds of elapsed time including:
0.000 seconds processing sequence breaks,
0.000 seconds in the storage system (including 0.000 seconds waiting for pages):
0.000 seconds processing 0 page faults including 0 fetches,
0.000 seconds in creating and destroying pages, and
0.000 seconds in miscellaneous storage system tasks.
T
∂20-Feb-89 1103 N51LI501%NCSUVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU confirmation
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Feb 89 11:03:24 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 20 Feb 89 11:02:06 PST
Received: by NCSUVM (Mailer R2.02A) id 2846; Mon, 20 Feb 89 14:00:31 EST
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 13:52:04 EST
From: Joe Levine <N51LI501%NCSUVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: confirmation
To: John McCarthy <jmc@sail.stanford.edu>
This is to confirm the results of our conversation a few moments ago.
You will visit NCSU from (roughly) Monday - Wednesday (9/25/89 - 9/27/89),
to give a large, general audience talk on Tuesday around 4PM, and some
smaller, more advanced talks at times to be determined. Details will be
worked out with Dennis Bahler of the Computer Science Dept. at NCSU, whose
e-mail address is: drb@cscadm.ncsu.edu
Please feel free to contact me (chair of the Cognitive Science Speaker
Series committee) if you need any more information and can't reach Prof.
Bahler. I apologize for the anti-mnemonic character of my userid, but that's
what they gave me.
We are all (philosophers, ai-people, and psychologists alike) eagerly
looking forward to your visit.
Yours,
Joe Levine
∂20-Feb-89 1215 VAL YSP
The treatment of preconditions in my new solution may not work. If we want
to handle them nonmonotonically then we may have to go back to "precond" and
"success". So, in comparison with "Formal Theories of Action", we have a
simplified treatment of the frame problem, but not of the qualification problem.
∂20-Feb-89 1217 ANDERSJ%ccm.UManitoba.CA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Commonsense Reasoning
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Feb 89 12:17:15 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 20 Feb 89 12:15:53 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 14:11 CST
From: ANDERSJ%ccm.UManitoba.CA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
To: <jmc@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: Commonsense Reasoning
Professor McCarthy;
Quite awhile back now (Nov.7/88) you posted an article on
the epistemology of the common sense world to the AILIST digest.
In it, you made reference to your paper "Ascribing Mental Qualities
to Machines". I was very much interested at the time in getting
hold of a copy of this paper, but never got around to it.
I am at the moment preparing a seminar on common sense reasoning
for a group of fellow graduate students, and again would be very
much interested in seeing this paper. If you would be able to tell
me in which journal(s) it was published, I would be most
grateful.
Sincerely,
John Anderson
================================================================================
John Anderson BITNET: <ANDERSJ@UOFMCC.BITNET>
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
R3T 2N2
Tel. (204) 474-8828
================================================================================
∂20-Feb-89 1233 karish@forel.Stanford.EDU re: Satanic verses
Received: from forel.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Feb 89 12:33:16 PST
Received: by forel.Stanford.EDU (5.51/inc-1.0)
id AA10825; Mon, 20 Feb 89 12:33:22 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 12:33:22 PST
From: karish@forel.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Message-Id: <8902202033.AA10825@forel.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Satanic verses
I couldn't tell from your article whether you dispute the historical
accuracy of my observations or my political interpretations. All
you said was "Those charges are false".
If you've saved any articles that speak directly to the points I
raised, I'd like to see them.
Chuck
∂20-Feb-89 1911 @arisia.Xerox.COM:kpeters@cdp.UUCP visit to Stanford
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Feb 89 19:11:34 PST
Received: from cdp.UUCP by arisia.Xerox.COM with UUCP
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA24303; Mon, 20 Feb 89 19:09:02 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 19:09:02 PST
From: kpeters@cdp.UUCP
Message-Id: <8902210309.AA24303@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: visit to Stanford
Cc: kpeters@arisia.xerox.com
Dear Dr. McCarthy:
I would like to introduce myself as a computer science editor with
Academic Press (in Cambridge, Massachusetts) for books advanced books
in artificial intelligence and related areas.
I will be visiting the Stanford area on March 9 (possibly also
on the afternoon of March 8), and I was wondering if it would
be possible for us to set up an appointment. Presently, Academic
Press is working to expand its publishing program in artificial
intellignece, and I would be very interested in hearing your comments
and suggestions.
I would appreciate it if you would let me know if and when you will
be available sometime this week, if possible (I will be out of town
for most of the week and will set up appointments when I return).
Thank you in advance for your time. I look forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerely,
Sari Kalin, Academic Press
cdp!kpeters@labrea.stanford.edu
617/876-3901
∂20-Feb-89 1932 ANDERSJ%ccm.UManitoba.CA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Feb 89 19:32:16 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 20 Feb 89 19:30:57 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 21:24 CST
From: ANDERSJ%ccm.UManitoba.CA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
To: <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines
Many thanks! Im sure the paper will be a great help.
J. Anderson.
================================================================================
John Anderson BITNET: <ANDERSJ@UOFMCC.BITNET>
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
R3T 2N2
Tel. (204) 474-8828
================================================================================
∂20-Feb-89 2000 JMC
statement to faculty about rhf
∂20-Feb-89 2227 brad@looking.uucp RHF, AIR, Senate
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Feb 89 22:27:25 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa08736; 21 Feb 89 0:58 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Tue, 21 Feb 89 00:56:32 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA25868; 21 Feb 89 00:52:26 EST (Tue)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: RHF, AIR, Senate
Date: Tue Feb 21 00:52:24 1989
Message-Id: <8902210052.AA25864@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
When is the senate meeting that will discuss this matter?
The fact is that with time, interest in any topic will wane. RHF will
soon be yesterday's news at Stanford unless something happens soon.
I hope that Street will accept my proposal. I would like to know when
the senate meeting will be.
∂20-Feb-89 2354 brad@looking.uucp re: RHF, AIR, Senate
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Feb 89 23:54:00 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa09863; 21 Feb 89 2:21 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Tue, 21 Feb 89 02:19:46 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA26208; 21 Feb 89 02:15:41 EST (Tue)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 2:15:40 EST
Subject: re: RHF, AIR, Senate
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Feb 20, 89 at 2236
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902210215.AA26208@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
You can fax to 519 886 9495, office phone is 519 884 7473.
We will just have to see how it goes. To me, Stanford is a bit
of a test case. If the ban can be stopped at Stanford, other schools
will be less likely to try such bans in the future. If it is upheld
at Stanford, then the combination of Waterloo & Stanford will prompt others
to take the same tack, or it will at least provide encouragement for
those who are thinking about it.
As such, I would prefer to put off publicity in various places until it
is fairly sure the ban will be reversed. Getting Street to reverse
now would give the quick results.
4 to 8 weeks means April, which means end of semester and start of
exams (and eventually summer term) at universities. Once a school is
into exams, little fervent takes place.
Well, at least nobody has put a price on my head.
∂21-Feb-89 0154 LES ACM position on electronic journalism
It just occurred to me that it would be useful to get ACM to take a
position on electronic journalism and censorship. This probably can't be
done in time to help with the Faculty Senate discussion, but it could
provide some ammunition for future struggles.
I may have mentioned that I recently joined the ACM Committee on
Scientific Freedom and Human Rights, which is chaired by Barbara Simon,
and have formed a Subcommittee on Freedom of Information. The main
committee has traditionally been a one-issue organization, dealing with
refuseniks, but we are planning to change that.
I have just proposed to Barbara that my subcommittee draft a statement
regarding freedom of information in electronic journalism, for adoption by
ACM as a whole. Barbara likes the idea, but of course wants to see the
proposal. If you would like to contribute, I would welcome it; otherwise
I'll give it a shot and invite comments.
I have in mind a fairly short statement that would assert the argument
that we have been using in the current flap -- that electronic journals
should be accorded essentially the same treatment as their paper
counterparts. In other words, decisions about which journals are carried
should be based on the tradeoffs between reader interests and economic
constraints, not the political beliefs of administrators.
Do you think this would be useful? If so, would you care to specify the
issues that you think should be covered?
∂21-Feb-89 0830 aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Re: email address
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Feb 89 08:30:12 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA27988; Tue, 21 Feb 89 08:29:24 PST
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1989 8:29:24 PST
From: AAAI <aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: email address
In-Reply-To: Your message of 20 Feb 89 2019 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.604081764.aaai@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Mr. McCarthy,
We will make the change in our database re: your correct e-mail address.
Also, we are in the process of converting to a new computer system, and
hopefully, we'll have the needed room for the longer e-mail addresses.
Rick Skalsky
Membership Coordinator
∂21-Feb-89 0851 CLT Galbiati
I will talk to Genesereth.
Actually it was my intention to support G
on the MTC grant if he got in unless he finds
someone he would rather work for. I think he
likes what he is doing and will do a good job.
∂21-Feb-89 0916 gio@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Re: Proposed CSD statement on censorship of rec.humor.funny
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Feb 89 09:16:26 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA29573; Tue, 21 Feb 89 09:15:44 PST
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1989 9:15:43 PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <gio@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Proposed CSD statement on censorship of rec.humor.funny
In-Reply-To: Your message of 20 Feb 89 2010 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.604084543.gio@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
ok.
Personally I would add that:
We expect to be able to be able to present statements to counter what
we feel are wrong or erroneous messages as well.
(Can we afford to keep Satanic verses on-line?)
Gio
∂21-Feb-89 1241 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
su-events@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
ALGEBRAIC TECHNIQUES IN BOOLEAN CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION
Peter Ladkin
Kestrel Institute
Monday, February 27, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Many techniques used for binary Boolean Constraint Satisfaction Problems
(CSPs) may be formulated in terms of the operations in an algebra of
relations, originally due to Tarski in 1941, but ultimately going back
to Peirce and Schroeder last century. I shall introduce the
relation-algebraic vocabulary, and present some reasonable subset of the
following results. Path-consistency has been suggested as a heuristic
for satisfaction (often NP-complete). Path-consistency computations may
be accomplished in n-squared log n time in parallel, and there is also a
lower bound for reduction-type algorithms (serial or parallel) of
n-squared time (using a concocted class of examples). We shall also
give naturally-occurring examples of classes of CSPs with n-squared
satisfaction algorithms for path-consistent networks, including a large
subclass of Allen's temporal reasoning problems; and classes in which
even atomically-labelled path-consistent networks are not satisfiable.
(This is joint work with Roger Maddux).
∂21-Feb-89 1546 hayes@arisia.xerox.com Proposed CSD statement on censorship of rec.humor.funny
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Feb 89 15:46:01 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA12218; Tue, 21 Feb 89 15:43:26 PST
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 15:43:26 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8902212343.AA12218@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 20 Feb 89 20:10 PST <E3AzL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Proposed CSD statement on censorship of rec.humor.funny
Im all in favor of such a statement. Theres no sharp line between
censoring 'offensive' humor and burning 'blasphemous' books ( or even
authors ) .
Pat
∂21-Feb-89 1940 Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU Message of 21-Feb-89 19:35:02
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Feb 89 19:40:17 PST
Date: Tue 21 Feb 89 19:39:57-PST
From: The Mailer Daemon <Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Message of 21-Feb-89 19:35:02
Message failed for the following:
halpern@[192.5.58.7].#Internet: 501 Syntax Error. <snum> expected
vardi@[192.5.58.7].#Internet: 501 Syntax Error. <snum> expected
WILLIAMS@[192.5.58.7].#Internet: 501 Syntax Error. <snum> expected
------------
Received: from SAIL.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 21 Feb 89 19:35:02-PST
Message-ID: <E3asY@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 21 Feb 89 1935 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: draft extra sentence to precede final paragraph
To: faculty@Score.Stanford.EDU
Censorship is not an appropriate tool for preventing or dealing
with offensive behavior.
-------
∂21-Feb-89 2009 brad@looking.uucp Re: csd resolution
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Feb 89 20:09:45 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa10555; 21 Feb 89 21:31 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Tue, 21 Feb 89 21:28:32 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA29439; 21 Feb 89 21:24:16 EST (Tue)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 21:24:15 EST
Subject: Re: csd resolution
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Feb 21, 89 at 1820
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902212124.AA29439@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
Sounds good. With a resolution like that, in particular a unanimous one,
the senate will have a hard time doing anything else but agree.
If Street sees that, he will probably reverse.
Otherwise, they'll be calling him Ayatollah Street.
∂22-Feb-89 0050 cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU Re: draft extra sentence to precede final paragraph
Received: from Pescadero.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Feb 89 00:50:10 PST
Received: by Pescadero.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05887; Wed, 22 Feb 89 00:48:19 PDT
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 00:48:19 PDT
From: David Cheriton <cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902220848.AA05887@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, faculty@Score.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: draft extra sentence to precede final paragraph
In-Reply-To: <E3asY@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> from John McCarthy
<JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> on 21 Feb 89 1935 PST
I basically support JMC's position, but (living up the the general
reputation of academics) I find it rather fascinating the range of
problems raised by this sentence. In particular, how does one define
"offensive behavior" and "censorship"? If offensivity (word?) is in
the eye(?) of the beholder, presumably anything might be offensive
so censorship is not an appropriate tool for preventing or dealing
with any type of behavior? This society seems to have some "accepted" (?)
forms of censorship (such as true in advertising laws, laws against
advocating violence, making death threats, etc.)
I also wonder whether "censorship" has some clear delineations.
I wonder if the reality in this society is that this whoe issue is
actually a matter of judgment, not (just) a matter of principle.
∂22-Feb-89 0707 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU AI Faculty Meeting
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Feb 89 07:06:58 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA25951; Wed, 22 Feb 89 07:05:02 -0800
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1989 7:05:00 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: latombe@coyote, genesereth@score, jmc@sail, feigenbaum@sumex-aim,
binford@coyote, winograd@csli, shortliffe@sumex-aim, jones@score
Cc: nilsson@tenaya
Subject: AI Faculty Meeting
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.604163100.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
This is to remind you of the AI faculty meeting to discuss courses at 4:15
tomorrow in MJH-220.
∂22-Feb-89 0900 JMC
architect, Sony tape player
∂22-Feb-89 0900 JMC
Coladarci
∂22-Feb-89 0900 JMC
coladarci, reid, polaroid film
∂22-Feb-89 0920 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu AI Faculty Meeting
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Feb 89 09:20:31 PST
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA09209; Wed, 22 Feb 89 09:17:02 PDT
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 09:17:02 PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8902221717.AA09209@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: chandler@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: latombe@coyote, genesereth@score, jmc@sail, feigenbaum@sumex-aim,
binford@coyote, winograd@csli, shortliffe@sumex-aim, jones@score
In-Reply-To: "Joyce R. Chandler"'s message of Wed, 22 Feb 1989 7:05:00 PST <CMM.0.87.604163100.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: AI Faculty Meeting
I presume that J-C will come with a matrix of existing courses and
teachers and that we can proceed expeditiously by discussing just the
changes to that that people will want to propose. I think the single
most important topic on the agenda is who is going to teach cs221, the
intro-level AI course. Our lecturer for this last fall quarter did
pretty badly, and we cannot use him again. -Nils
∂22-Feb-89 1056 hayes@arisia.xerox.com draft extra sentence to precede final paragraph
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Feb 89 10:56:41 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA29488; Wed, 22 Feb 89 10:53:48 PST
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 10:53:48 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8902221853.AA29488@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU
Cc: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: David Cheriton's message of Wed, 22 Feb 89 00:48:19 PDT <8902220848.AA05887@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: draft extra sentence to precede final paragraph
The ideas of 'giving offense' and 'censorship' are clearer, both
legally and in ordinary understanding, than David Cheriton implies.
Offensivity is not completely in the eye of the beholder: thus, for
example, incitement to commit a crime is not (merely) offensive, and
making false claims to mislead unwary consumers is not (merely)
offensive. Laws forbidding such behavior are not censorship laws in
the same sense that, say, laws forbidding the expression of religious
views, racial humor or pornographic anecdotes would be. The key
difference is that in the latter case, nobody will be harmed who cares
not to read the publications: one has the option of closing the book
if one finds it offensive.
Of course this is all a matter of judgement, and lines arent
completely sharp, and the issues are more complex than one likes to
think about. Nevertheless, surely a university should strive to draw
its boundaries on the side of freedom and openness; and closing down
an electronic bboard because it has a few jokes on it which might
offend scotsmen ( or jews, blacks, germans or poles ) seems
quite the wrong sort of action to take.
Pat
∂22-Feb-89 1100 JMC
iii invoice
∂22-Feb-89 1255 eswolf@polya.Stanford.EDU Admissions committee - round 2.
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Feb 89 12:55:08 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA12327; Wed, 22 Feb 89 12:53:13 -0800
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 12:53:13 -0800
From: Elizabeth Wolf <eswolf@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902222053.AA12327@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Admissions committee - round 2.
Cc: eswolf@polya.Stanford.EDU
Prof. McCarthy:
I assume plans for the first two batches were finalized at that
meeting - I'll expect to pick them up from your secretary after 4:30 on
Friday, Feb. 24 and Tuesday, Feb. 28.
The batch which I'm to pick up from you Saturday, March 4
could be put in the box outside Sharon Hemenway's office, again by 4:30
in the afternoon. Is that plan alright with you?
Liz Wolf
∂22-Feb-89 1336 CLT $$
We are into our credit line at the bank
and will use it up with the last two checks
I wrote. We will need to make a mortgage payment
in a week (2400) and 15-20k to finish remodeling
and move.
∂22-Feb-89 1424 MPS phone call
Susan Kostal, Dail Journal (Law newspaper) would like
to talk about the joke file and the petition
408-287-4866
∂22-Feb-89 1425 MPS thats the daily journal
∂22-Feb-89 1725 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU More censorship--individual, this time.
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Feb 89 17:25:25 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA05619; Wed, 22 Feb 89 17:23:18 PST
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 17:23:18 PST
From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Message-Id: <8902230123.AA05619@csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: More censorship--individual, this time.
Yet more censorship--in a way, this is even more scary than rhf.
I pulled this off of alt.sex--I don't think the person who posted it
will mind, given its nature.
There was a large outcry from other alt.sex readers about this. I posted
the rhf story and called for a general censorship discussion. I'm hoping
that now that we have censorship actually threatening individuals, we may
get some kind of useful response.
Do you think this might be useful to our problem here at Stanford? Do
you think we should try (other than individually) to intervene in this
problem? Do you think there's any potential at all for using this and
things like it to cause some kind of widespread attitude change among
the censors?
Chris Phoenix
PS. A little background: the MEN ANALYSIS and WOMEN ANALYSIS were jokes,
analyzing men and women as chemical elements. They contained lines like
"Has a great affinity for AU" (women) and "becomes obnoxious in the
presence of CxHxOH (any form of alcohol)" (men). The WOMEN was posted
first, and the poster got flamed by feminists. Sevaral people asked for
a MEN. I thought both of them were funny.
>From labrea!agate!bionet!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ee0i+ Wed Feb 22 10:50:00 PST 1989
Article 6957 of alt.sex:
Path: csli!labrea!agate!bionet!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ee0i+
>From: ee0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ethan Z. Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: HELP ME---Read This
Message-ID: <kY0WO3y00XoVQ151su@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 22 Feb 89 03:18:27 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 21
Alt.sex readers:
I'm Ethan Evans, and I posted a MEN ANALYSIS in response to the
complaints about WOMEN ANALYSIS. The message closed with a plea to people to be
less sensitive to stuff. One day late, our local postmaster informed me that
she had recieved a complaint from another postmaster about offensive net mail.
I would first like to appologize to whomever I offended, that was not the intent
(I simply ment to point out that it was better to laugh at oneself) Then I
would like to know who I "offended" as they never told me...
The point is this: My external mail privledges are in jepardy, and may
dissapear by tommorow morning (2/21) because someone took offense to my post.
As I've seen over a dozen posts supporting a MEN ANALYSIS, I'm comming to you
for help. I never meant to offend anyone (heck, I thought that would be pretty
much impossible on an open forum of alt.sex where Perverts and Weirdos Digest
makes its home...)
How to help: read my post, then send mail to
Postmaster General <postman+@andrew.cmu.edu>,
Advisor <advisor+abuse@andrew.cmu.edu>
if you thought my message was in the spirit of an uncensored bboard.
I never meant to offend anyone, I am sorry to if I did,
Ethan Evans
(Maybe ee0i@andrew???)
∂22-Feb-89 2311 eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Re: AI Faculty Meeting
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Feb 89 23:11:00 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA12729; Wed, 22 Feb 89 23:09:51 PST
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1989 23:09:50 PST
From: Edward A. Feigenbaum <eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: Nils Nilsson <nilsson@tenaya.stanford.edu>
Cc: chandler@polya.stanford.edu, latombe@coyote.stanford.edu,
genesereth@score.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, binford@coyote.stanford.edu,
winograd@csli.stanford.edu, shortliffe@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
jones@score.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: AI Faculty Meeting
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 22 Feb 89 09:17:02 PDT
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.604220990.eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Nils, CS221 is not "the" intro level course. CS123 is also one of the
intro level courses. Probably the only reason I teach CS123 is to make sure
that CS221 is not "the" (only) intro level course.
Ed
∂23-Feb-89 0031 brad@looking.uucp Not much luck at UW
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 00:31:17 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa03180; 23 Feb 89 1:31 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Thu, 23 Feb 89 01:28:48 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA05378; 23 Feb 89 01:21:52 EST (Thu)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Not much luck at UW
Date: Thu Feb 23 01:21:49 1989
Message-Id: <8902230121.AA05374@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
I had a chat today with J. Alan George, the VP-Academic and Provost of
the University of Waterloo. I was hoping to convince him that in the wake
of the Rushdie controversy and the probably Stanford turnaround, it might be
a good time for UW to come around too.
He's a former student of yours, apparently. He was not surprised
to hear you were opposed to a ban.
Sadly he has been prejudiced against RHF by some unfortunate events.
When the first stories broke here, he and the UW President were both
out of town. They arrived back to find a big stir on their desks,
already in progress, over jokes. I don't think they liked that.
The first thing they did to get a handle on matters was to order some
RHF jokebooks. (You've seen Joe Weening's) When they got those, they
turned and immediately read chapter 8. As you may know, chapter 8
is where all the nastiest stuff is collected. In what turns out to
be a mistake by me, I put it all together so it could be removed or
ignored by those who don't want to read it.
The downside is that people can read just chapter 8, and think the
book or group is wall to wall offensive jokes. Combine this with the
slanted press stories, and you get a permanent prejudice against the
group.
I may try again tomorrow with the President. I tried the Provost because
he's a computer scientist, and was dean of Math when I graduated. I
hoped he would be more understanding, but I was wrong on that.
I told him that in my opinion, most people at Stanford stood by the
principle that a University had a special duty to uphold the principles
of freedom of expression, even more so than governments, which are
constitutionally bound to do so. He was convinced that I must be
mistaken on this, based on his own period at Stanford. My impression
comes from su.etc. Am I wrong?
I doubt you will hold any sway with him, even as a former professor
of his. Do you remember him?
I seem to have gotten rid of Omni. Their lead time is such that they
can't really help the cause, and as such I don't want to take the risk.
Without me, they can't really do a story. Mind you, if I told them
about UW, they might do a bit on it portraying it as "Ayatollah U." when
it comes to banning things. Knowing Omni and Guccione, they would.
I doubt UW would like that. I am not sure I would either.
∂23-Feb-89 0844 CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 08:44:25 PST
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 08:43:03 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Arthur P Coladarci" <CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
John: I've talked with Pat Jones, who is vice-chair of
the Steering Committee. She agrees that, if and when the
rec.humor.funny saga to to the Senate, we will schedule at
at time when you can be present, insasmuch as you are a
major protagonist in the matter. Art.
∂23-Feb-89 0902 CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 09:02:49 PST
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 09:01:26 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Arthur P Coladarci" <CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
John. Forget the "if" in my message. I, a confirmed Italian,
stick the term into almost every sentance. I assume that the
matter will go to the Senate at some point. Art.
∂23-Feb-89 0909 CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 09:09:46 PST
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 09:06:49 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Arthur P Coladarci" <CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
John: I'm not sure that my least messsage got through (I have
a "returned mail" signal. Just in case, here it is: Forget the
"if" in my earlier message; I have the Italian habit of sticking
that conditional term into every sentencei_ My assumption is
that the matter will come before the Senate. Art.
∂23-Feb-89 0930 JMC
Susan Kostal 408 287-4866
∂23-Feb-89 1003 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu AI Faculty Meeting
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 10:03:22 PST
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA09927; Thu, 23 Feb 89 09:59:45 PDT
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 09:59:45 PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8902231759.AA09927@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Cc: chandler@polya.stanford.edu, latombe@coyote.stanford.edu,
genesereth@score.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, binford@coyote.stanford.edu,
winograd@csli.stanford.edu, shortliffe@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
jones@score.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Edward A. Feigenbaum's message of Wed, 22 Feb 1989 23:09:50 PST <CMM.0.88.604220990.eaf@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: AI Faculty Meeting
CS221 is THE intro level course (or it should be) to AI. It is
the one that is required by all the majors, etc. Maybe we can
persuade you to teach cs221. -Nils
∂23-Feb-89 1106 brad@looking.uucp Re: Not much luck at Waterloo
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 11:06:15 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa11685; 23 Feb 89 13:08 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Thu, 23 Feb 89 13:05:24 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA06813; 23 Feb 89 12:56:48 EST (Thu)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 12:56:46 EST
Subject: Re: Not much luck at Waterloo
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Feb 23, 89 at 0921
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902231256.AA06813@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
Would you really pursue Omni if I have decided it is not in my
interests to talk to them? An Omni article written now would be
published in 2-3 months (at a minimum) if it's a typical non-news
magazine. What can that do for us? The potential for harm is
great.
∂23-Feb-89 1235 bryan@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: take a cat home tonight
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 12:35:15 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 23 Feb 89 12:32:17 PST
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 12:32:17 PST
From: bryan@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Doug L. Bryan)
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: take a cat home tonight
In-Reply-To: Your message of 22 Feb 89 2154 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.604269136.bryan@>
Just about any good recipe for rabbit works well with cat.
doug
∂23-Feb-89 1428 bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 14:28:15 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA19959; Thu, 23 Feb 89 14:26:19 -0800
Message-Id: <8902232226.AA19959@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 23 Feb 89 12:49:00 -0800.
<194wAU@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 14:26:14 -0800
From: bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU
John-
Could you please send me a copy of your resolution?
Also, I hear tell that there was a faculty senate debate onthe issue:
true or lie?
∂23-Feb-89 1438 GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU Galbiati
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 14:38:03 PST
Date: Thu 23 Feb 89 14:37:40-PST
From: Mike Genesereth <GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Galbiati
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, clt@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12473058677.45.GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Folks,
After a look at his folder and short chat with Carolyn, I have
decided to put Galbiati into round 2.
mrg
-------
∂23-Feb-89 1445 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Special Faculty Meeting
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 14:45:33 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA21393; Thu, 23 Feb 89 14:43:24 -0800
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1989 14:42:54 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: binford@coyote, feigenbaum@sumex-aim, rwf@sail, golub@patience,
guibas@dec.com, jlh@amadeus, dek@sail, zm@sail, jmc@sail, ejm@sierra,
nilsson@tenaya, oliger@pride, pratt@polya.Stanford.EDU, ullman@score
Cc: bscott@score
Subject: Special Faculty Meeting
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.604276974.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
There will be a faculty meeting next Wednesday, March 1 at 4:15 in MJH-220 to
discuss Gio Wiederhold's promotion from Associate Professor Research to full
Professor Research. The new letters (and the old ones) are in my office.
Feel free to stop by and look at them.
∂23-Feb-89 1501 brad@looking.uucp A sample policy statement
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 15:01:03 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa12290; 23 Feb 89 13:45 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Thu, 23 Feb 89 13:42:04 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA06914; 23 Feb 89 13:35:43 EST (Thu)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: A sample policy statement
Date: Thu Feb 23 13:35:40 1989
Message-Id: <8902231335.AA06910@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
Here's one I wrote up. What do you think? Would your senate pass it?
Principle of Free Academic Communication
PREAMBLE:
Governments are bound to protect freedom of expression by constitutional
law. At the same time, private institutions, and even semi-public
institutions like Universities, are not bound, by any specific law,
to follow the same principle.
Universities, however, have a special position and heritage in society
as leaders in devotion to free expression. We believe that Universities
should act as though they are bound to the principle of freedom of
expression, even more so than governments. Universities should be
leaders when it comes to the promotion of freedom of expression,
not followers. They should never use their legal right as private
institutions to restrict the legal, free expression of any members
of the University community.
The precedent for this is clear in the principle of academic tenure.
No law of the land protects the position of a tenured academic who
has made statements that the public, or even the University community
and administration, find repugnant. No law says that a tenured
professor who publishes statements offensive to the public can't be
punished or fired. The principle of tenure goes beyond the laws of
the land in protection academic freedom of expression.
With this in mind, we are resolved that:
A) Members of a university community should have no restrictions placed
upon them regarding what they may read, see or hear, whether
the source is inside or outside the University.
B) Members of a university community should have no restrictions placed
upon them regarding what they may write, say, present or publish,
whether the recipients are inside or outside the University.
C) These freedoms should exist regardless of the medium of expression,
be it the written word, picture, theatrical production, art,
sculpture or any other medium.
D) These freedoms to communicate within a University should be limited only
by considerations of cost, or where it is expressly prohibited by
law, as described below.
RESTRICTIONS DUE TO LAW
A University is bound by the laws of the society in which it
resides. Where such laws conflict with the above declared
freedoms of expression, A University must comply with those
laws. While this is so, A University should attempt at all
times to not pass judgement on the legality of prohibited
expression, as that is the duty of the courts. If a
University is required to restrict expression, it should do
so only to the minimum extent required by the law.
Should a member of a University community wish to challege
a law that restricts free expression, A University should not
take any action, other than that required by law, to hinder
that challenge.
RESTRICTIONS DUE TO COST
Some forms of expression have costs associated with them, in terms
of both money and other resources such as space, time, personnel
and physical plant. A University clearly can't be expected
to spend its resources arbitrarily on requested forms of
expression. As such it may restrict access to University
facilities for expression, such as theatres, auditoria,
computer facilities, printing presses and others, for reasons
of cost. We are resolved, however that:
A) Such restrictions ust be applied only for reasons of cost, and
never due to the content of the free expression, except where
prohibited by law.
B) Ristrictions must be applied fairly, balancing cost and
demand from members of a University community.
C) A University must not cease funding for an entire medium
simply because some users of that media are communicating
material people find objectionable, so long as there is
reasonable demand for the use of that medium.
D) The decision as to what constitutes requested communication
for academic purposes shall be made by academics, not officials
of a University administration.
E) No form of communication shall be prohibited on the grounds of
cost if members of a University Community are willing to
pay the costs themselves, at fair rates. In such an event,
only clearly finite resources such as theatre space may
be restricted.
∂23-Feb-89 1533 brad@looking.uucp re: Not much luck at Waterloo
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 15:33:01 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa13697; 23 Feb 89 15:30 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Thu, 23 Feb 89 14:54:23 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA07255; 23 Feb 89 14:39:20 EST (Thu)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 14:39:19 EST
Subject: re: Not much luck at Waterloo
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Feb 23, 89 at 1128
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902231439.AA07255@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
But Omni already knows my name and Company. I have a fax of their
questions.
They want to know who gets the group, and who else has censored it,
among other things.
I rate a small, but finite chance that the Omni article would say,
"yes, the group is racist, but Stanford and UW are Ayatollahs for
trying to block it."
While we can be sure Omni will stand against censorship, we can
be sure of nothing else. Omni will print whatever they think will
sell them magazines. Why else do they print so much pseudoscience?
∂23-Feb-89 1647 ME E
∂22-Feb-89 1801 JMC E
Is there a command for getting the current file name and position in
the file as a text, say into the attach buffer? If not, can you
provide it? It is necessary for a macro I want to write.
ME - I'm finishing up some new code in E to provide this ability.
∂23-Feb-89 1832 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com new new-qlisp with parallel allocation
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 18:32:52 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01750; Thu, 23 Feb 89 18:33:28 PST
Received: from bhopal ([192.9.200.13]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA01019g; Thu, 23 Feb 89 18:26:14 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA18694g; Thu, 23 Feb 89 18:28:37 PST
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 18:28:37 PST
From: Ron Goldman <arg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8902240228.AA18694@bhopal>
To: qlisp@go4.stanford.edu
Subject: new new-qlisp with parallel allocation
There is a new version of new-qlisp, the major feature of which is that each
processor now allocates memory from a separate segment of dynamic space.
This does indeed minimize consing contention. I tried out the following code
in various versions of Qlisp:
(defun foo (n) (let ((a nil)) (dotimes (i n) (push i a)) a))
(defun baz (n m) (qwait (dotimes (i m) (spawn t (foo n)))))
(qtime (baz 100000 1)) (qtime (baz 100000 8))
qlisp w/
old allocation 1150 6182
pre-zeroing 1490 4692
parallel allocation 1339 1423
Please let me know if you see any suspicious behavior when you use new-qlisp.
Ron
∂23-Feb-89 1906 VAL YSP
It occurred to me that, instead of the existence of situations axioms,
it would be even easier to postulate directly what we want to get from them,
i.e., the fact that each axiom about the effect of an action gives an
exception to the law of inertia. For instance, we would describe the
effect of shoot on alive by 2 axioms:
holds(loaded,s)⊃¬holds(alive,result(shoot,s)),
noninertial(loaded,shoot).
Actually, you had very similar "cancellation" axioms in your 1986 paper.
∂23-Feb-89 2018 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com new new-qlisp with parallel allocation
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 20:18:52 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01750; Thu, 23 Feb 89 18:33:28 PST
Received: from bhopal ([192.9.200.13]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA01019g; Thu, 23 Feb 89 18:26:14 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA18694g; Thu, 23 Feb 89 18:28:37 PST
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 18:28:37 PST
From: Ron Goldman <arg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8902240228.AA18694@bhopal>
To: qlisp@go4.stanford.edu
Subject: new new-qlisp with parallel allocation
There is a new version of new-qlisp, the major feature of which is that each
processor now allocates memory from a separate segment of dynamic space.
This does indeed minimize consing contention. I tried out the following code
in various versions of Qlisp:
(defun foo (n) (let ((a nil)) (dotimes (i n) (push i a)) a))
(defun baz (n m) (qwait (dotimes (i m) (spawn t (foo n)))))
(qtime (baz 100000 1)) (qtime (baz 100000 8))
qlisp w/
old allocation 1150 6182
pre-zeroing 1490 4692
parallel allocation 1339 1423
Please let me know if you see any suspicious behavior when you use new-qlisp.
Ron
∂23-Feb-89 2236 poggio@wheaties.ai.mit.edu Our proposal for enhancement of our CM
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Feb 89 22:36:12 PST
Posted-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 17:24:59 EST
Received: from wheaties.ai.mit.edu by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA12742; Fri, 24 Feb 89 00:09:14 EST
Received: by wheaties.ai.mit.edu; Thu, 23 Feb 89 17:24:59 EST
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 17:24:59 EST
From: poggio@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Tomaso Poggio)
Message-Id: <8902232224.AA26910@wheaties.ai.mit.edu>
To: PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: ISTO-PI-LIST@vax.darpa.mil
In-Reply-To: Mark Pullen's message of Wed 18 Jan 89 18:18:49-EST <601168729.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Subject: Our proposal for enhancement of our CM
Mark,
will you take part to the meeting in March about "commercialization of IU"?
If not, is it possible to see you then? I would like to follow up on
the letter that I sent you a few weeks ago about our proposal to
enhance our CM2 at the AI Lab. Thanks.
tomaso
∂24-Feb-89 0001 ME new E
∂22-Feb-89 1801 JMC E
Is there a command for getting the current file name and position in
the file as a text, say into the attach buffer? If not, can you
provide it? It is necessary for a macro I want to write.
ME - OK, I've put up a new E that has this facility. If you say
⊗Xattach filepl.<cr>, then you'll have attached a line containing
the current filename with /P and /L switches (use FILE. instead of
FILEPL. to get just the filename without /P and /L switches).
You can also put such text into a macro with a command like
⊗Xset a←filepl.<cr>. Then you can execute that macro (a) to
"type" the text into the page. (Note that such a macro won't
have a carriage return at its end, so executing just that macro
will leave you in the line editor.)
ET ?<cr> for more details.
Let me know if you observe any bugs.
∂24-Feb-89 0043 ME E bug fixed
∂24-Feb-89 0034 JMC
Thanks. My macro for putting references to messages in calendar worked.
ME - Good. I've fixed the failure bug. Mistakes work OK now (!).
∂24-Feb-89 0910 MPS Book
The book you asked me to check into is on what
the library calls a permanent reserve.
∂24-Feb-89 0947 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU No-Cost Extensions on ARPA Umbrella Tasks
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 09:47:39 PST
Date: Fri 24 Feb 89 09:47:05-PST
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: No-Cost Extensions on ARPA Umbrella Tasks
To: Cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU, ZM@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
DCL@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
cc: CLT@Sail.Stanford.EDU, ARK@Sail.Stanford.EDU, Bergman@Score.Stanford.EDU,
BScott@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12473267920.17.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
For your information, John Pucci warns that no-cost extension requests must
be received by SPAWAR six weeks in advance (AT LEAST) or they will not be
considered. He asked me to let you all know this.
Betty
-------
∂24-Feb-89 1006 barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU applied logic courses
Received: from russell.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 10:06:19 PST
Received: from localhost by russell.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA08615; Fri, 24 Feb 89 10:08:11 PST
Message-Id: <8902241808.AA08615@russell.Stanford.EDU>
To: nilsson@score.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: applied logic courses
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 10:08:10 PST
From: Jon Barwise <barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU>
Are there any course planned for next year that might be
appropriate for students in the applied logic concentration
in SSP?
∂24-Feb-89 1020 HK.IXB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU search proceeding
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 10:20:34 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 10:18:26 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Iris Brest" <HK.IXB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: search proceeding
John Schwartz asked me to send you an on-line version of the speech
piece, and I'm trying. The thing is, the final text was on another
computer, and the owner is away; someone in his office is looking,
and we should be able to send you an ALMOST final version soon,
maybe with a typo or so uncorrected.
Iris
∂24-Feb-89 1031 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU new new-qlisp with parallel allocation
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 10:31:35 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04188; Fri, 24 Feb 89 10:31:49 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 10:31:49 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902241831.AA04188@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: arg@lucid.com
Cc: qlisp@go4.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Ron Goldman's message of Thu, 23 Feb 89 18:28:37 PST <8902240228.AA18694@bhopal>
Subject: new new-qlisp with parallel allocation
It seems to work very well. I haven't noticed anything wrong in
consing, flonums, or bignums. Matrix multiply now speeds up quite
reasonably on floating point numbers and bignums. And the Boyer
benchmark (without special vars) improved slightly, to 6.9 out of 8.
If we remember that the maximum possible speed-up is actually about
7.6 on the Alliant (due to processors running 4-5% slower in parallel
mode), then we are getting about 90%!! efficiency on an optimized
version of RPG's BOYER benchmark, using dynamic spawning.
Qlisp wins!
-dan
∂24-Feb-89 1103 rpg@lucid.com Parallel Lisp Workshop
Received: from lucid.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 11:03:45 PST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA01651g; Fri, 24 Feb 89 10:57:13 PST
Received: by challenger id AA11197g; Fri, 24 Feb 89 10:52:21 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 10:52:21 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8902241852.AA11197@challenger>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, jsw@sail.stanford.edu, arg@lucid.com,
halstead@crl.dec.com, ran@vx.lcs.mit.edu, tk@ai.ai.mit.edu,
Kessler@cs.utah.edu, pierson@multimax.arpa, kranz@wheaties.ai.mit.edu,
jmiller@cs.brandeis.edu, katz@polya.stanford.edu,
ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Subject: Parallel Lisp Workshop
Follows is the revised attendence list and abstracts. Please send me
updates for abstracts and talk titles. In a subsequent message I will
describe more of the Workshop details as determined by Professor Ito.
Name: Robert Halstead
Title: Member of Research Staff
Affiliation: DEC Cambridge Research Lab
Attendance: funding question, but plans to attend.
Talk Title: Some Remarks on MultiLisp
Abstract:
I will give an overview of the Multilisp project (including the Mul-T
compiled parallel Lisp system that we've built recently), indicating
the principal results that we have discovered, the principal
directions that we now think should be pursued (two of the major ones
are processor architecture for Multilisp and support for speculative
parallelism), and what we're currently doing about pursuing those
directions.
******************************
Name: Randy Osborne
Title: Research Assistant
Affiliation: MIT
Attendance: will attend (partial funding from Tohoku)
Talk Title: Some Remarks on Speculative Computation in MultiLisp
Abstract:
I will talk about speculative computation in Multilisp. I will to
present a model for speculative computation, discuss an implementation
of this model, and relate the experiences I've gained with speculative
computation.
******************************
Name: David Kranz
Title: Research Associate
Affiliation: MIT
Attendance: will attend (partial funding from Tohoku)
Talk Title: Some Remarks on the Mul-T Compiled Parallel Lisp System
Abstract: David will discuss the Mul-T compiled parallel Lisp system.
******************************
Name: James Miller
Title: Professor
Affiliation: Brandeis University
Attendance: will attend
Talk Title: Some Remarks on Parallel Lisp Issues
Abstract:
I have two research projects in process and would be happy to present
a short talk on either or both. The first is joint with Don Allen (of
BBN ACI) and Bill Rozas (MIT). This is a detailed study of the
performance of the Butterfly Lisp/Scheme garbage collector -- a
two-space stop-and-copy collector which operates in parallel on all
processors. A good deal of tuning has been done on this version and
we are curious about where the time is actually being spent,
contention on the Butterfly network, etc.
The other piece of work is being done with a graduate student named
Marc Feeley. He has written a stand-alone Scheme compiler that is
producing high-quality code for both the 68020 and the proposed BBN
Monarch parallel processor.
******************************
Name: Tom Knight
Title: Professor
Affiliation: MIT
Attendance: Will Attend
Talk Title: Some Remarks on Parallel Architecture
Abstract: Tom will discuss the parallel architectures
******************************
Name: Dan Pierson
Title: Principal Engineer
Affiliation: Encore Computers
Attendance: will probably attend
Talk Title: Some Remarks on the Encore Ultramax
Abstract:
I will talk about the Ultramax project and our plans to make parallel
Common Lisp available to a wider user base. It is our position that,
while parallel Lisp is still definitely a research area, research has
progressed to the point that feedback from a larger user community is
needed to evaluate progress and guide futher activity.
******************************
Name: Joseph Weening
Title: Research Associate (currently graduate student)
Affiliation: Stanford University
Attendance: will attend
Talk Title: Some Remarks of Qlisp Scheduling
Abstract: Joe will discuss process scheduling in Qlisp.
******************************
Name: John McCarthy
Title: Professor
Affiliation: Stanford University
Attendance: will go
Talk Title: Some Remarks on Parallel Lisp
Abstract: John will talk about parallel Lisp
******************************
Name: Bob Kessler
Title: Research Professor (?)
Affiliation: University of Utah
Attendance: funding question
Talk Title: Some Remarks on Concurrent Scheme
Abstract:
I will talk about our latest work. We are currently developing what
we are calling Concurrent Scheme (CS) for the Mayfly parallel
processor. Mayfly is the second generation of Al Davis's FAIM system,
a message-passing architecture, using three HP RISC processors within
each logical processing node. Concurrent Scheme is essentially R3RS
with a few restrictions and a set of new parallel programming
constructs.
We have CS running in uni-processor mode on HP Bobcat's, and are
currently developing the operating system-like kernel for the Mayfly.
We will also port CS to the Butterfly to test CS while we are waiting
for hardware. A 2 node Mayfly is to be delivered to us in February
and a 19 node version a few months later. I should be able to report
on our first implementation, timing comparisions, etc.
******************************
Name: Morry Katz
Title: Graduate student
Affiliation: Stanford University
Attendance: Will Attend
Talk Title: Some Remarks on ParaTran, Futures, and Continuations
Abstract:
I can give a talk on either my ParaTran research (see L&FP) or the
problems in the interaction of futures and first class continuations,
or both.
******************************
Name: Ron Goldman
Title: Senior Scientist
Affiliation: Lucid, Inc.
Attendance: will Attend
Talk Title: Some Remarks on Qlisp
Abstract:
Qlisp, a dialect of Common Lisp, has been proposed as a
multiprocessing programming language which is suitable for studying
the styles of parallel programming at the medium-grain level. An
initial version of Qlisp has been implemented on a multiprocessor and
a number of experiments with it conducted. I will describe the
implementation and report on some of the experiments.
******************************
Name: Richard P. Gabriel
Title: Consulting Associate Professor, Chief Technical Officer
Affiliation: Stanford University, Lucid, Inc.
Attendance: will attend
Talk Title: Some Remarks on Parallel Machines and Language
Abstract:
One of the major problems in converting serial programs to take
advantage of parallel processing has been the lack of a good
multiprocessing language---one which is both powerful and
understandable to programmers. I will describe multiprocessing
extensions to Common Lisp designed to be suitable for studying styles
of parallel programming at the medium-grain level in a shared-memory
architecture. The resulting language is called Qlisp.
A problem with parallel programming is the degree to which the
programmer must explicitly address synchronization problems. Three
new approaches to this problem look promising: the first is the
concept of heavyweight futures, the second is a new type of function
called a partially, multiply invoked function, and the third is an
object-oriented approach called process environments.
∂24-Feb-89 1131 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Faculty Meeting
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 11:31:08 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA08025; Fri, 24 Feb 89 11:28:44 -0800
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1989 11:28:03 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: binford@coyote, cheriton@pescadero, feigenbaum@sumex-aim, rwf@sail,
genesereth@score, golub@patience, guibas@decwrl.dec.com, jlh@amadeus,
dek@sail, latombe@coyote, zm@sail, jmc@sail, ejm@sierra,
nilsson@tenaya, oliger@pride, pratt@polya.Stanford.EDU, ullman@score,
wiederhold@sumex-aim, winograd@csli
Cc: bscott@score
Subject: Faculty Meeting
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.604351683.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
A faculty meeting has been called to discuss Clancy - Tuesday, March 7 at
4:15 in MJH-146.
∂24-Feb-89 1144 cohen@venera.isi.edu Electronic Commerce
Received: from venera.isi.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 11:44:53 PST
Posted-Date: Fri 24 Feb 89 11:43:44-PST
Received: by venera.isi.edu (5.54/5.51)
id AA24617; Fri, 24 Feb 89 11:43:46 PST
Date: Fri 24 Feb 89 11:43:44-PST
From: Danny Cohen <COHEN@venera.isi.edu>
Subject: Electronic Commerce
To: Schorr@venera.isi.edu, Postel@venera.isi.edu, BALZER@venera.isi.edu,
JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <604352624.0.COHEN@VENERA.ISI.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <VAX-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VENERA.ISI.EDU>
Gents,
I talked yesterday with Craig Fields about Electronic-Commerce.
He is, in general, a strong supporter of the idea. He believes that in
order to "sell" the idea to DoD we need an elaborate plan, with exact
numbers of how much DoD would save, with analysis of the way they handle
invoices and payments now, compared with the proposed way, and so on.
Concrete figures, not "for example"s -- as he said.
Devising such a plan would be a job for a few people, over a few months,
at least. We probably should do it together with RAND, who has
conducted in the past many studies about defense acquisition. I'll talk
soon with their Bob Anderson about it.
He suggested that we do NOT start doing it until it becomes clear what
is the attitude of the next DARPA administration toward projects of this
nature (vs. development of weapons). This attitude will be clear in a
few weeks. (I hope so.)
Hence, I will have to wait (patiently?) a few more weeks.
Danny
-------
∂24-Feb-89 1203 minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu Przymusinski
Received: from gyre.umd.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 12:03:07 PST
Received: from jacksun.cs.umd.edu by gyre.umd.edu (5.58/4.7)
id AA03753; Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:00:05 EST
Received: by jacksun.cs.umd.edu (5.54/3.14)
id AA14507; Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:03:25 EST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:03:25 EST
From: minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu (Jack Minker)
Return-Path: <minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8902242003.AA14507@jacksun.cs.umd.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Przymusinski
Dear John,
At my encouragement, Teodor Przymusinski has applied for a
faculty position in the Department of Computer Science and
the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Comuter
Studies (UMIACS). Professor Larry Davis, the Director of
UMIACS has sent you a letter requesting your comments on him.
Although he has received outstanding letters from key people,
it is important that we receive a letter from you. I would
greatly appreciate it if you could take some time out of
your schedule to send a letter.
I hope that all is well with you.
Best regards,
Jack
∂24-Feb-89 1332 MPS
Ed Marenco - 408-773-1281
This guy sounds like a flake. He would like you to
call as he feels you are the type of person he could
have fun with in conversation. His insterest is in man-in-the-
street-physics; whatever that means. He also claims he can not
talk to anybody as they do not understand them. Neither did I
Pat
∂24-Feb-89 1340 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu applied logic courses
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 13:40:10 PST
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA10757; Fri, 24 Feb 89 13:36:37 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 13:36:37 PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8902242136.AA10757@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU
Cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Jon Barwise's message of Fri, 24 Feb 89 10:08:10 PST <8902241808.AA08615@russell.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: applied logic courses
The ai faculty just met yesterday to talk about next years
courses. Jean-Claude Latombe (latombe@coyote) is in charge of
this, and I had to leave early so I don't know the final outcome.
Perhaps you could get a list from him of our next year's courses
(or from Roy Jones, jones@score, who makes all the final arrangements).
John Mitchell, jcm@score, is in charge of all of our so-called
"theory course" (including those dealing with logic), so he might
be a good person to contact about those courses. We are becoming so
de-centralized that, except for Roy Jones, it's hard for any one
person to keep in mind all of the courses and their changes, etc.
-Nils
∂24-Feb-89 1346 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Faculty Meeting
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 13:46:09 PST
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA10762; Fri, 24 Feb 89 13:42:10 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 13:42:10 PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8902242142.AA10762@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: chandler@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: binford@coyote, cheriton@pescadero, feigenbaum@sumex-aim, rwf@sail,
genesereth@score, golub@patience, guibas@decwrl.dec.com, jlh@amadeus,
dek@sail, latombe@coyote, zm@sail, jmc@sail, ejm@sierra, oliger@pride,
pratt@polya.Stanford.EDU, ullman@score, wiederhold@sumex-aim,
winograd@csli, bscott@score
In-Reply-To: "Joyce R. Chandler"'s message of Fri, 24 Feb 1989 11:28:03 PST <CMM.0.87.604351683.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: Faculty Meeting
Let me provide a few more details: This 3/7/89 faculty meeting of
assoc. and full professors is to hear the recommendation to hire
Mike Clancy, of UCBerkeley, as an Assoc. Prof. (Research) to head
our educational program---taking over from acting head Roy Jones.
This is an important appointment, the letters are outstanding, and
we really do need Mike. George Wheaton will make sure that the letters
on Mike are in Joyce's office for your inspection before the meeting.
Please do come. If you feel that you can vote in his favor, after
seeing his letters, please do let Betty Scott know before the meeting
if you cannot attend the meeting. If you are uncertain about your vote,
please do make an effort to attend and hear the case. thanks, -Nils
∂24-Feb-89 1402 cdp!kpeters@labrea.stanford.edu re: visit to Stanford
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 14:02:47 PST
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Fri, 24 Feb 89 14:00:41 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 14:00:41 PST
From: cdp!kpeters@labrea.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <8902242200.AA14409@labrea.stanford.edu>
To: labrea!JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: re: visit to Stanford
Cc: kpeters@labrea.stanford.edu
Thank you for your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Sari Kalin
∂24-Feb-89 1509 HK.IXB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU on-line version, minus footnote calls
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 15:04:10 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:02:17 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Iris Brest" <HK.IXB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: on-line version, minus footnote calls
This copy was retrieved from Campus Report, but the footnote
calls got lost in cleaning up the formatting commands. Do you
care? The footnotes themselves are all there, at the end of the
text. Iris
FIRST AMENDMENT PRINCIPLES AND PROSECUTION FOR OFFENSIVE
EXPRESSION UNDER STANFORD'S STUDENT DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM
This report was prepared by John J. Schwartz, vice president
and general counsel, and Iris Brest, associate general
counsel
A number of recent incidents on the campus have
involved racially and ethnically offensive expression (some
by students, some by persons unknown):
a student "vigil" at Otero House evoking images of
the Ku Klux Klan;
the word "niggers" written across a poster;
a poster sketch of Beethoven altered to a caricature of
a black person;
"Non-blacks leave our home, you do not belong in
Ujamaa" messages following the Beethoven poster episode;
the distribution on campus of White Aryan Resistance
fliers;
and placement of anti-Semitic leaflets on cars around
the Oval.
These separate events have prompted a number of
questions about whether such communication is or should be
regulated by Stanford's internal student disciplinary
system, and if so to what extent.
This paper discusses what has been done at Stanford in
cases involving disruptive or offensive behavior that
consists essentially of speech and closely-related conduct.
It also explores the principles that are related to and
determine the University's actions.
It is unfortunate but probably inevitable that this
review comes at a time when emotion runs high. At such
times, our effort to adhere to principles of long-term value
may appear to ignore, or undervalue, the pain caused by the
behavior we are considering. Most of us feel outraged by
racist views; their expression is a violation of civility,
and the views themselves are repugnant to the values we hold
and would promote.
We must find ways to heal those who are hurt, and to
persuade those who are mistaken. But we must do this through
education, and not through proscription or prescription of
thought. This paper has an underlying conviction: it is that
a university, even more than any other institution, must
preserve itself as a forum for the competition of ideas, and
in doing so must tolerate the expression of ideas that some
or most of us find repugnant.
In the abstract, this conviction is no doubt shared by
nearly all members of the Stanford community. Many may
differ, however, about its appropriate influence in cases of
racially or ethnically offensive expression. If this paper
provides a framework for discussion of the issues, it will
have served an important purpose.
It begins by considering the structure of the student
disciplinary system and the standards applied in deciding
whether or not to file charges. The application of First
Amendment principles to interpretation of rules of student
conduct and a summary of the principles are taken up next.
Past examples of cases involving expression and the recent
case of the Beethoven poster are then considered in light of
these standards and principles. Finally, the relationship of
freedom of expression to the University goal of freedom from
bigotry is discussed.
The Structure of the Student Disciplinary System
Stanford has three main substantive rules of student
conduct: the Fundamental Standard -- the basic, and very
general, rule of student behavior; the Policy on Campus
Disruption (also applicable to faculty and staff); and the
Honor Code. Charges are brought by the President through his
designate. If they are contested, they are prosecuted before
the Stanford Judicial Council. The SJC consists of three
students, three faculty members, and student or faculty
co-chairs who preside, respectively, in Honor Code and
non-Honor-Code cases.
The structure of that system parallels the external
criminal system in significant ways: It enforces behavioral
rules of general applicability, requires proof beyond a
reasonable doubt to establish guilt, permits but does not
require the accused to give testimony, and imposes
penalties.
Standards for Prosecuting Student Disciplinary Cases
One standard has been applied by the University in the
consideration of every student disciplinary matter: No
charges for violation of rules of student conduct are filed
unless the President's designate responsible for bringing
those charges is convinced (a) that the student to be
charged did in fact violate one of the substantive rules of
conduct and (b) that, in accordance with the requirements
set forth in the Legislative and Judicial Charter of 1968,
the case against the student can be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Some have quarrelled with the limitations of this
approach. They have argued that if the facts of the case are
clear, but it is unclear whether they constitute a violation
of a rule of student conduct, the student should be charged
-- leaving it to the SJC to decide the matter and submit its
recommendation to the President.
Still others have argued that despite uncertainties
about culpability or proof, charges should be filed in
situations where there is general concern over the conduct
in question so that the SJC can be a vehicle for broad
community discussion and consideration of the matter, or for
symbolic reasons -- to negate any appearance of
administrative complacency with respect to the conduct in
question.
Despite the urgings to increase the range of cases in
which charges are filed, however, the principle has been
followed without exception: we treat the student judicial
system as our "criminal law" system, serving only
disciplinary ends. To invoke it in order to satisfy some
ancillary agenda -- in the face of the prosecutor's doubts
about whether the proof is in hand, or whether the conduct
actually violates the rules -- would pervert that system.
We have a second standard, specific to decisions on
whether or not to charge a student where the conduct
consists essentially of speech: The University should be as
tolerant of such conduct as possible. The Policy on Campus
Disruption expressly recognizes the importance of preserving
free speech rights. It states in part:
Because the rights of free speech and peaceable
assembly are fundamental to the democratic process, Stanford
firmly supports the rights of all members of the University
community to express their views or to protest against
actions and opinions with which they disagree.
All members of the University also share a concurrent
obligation to maintain on the campus an atmosphere conducive
to scholarly pursuits; to preserve the dignity and
seriousness of University ceremonies and public exercises;
and to respect the rights of all individuals.
The following regulations are intended to reconcile
these objectives:
It is violation of University policy for a member of
the faculty, staff, or student body to (1) prevent or
disrupt the effective carrying out of a University function
or approved activity, such as lectures, meetings,
interviews, ceremonies, the conduct of University business
in a University office, and public events; (2) obstruct the
legitimate movement of any person about the campus or in any
University building or facility....
As it applies to students, the Policy on Campus
Disruption is a particular application of the Fundamental
Standard.
Applicability of First Amendment Principles
to Interpretation of the Policy on Campus Disruption and the
Fundamental Standard
Since Stanford is not a governmental entity, but a
private institution, it is not bound by the First Amendment,
and can regulate or curtail the expression of thought to a
greater extent than a government -- or state university --
may. As a matter of principle, though, it has not done so.
Faith in the competition of ideas, in the power of robust
and untrammeled debate, underlies the First Amendment's
protection of expression. That is a national commitment; in
a university, whose whole reason for being is the production
and transmission of knowledge, that commitment is even
stronger. The only orthodoxy of thought we can permit is the
principle that no ideas be suppressed. Since the Disruption
Policy, as noted above, applies explicitly to faculty and
staff as well, the case involving Professor H. Bruce
Franklin is particularly relevant to the current discu
ssion, since it makes clear that First Amendment principles
are integral to that Policy. It is the only case in which
the University has formally considered the appropriate
limits of free speech by faculty.
In the Franklin case, the Advisory Board of the
Academic Council (a committee of seven, elected by and from
the Stanford faculty) concluded that "it is the
University's responsibility to enhance the exercise of
rights of free speech which the First Amendment merely
protects against governmental interference." Hence, the
Advisory Board decided in the particular case before it that
there should be no less protection of free speech here at
Stanford. As set forth by the Advisory Board in that case:
It is open to a private university to impose
constitutional limitations on itself as a deliberate choice
of policy; in advance of the hearing the Board committed
itself to at least this much in undertaking to provide for
Professor Franklin "no less protection of his
constitutional rights at Stanford than that to which he
could be entitled as a member of the faculty of a state
university."
At the same time, the Advisory Board concluded that,
consistent with its commitment to freedom of expression,
Stanford could punish speech that was disruptive of
University activities. It found that the University's Policy
on Campus Disruption is consistent with First Amendment
principles, and decided that some of the speech in the case
before it did indeed violate that Policy.
First Amendment Principles
Since the University has determined that First
Amendment principles should inform its interpretation of its
internal policies, it may be useful to summarize four of
these principles.
First, for First Amendment purposes, speech includes
not only the spoken and written word, but expression through
art and symbolic means.
Second, government may not regulate or curtail the
content of one's speech, with very limited exceptions -- such
as obscenity, "fighting words" directed to an individual,
some kinds of defamation, and speech immediately threatening
to the safety of others, or advocacy directed to inciting or
producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce such
action.
Third, reasonable limitations may be placed on the
time, place, and manner of speech, provided these
limitations do not discriminate with respect to content. For
example, marches, parades and other demonstrations may be
regulated to minimize congestion and safety problems. The
Disruption Policy's prohibition of preventing or obstructing
University functions and activities is a valid "time, place
and manner" regulation of speech-related conduct.
Fourth, the First Amendment protects a speaker's
decision to remain anonymous. Anonymous speech is not
attractive, but it must be protected to assure that
proponents of unpopular ideas can in fact exercise freedom
of expression.
Whether or not racial slurs, insults, epithets and
other racially offensive expression fall within the limited
exceptions to First Amendment protection depends upon the
extent to which they are directed against a specific person
or persons, in contrast to a general group.
For example, in the case upholding the right of
American Nazis to demonstrate in the predominantly Jewish
community of Skokie, Illinois, the federal courts rejected
the city's argument that any of these exceptions permitted a
city to prohibit speech that promotes hatred against persons
by reason of their race: The speech certainly caused extreme
mental and emotional disturbance to many; but vilification
of a race or group (rather than specific individuals) could
not be prohibited as defamation, nor could it be prohibited
as threatening unless it tended to create immediate violence
by the particular person to whom the words were addressed.
The march, and its attendant dissemination of materials that
promote racial hatred and endorse a loathsome ideology,
could not be prohibited or punished.
Past Examples of Cases Involving Expression
The Franklin case involved a faculty member, but as
already noted, it involved a rule
that applies to students as well. Both before and after the
Franklin case, the speech-related conduct of a number of
students has been found to violate the Policy on Campus
Disruption or the Fundamental Standard. The decision
whether, consistent with First Amendment principles, a
student may be charged with violating the Fundamental
Standard and / or the Policy on Campus Disruption as a
result of expression is on some occasions relatively easy
and on others extraordinarily difficult.
Examples of the former include the Henry Cabot Lodge
case in 1971, where the students' interruptions prevented
the speaker from being heard, and the Academic Council case
in 1972, where the students insisted on speaking at a closed
meeting of the faculty. As the Disruption Policy makes
explicit, preventing or seriously interfering with
University functions is prohibited: the message must be
delivered elsewhere, at other times, or in a different
manner.
The "Otero 7" case and various peaceful student
sit-ins are examples of the more difficult decisions -- in
the one case because of the First Amendment principles, and
in the others because of the University's additional
practice of permitting the expression of thought when, by
suffering only minor obstruction of limited activities, it
is reasonably possible to do so.
In one of the sit-in cases in May, 1985, for example,
during a Trustees meeting on the campus, a number of
students lay down behind the Trustees' parked cars as a
means of expressing their conviction over the "divestment"
issue. The conduct was clearly not protected by First
Amendment principles and was a provable violation of the
Policy on Campus Disruption.
But while there is no right to greater protection than
the First Amendment affords, the University has refrained
from legitimate disciplinary action in the interest of
permitting peaceful expression. The Trustees were asked if
they would mind leaving their cars where they were and
obtaining other transportation to and from the campus until
the protest ended. Their agreement made the disruption
relatively minor, and eased the decision to file no charges.
It should be noted that the decision was
content-neutral: the same result would have been reached had
the demonstration been in favor of investment in South
Africa.
In the "Otero 7" incident last Spring, seven students
wearing masks and carrying candles went to Otero House and
sat peacefully on the patio outside the House's lounge to
protest the eviction from the House of another student for
conduct in violation of the residence agreement.
Many residents of the House became extremely agitated
over what they perceived to be the image of the Ku Klux
Klan. One of the seven participants told a Stanford Daily
editor at the scene that this was a silent vigil, and then
wrote on a piece of paper that the vigil was intended merely
to protest the eviction of the other student. The Daily
editor read the note to the crowd that had gathered. Several
of those in the crowd challenged the participants to remove
their masks, take responsibility for their views, and
recognize the symbolic impact of their appearance.
When interviewed, the participants expressed surprise
and dismay that what they had intended to be a demonstration
of support for the evicted student was perceived as a racist
display. They stated that they wore masks to avoid
recognition and disregard as "fraternity guys" and that
they carried candles because they thought that was how
protests were made.
The decision whether or not to seek disciplinary action
against the "Otero 7" had an aspect not presented by the
divestment protest. The Otero "vigil" did not occur in the
street, but at a residence -- a place in which the occupants
ought to enjoy singular freedom from fear, but were in fact
made fearful. On the other hand, our dormitories are not
private residences, nor are they simply residences: They are
part of Stanford's residential education program, and serve
also as forums for discussion and education.
In any event, the seven participants said they did
not intend to look like the KKK, and there was no proof to
the contrary. It was clear that they did not intend their
protest to endorse anything the KKK advocates, and their
protest was not directed to any particular residents of
Otero house. Other than wearing masks and carrying candles
(which may have evoked, for some, the torches of the Klan),
the appearance of the seven students did not in fact
resemble that of the Ku Klux Klan.
It could be argued that the seven students disrupted
the University's residential education program as a result
of the anxiety that the vigil created. Nevertheless, under
First Amendment principles (a) since the University does not
ban all demonstrations at residences, it could not ban this
one without discriminating on the basis of content; and (b)
discriminating on the basis of content would be improper
because the symbolic conduct of this demonstration, however
thoughtless and upsetting, was not obscene or defamatory,
nor did it constitute "fighting words."
It could also be argued that the conduct of the seven
students could be construed as a threat to the safety of the
residents; but that simply was inconsistent with the
provable facts.
Thus, both of the principles mentioned above tipped the
scales against disciplinary action. There was no evidence of
the intent necessary to prove a violation of the Policy on
Campus Disruption or the Fundamental Standard; interpreting
those rules consistent with First Amendment principles,
there was no violation even apart from motivation. Moreover,
the conduct was expression, which the University seeks to
permit to the greatest extent possible. Again, the decision
was content-neutral: if all the other facts had been the
same, the decision would have been the same even if the
expression had been racially motivated.
The Beethoven Poster Episode
Some of the elements in the Otero incident were also
present in the recent incident involving the Beethoven
poster. The latter also occurred at a residence -- indeed, it
occurred inside the house rather than outside. From the
recently published Ujamaa Report, it appears that it also
was offensive to most of the residents of Ujamaa, and the
reactions to it disrupted the lives of the students there.
There are of course differences between the Beethoven
and the Otero cases. The students involved in the Beethoven
case were themselves residents of Lagunita Court, and
students living in a residence should certainly be able to
express their thoughts and opinions to their fellow
residents. Indeed, it would seem from the Report that the
Beethoven incident was the result of a discussion among
residents of Ujamaa as to Beethoven's role in the
contribution to music by blacks (the position having been
advanced that Beethoven had black forebears).
It appears from that Report that the two students
involved in the Ujamaa episode did intend to produce a
ludicrous, racial caricature of blacks, in contrast to the
absence of any racially offensive intent in the Otero case.
But there was nothing on the caricature, nor does the Report
suggest that the poster was intended, to threaten or defame
any particular student or students. What remains, then, even
if the two students knew how the caricature would be
perceived, is racially offensive speech directed, perhaps,
to members of a race generally.
Under these circumstances, as in the Otero case, the
standards mentioned at the outset counsel against seeking
disciplinary action: there is no evidence of the intent
necessary to prove a violation of the Policy on Campus
Disruption or the Fundamental Standard; interpreting those
rules consistent with First Amendment principles, there was
no violation even apart from motivation. And again, the
conduct was expression, which the University seeks to permit
to the greatest extent possible.
By the same token, several of the other instances
referred to at the outset -- the White Aryan Resistance
posters, the anti-Semitic leaflets, the "niggers" poster --
are also protected from punishment even if the perpetrators
were know
n. The "Non-blacks ... do not belong in Ujamaa" messages
would be a case that depended on more facts -- primarily
issues of provable intent to threaten or defame specific
individuals.
It has been suggested that the University would be
better off if the Policy on Campus Disruption and the
Fundamental Standard were supplemented by more specific
rules with respect to conduct that consists essentially of
speech.
The flexibility that the University has had in
responding to the kinds of activities described here has,
however, been substantially facilitated because the two
policies are broadly written. And in the few instances where
the students involved in the conduct in question might well
not have been aware of its disruptive nature or its adverse
effect on other individuals in violation of the Fundamental
Standard, the University gave advance warning to the
students or the student body generally that further conduct
of that nature would indeed lead to disciplinary charges --
thus preserving the right to fair notice without doing
violence to the nature of our disciplinary system.
In short, there is little to be gained and a great deal
to be lost by any attempt to add substantial specificity to
Stanford's rules of student conduct in connection with
matters of this nature. The important nuances of the kind
discussed here defy codification, and the University must be
able to continue to consider them.
Freedom from Insult on Racial, Ethnic
and Other Grounds
In thinking about First Amendment principles, it is
important to keep always in mind that these are individual
rights; they do not depend on the agreement of the majority
that the views expressed are within some pale of acceptable
ideas. Even if all people of good will deplore and detest an
opinion, they may not prohibit or punish it because of its
content.
Some have urged that Stanford's Fundamental Standard is
in conflict with, or perhaps overrides, First Amendment
principles because it demands "respect for ... the rights
of others" and we hold out freedom from insult on racial,
ethnic, sexual and other such grounds as a right we mean to
provide within the community. But no one has a right that
another person not hold an opinion, or express it.
The preamble to the Disruption Policy specifically
confirms the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.
The reason the preamble appears in the Disruption Policy is
that disruption -- shouting others down and preventing their
own speech, blocking their movements, incitement to lawless
action, and so on -- is the main way that the rights of
others may be denied by speech-related conduct. The purpose
of the preamble is to point out that even as we protect
those rights of others, we do so within the constraints of
affording all members of the community the right to express
their views; these constraints apply equally to our other
policies, including the Fundamental Standard.
What, then, does it mean to say that conduct that
discourages full participation of any student in the life of
this University on account of sex, race, color, origin,
religion, or sexual orientation is not tolerable?
It is a temptation, especially in the heat of a painful
episode in which we have fallen short of our goal, to say
these are illusory promises, or mere hypocrisy, if the
institution is not willing to back them up by prosecutions.
But the disciplinary system is not the only, nor the
primary, way to achieve the goal. We are embarked on a quest
for a community in which we all enjoy, and afford each
other, full civil rights: not only tolerance, but
appreciation for the entire range of cultural and personal
diversity; not only civility, but freedom from the insidious
effects of bigotry, stated and unstated; not token or
marginal tenancy, but citizenship -- the true sense of being
a welcome and valued member of the whole.
It is a frightening quest, because we have the sense
that if the goal cannot be achieved here, in a university,
it cannot be achieved anywhere. But if it is to be achieved
in a university, it
must be done by our traditional tools -- discussion,
education, persuasion. The great value of our struggle to
become first an example -- proving that it can be done -- and
then a model for its being done elsewhere, lies in the fact
that we are attempting to achieve civil rights without
compromising civil liberties.
Mr. Justice Holmes, discussing the importance of
freedom of speech even when the speech is utterly repugnant,
observed:
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me
perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or
your power and want a certain result with all your heart you
naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all
opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate
that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that
he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole
heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your
power or your premises. But when men have realized that time
has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe
even more than they believe the very foundations of their
own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached
by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the
power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground
upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at
any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an
experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not
every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy
based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is
part of our system I think that we should be eternally
vigilant against attempts to check the expression of
opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with
death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate
interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the
law that an immediate check is required to save the country.
The passage comes from Holmes' dissenting opinion in
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919). He added, "I
regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my
belief that in their conviction upon this indictment the
defendants were deprived of their rights under the
Constitution of the United States." But his eloquent
defense of freedom of speech presaged and underlies modern
First Amendment law.
February, 1989
footnotes
1. In addition, the SJC enforces the Liquor Policy, the
Drug Abuse Policy, and the Prohibition of the Possession of
Dangerous Weapons on Campus. Students must comply with other
policies as well, such as the residence agreement and the
regulations governing student organizations, but charges
prosecuted through the student judicial system must involve
violations of the listed rules. Departments may also apply
rules related to the particular academic field, but these
are not enforced through the disciplinary system.
2. The Fundamental Standard states in part that
"students are expected to show both within and without the
University such respect for order, morality, personal honor
and the rights of others as is demanded of good
citizens...."
3. "Fighting words," as the term is currently
applied, means words tending to incite immediate violence by
the person to whom they are addressed in face-to-face
confrontations.
4. In some cases, picketing and similar conduct located
at an individual residence and targeted against the people
who live there can be prohibited altogether pursuant to a
valid time, place and manner regulation.
5. In a 1952 decision, the Supreme Court held that the
state could punish the racial vilification of a group, i.e.,
group libel. Most courts and scholars believe, however, that
the holding of that case with respect to group libel has
been effectively overruled by subsequent decisions; the
current weight of authority, like the practice at Stanford,
disfavors limitations on the content of speech, however
unpopular.
6. In most of the cases in which a student's speech has
been considered to be impermissible and a violation of rules
of conduct, the student has been charged under the Policy on
Campus Disruption rather than the broader Funda
mental Standard.
7. And, consistent with First Amendment principles, the
University probably could not do so.
8. Going back to the topic of anonymity (and similarly,
masks), we note again that the issue is not altered: surely,
the sit-in cases would not have been handled differently in
respect to disciplinary action had their participants been
wearing ski masks and holding candles. Had the two students
involved in the Ujamaa matter stood in White Plaza, with or
without masks, holding their altered Beethoven poster, there
is little question that such objectionable, but peaceful,
speech in a public place must be permitted at Stanford. As
noted, the difficulty arises from the fact that the
Beethoven poster episode occurred inside the house. One
could argue about whether the board on which it was posted
was a public place within the house, but the main point is
that the poster was not a threat, a libel, or fighting words
directed to one or more individuals personally.
9. The "content" of an opinion cannot be separated
from the style in which it is expressed. That is, no
distinction can be drawn between a statement that "the idea
that Beethoven was a Black is ridiculous" or "Blacks don't
write classical music" and the rude cartoon in question
here.
10. It appears from the Report that sheets of paper
containing the message were slipped under the door of two
Ujamaa residents, while another was found posted on a
bulletin board in the house.
11. While there are certainly borderline cases, the
distinction between speech and action is usually clear.
Actions are prohibited when they discriminate on the basis
of race, ethnicity, sex and similar such criteria. Thus, for
example, students may not be given discriminatory grades,
excluded from membership in organizations, or denied other
University benefits on these bases, nor will a claim to
freedom of expression protect those who engage in such
conduct. Also, destruction of property -- the defacing of the
Gay Liberation statue, or graffiti on buildings -- is not
protected merely because it also contains expressive
elements.
-30-
∂24-Feb-89 1516 HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU vtss
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 15:16:10 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:10:59 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Joyce Kiefer" <HF.JFK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: vtss
TO: VTSS Faculty and Students
Just a reminder to let me know by Wednesday, March 1, if you plan to
join us on a tour of the United Airlines Maintenance Facilities at
San Francisco Airport (is this tiemly or what?). We'll carpool and
depart from the VTSS Office at noon sharp.
Also, Students, please take a look at name and address and degree
info we have about you in our VTSS database. A copy is in your mail
box at VTSS. Please let me know what needs to be completed or
corrected.
Thanks,
Joyce Kiefer, Program Assistant
725-0119
To: FACULTY/STUDENT(EB.RBT,FE.ALF,A.ALICE@MACBETH,B.BEARDSLEY@MACBETH,
B.BOND-JAMES@MACBETH,B.BUNSEN@MACBETH,C.CADDY@MACBETH,CUBFAN@JESSICA,
DRELL@SLACVM.BITNET,E.E-CUMMINGS@MACBETH,E.EDSUN@MACBETH,E.EPR@MACBETH,
GALISON@CSLI,J.JBBT@MACBETH,J.JPWIZ@MACBETH,JMC@SAIL,M.MAE@MACBETH,
MASTERS@CIVE,N.NEJ@MACBETH,NASS@SUWATSON,ORTOLANO@CIVE,P.PAMOO@MACBETH,
P.PAST@MACBETH,R.REDHEAD@MACBETH,R.ROADRUNNER@MACBETH,R.RSMIII@MACBETH,
R.RTSHOOTIN@MACBETH,T.THING@MACBETH,T.TIGRON@MACBETH,
V.VALENTINE@MACBETH,W.WEDGE@MACBETH,W.WILDSTRUBEL@MACBETH,
WINOGRAD@SCORE,Z.ZTOPP@MACBETH)
∂24-Feb-89 1527 rpg@lucid.com US/Japan Workshop on Parllel Lisp
Received: from lucid.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 15:27:27 PST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA00668g; Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:20:58 PST
Received: by challenger id AA11806g; Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:15:54 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:15:54 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8902242315.AA11806@challenger>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, jsw@sail.stanford.edu, arg@lucid.com,
halstead@crl.dec.com, ran@vx.lcs.mit.edu, tk@ai.ai.mit.edu,
Kessler@cs.utah.edu, pierson@multimax.arpa, kranz@wheaties.ai.mit.edu,
jmiller@cs.brandeis.edu, katz@polya.stanford.edu,
ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Subject: US/Japan Workshop on Parllel Lisp
The following is useful information on the Workshop, provided by
Professor Ito.
June 4 [Sendai Tokyo Hotel]
<18:00 - 19:00> Registration and reception with light snack
June 5 [Conference Room, Aoha Memorial Building]
<09:30 - 10:00> Opening and General Information
<10:00 - 12:30> 3 talks
<12:30 - 13:30> Lunch
<13:30 - 14:50> 2 talks
<14:50 - 15:10> coffee break
<15:10 - 17:10> 3 talks
[Cafeteria, Aoba Memorial Building]
<18:00 - 19:30> Reception with meal
June 6 [Conference Room, Aoba Memorial Building]
<09:30 - 10:50> 2 talks
<10:50 - 11:10> coffee break
<11:10 - 12:30> 2 talks
<12:30 - 13:30> Lunch at cafeteria
<13:30 - 14:50> 2 talks
<14:50 - 15:10> coffee break
<15:10 - 17:10> Panel Discussion
[Sanjyu-Sangen-Doh, Sendal Washington Hotel]
<19:00 - 21:00> Banquet (Japanese Dinner)
June 7 [Sendai Tokyo Hotel]
<09:00 - 10:20> 2 talks
<10:20 - 10:40> coffee break
<10:40 - 12:40> 3 talks
<12:40 - 13:30> Lunch
<13:30 - 14:50> 2 talks
<14:50 - 15:10> break
<15:10 - 16:30> 2 talks
<16:30 - > "free time" for shopping and dining
June 8 [Sendai Tokyo Hotel]
<09:00 - 10:20> 2 talks
<10:30 - > Bus Tour
Visit to a new VLSI factory of OKU
Sightseeing to Narugo and Onikobe
Sightseeing to Matsushima
Dinner at Matsushima
{return to hotel at 21:00}
June 9 [Ito's Laboratory]
<09:30 - 12:00> Demonstrations by Particpants
[Lecture Room at Department of Information Engineering]
<14:00 - 17:00> Public Lectures
by Professor John McCarthy and others
Tentative Titles of Talks by US Participants:
Some Remarks on MultiLisp
by Robert Halstead, DEC Cambridge Research Lab
Some Remarks on Speculative Computation in MultiLisp
by Randy Osborne, MIT
Some Remarks on the Mul-T Compiled Parallel Lisp System
by David Kranz, MIT
Some Remarks on Parallel Lisp Issues
by James Miller, Brandeis University
Some Remarks on Parallel Architecture
by Tom Knight, MIT
Some Remarks on the Encore Ultramax
by Dan Pierson, Encore Computers
Some Remarks of Qlisp Scheduling
by Joseph Weening, Stanford University
Some Remarks on Parallel Lisp
by John McCarthy, Stanford University
Some Remarks on Concurrent Scheme
by Bob Kessler, University of Utah
Some Remarks on ParaTran, Futures, and Continuations
by Morry Katz, Stanford University
Qlisp
by Ron Goldman, Lucid, Inc.
Parallel Machines and Languages
by Richard P. Gabriel, Stanford University, Lucid, Inc.
Tentative Titles of Talks by Japanese Participants:
PaiLisp and its description by PaiLisp-Kernel
by T. Ito and M. Matsui (Tohoku Univ.)
Channel-Lisp: A parralel Lisp based on channel communication
by T. Ito and H. Oyaizu (Tohoku Univ.)
Concurrent Common Lisp
by S. Sugimoto and K. Tabata (Univ. of Library and Informatics)
mUltilisp: a Lisp dialect for parallel processing
by H. Iwasaki (Univ. of Tokyo)
PM-Lisp System
by T. Yuasa (Toyohashi Univ. of Technology)
Object-Oriented Parallel Algorithms for the N-Body Problem
by A. Yonezawa (Tokyo Inst. of Technology)
An Implementation of ABCL/1 for multi-process architectures using a TAO/ELIS
machine
by E. Shibayama and A. Yonezawa (Tokyo Inst. of Technology)
On Single Threaded Concurrent Objects
by M. Tokoro (Keio Univ.)
Concurrent programming in TAO
by I. Takeuchi (NNT Software Laboratory)
A Pseudo Network Approach to Inter-processor Communication on Shared memory
Multi-processor MacELIS
by K. Murakami (NTT Software Laboratory)
Design of the shared memory system for multiprocessor Lisp machines and its
implementation on the EVLIS machine
by H. Yasui and T. Saito (Osaka Univ.)
Multiprocessor Lisp on TOP-1
by M. Hozumi, T. Tanaka, S. Uzahara, T. Kurokawa, N. Suzuki (IBM Tokyo
Research Laboratory)
Steering Committee:
Japan
Professors T. Ito, A Yonezawa, M. Tokoro and Dr. N. Suzuki
US
Professor Richard P. Gabriel, Dr. Robert Halstead, ...
Deadline of Workshop papers:
May 8, 1989
3,000 word minimum
to T. Ito by Airmail
Room Rate at Sendai Tokyo Hotel:
Single Room 9,000 yen/day including tax
Twin Room 8,500 yen/day including tax
Note:
Please send to Professor Ito your airmail address so he can send maps
and other information directly to you.
I also need the real titles of your talks and the manuscripts by
May 8, 1989. The length should not be more than 3,000 words.
-rpg-
∂24-Feb-89 1533 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Japan Workshop
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 15:29:45 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05384; Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:30:36 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:30:36 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902242330.AA05384@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Japan Workshop
Should we ask Dick to include Dan on these messages about the workshop?
∂24-Feb-89 1553 W.WUWU@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 15:53:19 PST
Date: Fri 24 Feb 89 15:50:00-PST
From: ms anthropy <W.WUWU@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <U5sAU@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12473333989.81.W.WUWU@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
sure.
this is sort of my own personal thing, and i oppose the fact that this
company discriminates on who can use their publicly open property, and
who can't, based on their political beliefs.
i don'[t mind if you buy pizzas from domino's.
to each , their own.
if you need my discarded coupons, let me know.
alice
-------
∂24-Feb-89 1602 MPS III
Rae Gill (attorney) called. She needs to talk to
you about the merger asap.
Her office number if 617--439-0300
Her home phone is 617-247-3826
She will be home tonight, but will be at the office
over the weekend.
∂24-Feb-89 1627 W.WUWU@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 16:26:13 PST
Date: Fri 24 Feb 89 16:22:52-PST
From: ms anthropy <W.WUWU@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <U5sAU@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12473339970.81.W.WUWU@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
incidentally, i hope that i am being perfectly clear that i respect your
decision to do what you want.
it's hard to tell from one's own postings.
and if i've been tongue-in-cheek, that's just who i am.
alice wu
-------
∂24-Feb-89 1633 HK.IXB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU are you sure?
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 16:33:34 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 16:32:06 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Iris Brest" <HK.IXB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: are you sure?
I knew the footnotes' being at the end wouldn't be a problem, but
it might be a problem that there aren't any calls -- that is, the
reader won't know where the notes go, or rather what they're notes
to. I.
∂24-Feb-89 1713 jacobs@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 17:12:26 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA11723; Fri, 24 Feb 89 17:10:34 -0800
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 17:10:34 -0800
From: Joseph Jacobs <jacobs@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902250110.AA11723@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <U5sAU@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
jmc:
Apparently this has only recently reached bboard. A friend
tells me that it has been bouncing back and forth on a mailing list
for the last two or three days and now they seem to be trying to find
new proselytes, since virtually everyone (my friend excluded,
thankfully) on the list has been saying they'll never eat Domino's
again.
Joseph
∂24-Feb-89 1731 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
ALGEBRAIC TECHNIQUES IN BOOLEAN CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION
Peter Ladkin
Kestrel Institute
Monday, February 27, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Many techniques used for binary Boolean Constraint Satisfaction Problems
(CSPs) may be formulated in terms of the operations in an algebra of
relations, originally due to Tarski in 1941, but ultimately going back
to Peirce and Schroeder last century. I shall introduce the
relation-algebraic vocabulary, and present some reasonable subset of the
following results. Path-consistency has been suggested as a heuristic
for satisfaction (often NP-complete). Path-consistency computations may
be accomplished in n-squared log n time in parallel, and there is also a
lower bound for reduction-type algorithms (serial or parallel) of
n-squared time (using a concocted class of examples). We shall also
give naturally-occurring examples of classes of CSPs with n-squared
satisfaction algorithms for path-consistent networks, including a large
subclass of Allen's temporal reasoning problems; and classes in which
even atomically-labelled path-consistent networks are not satisfiable.
(This is joint work with Roger Maddux).
∂24-Feb-89 1751 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Clancy
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 17:51:01 PST
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA10959; Fri, 24 Feb 89 17:47:02 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 17:47:02 PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8902250147.AA10959@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: binford@coyote, cheriton@pescadero, feigenbaum@sumex-aim, rwf@sail,
genesereth@score, golub@patience, guibas@decwrl.dec.com, jlh@amadeus,
dek@sail, latombe@coyote, zm@sail, jmc@sail, ejm@sierra, oliger@pride,
pratt@polya.Stanford.EDU, ullman@score, wiederhold@sumex-aim,
winograd@csli, bscott@score
Subject: Clancy
In my message about Mike Clancy, I meant "assoc. prof (teaching)"
not "assoc prof (research)." -Nils
∂24-Feb-89 1756 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU Leftist purges of libraries
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 17:54:46 PST
Date: Fri 24 Feb 89 17:52:19-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Leftist purges of libraries
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: 89.ahmad@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12473356256.140.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Professor, Some time in the near future I would very much
appreciate the evidence that you promised to look for regarding
your posting on this subject. Would you like me to call Messrs.
Bunzell and Hook and give them the background to our correspondence
and ask them for the evidence?
This is pretty important -- and I would appreciate your cooperation.
-------
∂24-Feb-89 2323 golub@na-net.stanford.edu Re: Faculty Meeting
Received: from bravery.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 23:23:42 PST
Received: by bravery.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.5)
id AA07924; Fri, 24 Feb 89 23:33:45 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1989 23:33:41 PST
From: Gene H. Golub 415/723-3124 <golub@na-net.stanford.edu>
To: Nils Nilsson <nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Cc: chandler@polya.stanford.edu, binford@coyote.stanford.edu,
cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu, feigenbaum@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
rwf@sail.stanford.edu, genesereth@score.stanford.edu,
golub@patience.stanford.edu, guibas@decwrl.dec.com,
jlh@amadeus.stanford.edu, dek@sail.stanford.edu,
latombe@coyote.stanford.edu, zm@sail.stanford.edu,
jmc@sail.stanford.edu, ejm@sierra.stanford.edu,
oliger@pride.stanford.edu, pratt@polya.Stanford.EDU,
ullman@score.stanford.edu, wiederhold@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
winograd@csli.stanford.edu, bscott@score.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Faculty Meeting
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 24 Feb 89 13:42:10 PDT
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.604395221.golub@>
I think it would help many of us in making our schedule if the faculty
meetings were held on a regular basis. It easier to schedule meetings if we
know when they are going to happen. It's easier to cancel a meeting rather
than create a time slot.
Gene
∂25-Feb-89 1215 nakashim@russell.Stanford.EDU commonsense reasoning
Received: from russell.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Feb 89 12:15:07 PST
Received: from localhost by russell.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA15601; Sat, 25 Feb 89 12:17:05 PST
Message-Id: <8902252017.AA15601@russell.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: commonsense reasoning
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 89 12:17:02 PST
From: Hideyuki Nakashima <nakashim@russell.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Prof. McCarthy,
It was nice to talk with you. My name is Hiday (Hideyuki in full)
Nakashima.
We have a paper written on a programming language, PROSIT, which is
based on the idea I talked to you. It is on the Proc. of FGCS (Fifth
Generation Computer Systems) '88.
Hiday
∂26-Feb-89 0326 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM q-nusum
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 89 03:26:06 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 360848; Sun 26-Feb-89 06:21:43 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 83147; Sun 26-Feb-89 03:18:17 PST
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 03:17 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: q-nusum
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, macsyma-i@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
cc: "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "ilan@score.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890226111740.4.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
I've got a paper by two friends of Doron Zeilberger that suggests that
Zeilberger has the q-generalization of the nusum decision procedure.
The interesting part is probably the exponent bound for q↑n in the
to-be-determined polynomial. (I never got around to trying this,
amazingly enough.)
Zeilberger and Wilf are also madly reinventing part of my matrix
calculus, without the matrices, but with other things I don't have.
So it's time for a letter!
∂26-Feb-89 1607 Z.ZENON@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 89 16:07:21 PST
Date: Sun 26 Feb 89 16:03:35-PST
From: Zenon <Z.Zenon@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
To: su-etc@score.Stanford.EDU, jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12473860748.78.Z.ZENON@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
>26 Feb 89 1343 PST John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
>The following statement was passed unanimously at a meeting
>of the Computer Science Department faculty on Tuesday, Feb 21,
>1989.
>
>Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny.
>
>.... The newsgroups available on various networks are the computer analog of
>magazines....
>
>Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
>systems or removing them should be identical to those for
>including books in or removing books from libraries....
I hope this isn't construed as nitpicking, but
shouldn't the second phrase refer to 'magazines' and not 'books'?
Zenon
PS I support the intent of the satement of protest.
-------
∂26-Feb-89 1753 prohaska@Sun.COM Looking for book of profiles of scientists
Received: from Sun.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 89 17:53:43 PST
Received: from snail.Sun.COM by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.0)
id AA19468; Sun, 26 Feb 89 17:54:21 PST
Received: from lapis.sun.com by snail.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.0)
id AA03222; Sun, 26 Feb 89 17:50:49 PST
Received: by lapis.sun.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA04860; Sun, 26 Feb 89 17:51:49 PST
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 17:51:49 PST
From: prohaska@Sun.COM (J.R. Prohaska)
Message-Id: <8902270151.AA04860@lapis.sun.com>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Looking for book of profiles of scientists
Professor McCarthy:
Please indulge this question out of the blue.
A few years ago I remember seeing a book that contained profiles of
scientists, including, if memory serves, a profile of you. I cannot for the
life of me remember what the title is, and I haven't been able to track it
down. Do you happen to know what I'm thinking of? Also, if you happened to
have read it, do you recall any opinion of it? Was it well-written?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
J.R. Prohaska
Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, California (415) 336 2502
internet: prohaska@sun.com
usenet: {backbone}!sun!prohaska
USnail: Box 9022, Stanford, CA 94305
∂26-Feb-89 1809 brad@looking.uucp Rushton (the guy with the race paper)
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 89 18:09:12 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa25309; 26 Feb 89 17:44 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Sun, 26 Feb 89 17:40:46 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA02921; 26 Feb 89 17:41:30 EST (Sun)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Rushton (the guy with the race paper)
Date: Sun Feb 26 17:41:27 1989
Message-Id: <8902261741.AA02914@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
There hasn't been as much press on him recently, mostly comment.
On the other hand, on Monday an Ontario network is going to re-air the
debate between him and Dr. Suzuki, the geneticist and science show host.
If you like I could make a VHS tape of that for you. Let me know if youA
are keen. On Tuesday they will be showing something perhaps more more,
Rushdie doing a reading of the Satanic Verses, filmed in Toronto before
all this started.
∂26-Feb-89 1813 prohaska@Sun.COM re: Looking for book of profiles of scientists
Received: from Sun.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 89 18:13:20 PST
Received: from snail.Sun.COM by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.0)
id AA19930; Sun, 26 Feb 89 18:14:07 PST
Received: from lapis.sun.com by snail.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.0)
id AA03320; Sun, 26 Feb 89 18:10:36 PST
Received: by lapis.sun.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA04871; Sun, 26 Feb 89 18:11:34 PST
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 18:11:34 PST
From: prohaska@Sun.COM (J.R. Prohaska)
Message-Id: <8902270211.AA04871@lapis.sun.com>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 26 Feb 89 1757 PST <I6ub7@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Looking for book of profiles of scientists
Thank you very much!
∂26-Feb-89 1849 karish@forel.Stanford.EDU Re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
Received: from forel.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 89 18:49:31 PST
Received: by forel.Stanford.EDU (5.51/inc-1.0)
id AA17588; Sun, 26 Feb 89 18:49:32 PST
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 18:49:32 PST
From: karish@forel.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Message-Id: <8902270249.AA17588@forel.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
In-Reply-To: <s6tBf@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University School of Earth Sciences
Cc: Z.Zenon@hamlet.stanford.edu
In article <s6tBf@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you (JMC) wrote:
>[In reply to message from Z.Zenon@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Sun 26 Feb 89 16:03:35-PST.]
>You must be mistaken. Now that the faculty has voted it, the statement
>is cast in concrete, and everyone knows that nits can't live on concrete.
[ John McCarthy has, in the past, also answered E-mail from me by
posting to su-etc. ]
I find it a bit disconcerting to see responses to private mail
posted to bulletin boards. It's confusing to see half of a conversation.
To a certain extent, it's also a violation of privacy.
The usual assumption I make is that my correspondents would have
posted their remarks rather than sending them by mail if they intended
to conduct a public discussion.
An extreme example of this is the series of flames Dwight Joe posted
last week in response to mail I sent him. The posting I've quoted is
inoffensive, but it's just noise to all but one of the readers of the
bboard.
--
Chuck Karish karish@denali.stanford.edu
hplabs!hpda!mindcrf!karish
∂26-Feb-89 2025 Z.ZENON@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU Re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 89 20:25:05 PST
Date: Sun 26 Feb 89 20:21:33-PST
From: Zenon <Z.Zenon@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
To: karish@forel.Stanford.EDU
cc: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <8902270249.AA17588@forel.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12473907710.79.Z.ZENON@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Mr. Karish,
My posting did not make it to some (or all) USENET hosts
because there was more included text than new text.
So Prof. McCarthy did not answer private mail on SU-ETC.
Zenon
-------
∂26-Feb-89 2030 Z.ZENON@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU CSD faculty letter
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 89 20:30:24 PST
Date: Sun 26 Feb 89 20:26:55-PST
From: Zenon <Z.Zenon@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: CSD faculty letter
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12473908686.79.Z.ZENON@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
All kidding aside, do you see my point?
I don't think that this is a specious point,
especially in an intellectual discussion.
But I'm sure the letter of protest will no doubt
serve its purpose in the Faculty Senate discussion.
(I know it's too late to change the wording of the letter of protest.)
Sincerely,
Zenon
-------
∂26-Feb-89 2139 brad@looking.uucp re: Rushton (the guy with the race paper)
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 89 21:39:22 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa28771; 26 Feb 89 23:59 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Sun, 26 Feb 89 23:40:18 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA03860; 26 Feb 89 23:40:59 EST (Sun)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 23:40:58 EST
Subject: re: Rushton (the guy with the race paper)
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Feb 26, 89 at 1818
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902262340.AA03860@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
Yes, I did get the CS dept. statement. Thanks. I am not sure his paper
is going to be of much interest, as interviews with the authors he cited
seem to indicate they all feel their data was not interpreted properly.
What is interesting is the reaction to his paper, which is what you
will see in the debate. About 2,000 students attended it -- they had to
hold it in the Gym.
On another note, the Mercury News article of last week was posted to
comp.risks, and thus the Stanford story is breaking here. I was hoping
for a chance to reason with the UW admins on the matter rather than going
into confrontation. Unlike Stanford, confrontation here will only
strengthen their stand.
∂26-Feb-89 2206 david@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: mechanic wanted
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Feb 89 22:06:45 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA16929; Sun, 26 Feb 89 22:04:53 -0800
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 22:04:53 -0800
From: David M. Alexander <david@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902270604.AA16929@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: mechanic wanted
Newsgroups: su.market
In-Reply-To: <di7LM@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
In article <di7LM@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>Can anyone recommend a mechanic to check out an
>American car being considered for purchase?
If anyone replied to you w/o posting, I could use that info, too.
Could you please let me know?
Thanks,
Dave Alexander
∂27-Feb-89 0237 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM q-nusum
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 89 02:22:20 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 360946; Mon 27-Feb-89 05:17:54 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 83176; Mon 27-Feb-89 02:14:16 PST
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 02:13 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: q-nusum
To: jpg@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
cc: macsyma-i@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "wilf@central.cis.upenn.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19890226203446.1.JPG@SKUA.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19890227101337.7.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 15:34 EST
From: Jeffrey P. Golden <jpg@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
. . .
Zeilberger and Wilf are also madly reinventing part of my matrix
calculus, without the matrices, but with other things I don't have.
[People restored, since "I thought you'd never ask"]
What's your `matrix calculus'?
. . .
My main activity these last 10 years. Two observations:
Matrix products are a superior way to canonicalize, manipulate,
and evaluate hypergeomtric sums, continued fractions, and higher
linear recurrences.
(Especially with computer algebra,) it is often possible to label the
edges of directed graphs with these matrices so that the matrix product
along any path depends only on the endpoints.
So, you take a path that computes something you want, e.g., a sum, and
then look for another path joining the endpoints, and you get a different
expression for that sum. For the SYMALG challenge, let the graph be the
infinite square grid connecting the integer points of (j,k) space.
Define the matrix-valued functions
(C52) [KM(J,K):=MATRIX([(K+J)/(K+1),-J/K],[0,1]),
JM(J,K):=MATRIX([(J+K)/(J+1),-K/J],[0,1])];
[ K + J J ] [ J + K K ]
[ ----- - - ] [ ----- - - ]
(D52) [KM(J, K) := [ K + 1 K ], JM(J, K) := [ J + 1 J ]] .
[ ] [ ]
[ 0 1 ] [ 0 1 ]
Then it is sufficient to establish path invariance for just the general
grid square:
(C53) RATSIMP(KM(J,K) . JM(J,K+1) - JM(J,K) . KM(J+1,K));
[ 0 0 ]
(D53) [ ]
[ 0 0 ]
Then, if there were a noncommutative PROD, we could equate the two
half-square paths from k=1, j=-n to k=n, j=-1:
(C54) PROD(''(KM(-N,K)),K,1,N) . PROD(''(JM(J,N+1)),J,-N,-1)
= PROD(''(JM(J,1)),J,-N,-1) . PROD(''(KM(0,K)),K,1,N);
N - 1
/===\ [ K - N N ] /===\ [ N + J + 1 N + 1 ]
! ! [ ----- - ] ! ! [ --------- - ----- ]
(D54) ! ! [ K + 1 K ] . ! ! [ J + 1 J ] =
! ! [ ] ! ! [ ]
K = 1 [ 0 1 ] J = - N [ 0 1 ]
- 1 N
/===\ [ 1 ] /===\ [ K ]
! ! [ 1 - - ] ! ! [ ----- 0 ]
! ! [ J ] . ! ! [ K + 1 ]
! ! [ ] ! ! [ ]
J = - N [ 0 1 ] K = 1 [ 0 1 ]
The upper right element of the first product is the binomial sum.
The upper left element is 0, killing any contribution to the u.r
from the second product.
The u.r. of the 3rd prod is the harmonic sum. The 4th product
preserves the u.r. QED.
(Since this is rather more constructive than induction, perhaps
you should forward it to the SYMALG poster who questioned the
existence of a non-inductive proof.)
One of the advantages of this method is generality. (D52) is a
*very* special case of a six dimensional system of 3by3 matrices,
where the term ratios can be general cubic/cubic. And I have a q-
generalization for that system. (Although this system can generate
all the known 3F2[1] hypergeometric identities, most of the time
the matrices are nontriangular, producing identities between sums
and nonsums (higher order recurrences).)
W&Z are starting with the 2by2, square-grid special case:
[ 1 F(J,K) ] [ 1 G(J,K) ]
JM(J,K) := [ ], KM(J,K) := [ ] ,
[ 0 1 ] [ 0 1 ]
(subject to (C53)). They lose no generality from specializing
the u.l. to 1, but it typically costs them a mess of factorials,
binomials, and powers in F and G, which misses the benefit of
existing rational function software. Zeilberger also takes off
into places where no matrix can reach, producing (nonconstructive)
proofs of things I can't touch.
∂27-Feb-89 0817 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Possible RHF Senate Motion
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 89 08:17:19 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Mon, 27 Feb 89 08:14:05 PST
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 08:14:05 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Possible RHF Senate Motion
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.604599244.siegman@>
John:
I have proposed the following motion for the Senate StC to bring to the
Senate
(this is still to be discussed by the StC):
Moved (from the StC to the Senate): It is the sense of the
Senate that, except where mandated by legal considerations, the
University ought not to censor for content messages appearing on
any campus media normally available to the public without, at a
minimum, some form of process including advance opportunity for
public debate.
"Legal considerations" is intended to cover things like clearly slanderous or
libelous messages for which the university might be sued, or someone posting
credit card PIN numbers, or labor disputes, or other cases where a message
clearly violates a law or exposes the university to legal penalties.
"Media" means any and every information-bearing media.
The use of the word "censor" is deliberate.
The lack of specificity in defining "censor" or in defining the "process" is
deliberate. We'd be stating a principle, not writing legislation; I think
the
message would be clear.
Your comments on the above would be welcome -- but again, I'd ratehr have you
explore this privately, and not post the above on any public bboard.
2nd thought: replace "available to the public" with "available to the
Stanford
community" ?
This will be considered by the StC this Wednesday noon; what will then happen
is
still to be seen.
--Tony Siegman
∂27-Feb-89 0947 MPS
marilyn davis, 493-3631 called re: the joke
conference. She sent you a letter.
∂27-Feb-89 1118 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU rec.humor.funny
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 89 11:18:32 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03940; Mon, 27 Feb 89 11:19:11 PST
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 11:19:11 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902271919.AA03940@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: rec.humor.funny
I just talked to Dan Kolkowitz, who says that someone with more direct
knowledge of last week's faculty senate meeting claims the Daily
article last Friday is misleading. The impression from the article is
that if the senate bumps the issue back to Kennedy, he will allow the
newsgroup to exist. But Dan's friend says that Kennedy would decide
to uphold the cutoff, but wants very much for the senate to decide the
issue instead.
The minutes of the senate meeting should be in this week's campus
report, so we can see what really happened.
∂27-Feb-89 1148 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Baker's work on Yale shooting
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 89 11:48:36 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA06946; Mon, 27 Feb 89 11:46:39 -0800
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 11:46:39 -0800
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902271946.AA06946@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Baker's work on Yale shooting
Hi John:
Andrew and I have a somewhat longer paper that puts things somewhat
differently and discusses as implementation. Do you want a copy?
(Actually, I think that I gave you one in or after Munich. But I'll
be happy to give you another if you want ...)
Matt
∂27-Feb-89 1155 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU re: Baker's work on Yale shooting
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 89 11:55:39 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA07490; Mon, 27 Feb 89 11:53:42 -0800
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 11:53:42 -0800
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902271953.AA07490@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Baker's work on Yale shooting
OK. I'll stick a copy in your box. The status is that Andrew has lost
interest and I am busy working on other things.
Matt
∂27-Feb-89 1201 op@polya.Stanford.EDU RHF statement
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 89 12:01:12 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA07924; Mon, 27 Feb 89 11:59:17 -0800
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1989 11:59:15 PST
From: Oren Patashnik <op@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: RHF statement
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.604612755.op@polya.stanford.edu>
P L E A S E V O T E
I have drafted a statement that I'd like a (Computer Science) student
vote on; this will be sent, if passed, to various powers that be
(Kennedy, the Daily, etc). There is an Academic Senate Steering
Committee meeting on Wednesday, so there isn't time for any more fine
tuning (unless there's something particularly objectionable that
hasn't been spotted so far). Please tell me what kind of student you
are (undergrad, Masters, PhD), and whether you vote for or against the
statement. I will tally and post the results, but I won't have time
to respond individually. (Please send any discussion to csd.bboard.)
Send your vote to me, op@polya.stanford.edu. The polls will close at
6AM Wednesday, March 1st.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A CALL FOR THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS
Since we students in the Computer Science Department are, as a group,
the segment of the Stanford community most familiar with the
"newsgroup" medium, we have a responsibility to comment on the
controversy.
In the short term we have little at stake in the removal from AIR
computers of rec.humor.funny, since that newsgroup remains uncensored
on our department's computers. But in the long term we have much at
stake, for the newsgroups constitute an increasingly important source
of information and means of communication; any administrative attempts
to limit the ideas they contain pose a threat to academic freedom.
We find it particularly distressing that an institution so committed
to the free exchange of ideas should resort to suppressing them.
The issue that sparked the present controversy was offensive speech.
We believe that each of us must be sensitive to the feeling of others,
whether we express ourselves through the newsgroups or over the phone
or face to face. Inevitably, however, where there is free speech,
someone will take offense. Yet the newsgroups provide a uniquely
effective forum for rebutting offensive speech. The su.etc newsgroup,
for instance, has a history of showering the wrath of an outraged
readership on transgressors of accepted community standards.
Offensive thoughts, ultimately, are best squelched by their failure
to survive in the marketplace of ideas.
We believe that AIR and SDC should reinstate rec.humor.funny.
∂27-Feb-89 1221 VAL re: ysp
[In reply to message rcvd 26-Feb-89 14:31-PT.]
I guess I don't see the need to make the treatment of shooting more
parallel to the treatment of loading, because I see loading as a
degenerate case--no preconditions. The difference will disappear when
we modify the axioms in response to the qualification problem. Then
each of the "main" effect axioms will get the antecedent success(...),
and an axiom like (9) will be needed every time. Maybe we'll be
able to replace them all by a single axiom. I haven't check that yet.
But if we want to use your shoot1, then we may have to keep
noninertial(alive,shoot) in addition to noninertial(alive,shoot1).
That needs to be checked too.
Baker has also a joint paper with Ginsberg, in which some improvements are
proposed, and in which his method is applied to the blocks world. I asked
Matt to give you a copy.
∂27-Feb-89 1300 JMC
Two puzzles to Harry Deutsch.
∂27-Feb-89 1301 ME your home line
Is your DM line working at home?
∂27-Feb-89 1400 ME AP back up
To: JMC, BH
The AP wire is working again. Turned out that the phone company
had simply pulled off the cross connect in a "purification" attempt.
In other words, they disconnected various phone lines and waited for
someone to complain! John, this is what happened to your direct
line from home too, and maybe another data line or two.
∂27-Feb-89 1432 CN.HUT@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 89 14:31:56 PST
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 14:30:24 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "BRANNER EARTH SCIENC" <CN.HUT@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy
From: Branner Library
Subj: RECALL
The following item, checked out to you is needed by another reader.
Please return by March 6. Thank you.
TITLE: The Carbon cycle and atmospheric CO : natural variations, Archean to
present / E.T. Sundquist and W.S. Broecker, editors.
Chapman Conference on Natural Variations in Carbon Dioxide and the
Carbon Cycle (1984 : Tarpon Springs, Fla.)
Carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide.
IMPRINT: Washington, D.C. : American Geophysical Union, 1985.
ix, 627 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
LOCATION: 551.06.A513gm v.32: Earth Sciences
SERIES: Geophysical monograph, 32
∂27-Feb-89 1657 VAL
I received an invitation from Styopin.
∂27-Feb-89 1740 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU My father
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 89 17:40:17 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05746; Mon, 27 Feb 89 17:41:01 PST
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 17:41:01 PST
From: Ramin Zabih <rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902280141.AA05746@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: My father
telephone is 376-8180. It's an unlisted number.
Ramin
∂27-Feb-89 2053 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of January computer charges.
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 89 20:53:44 PST
Date: Mon 27 Feb 89 20:39:29-PST
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of January computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12474173117.9.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for January.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA807T 100 473.61 27.16 ***.** 10.30 5.00 2561.53
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA807T 100 .14 .01 30.47 .00 5.00 35.62
jmc LABREA 2-DMA807T 100 .00 .00 105.90 .00 5.00 110.90
Total: 473.75 27.17 ***.** 10.30 15.00 2708.05
University budget accounts billed above include the following.
Account Princip Inv Title Comment
2-DMA807 McCarthy N00039-84-C-0211 Task 19, QLISP
The preceding statement is a condensed version of the detailed summary sheet
sent monthly to your department.
Please verify each month that the proper university budget accounts are paying
for your computer usage. Please also check the list of account numbers below
the numeric totals. If the organizations/people associated with that account
number should NOT be paying for your computer time, send mail to BEDIT@SCORE.
Please direct questions/comments to BEDIT@SCORE.
-------
∂27-Feb-89 2136 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 89 21:36:42 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06513; Mon, 27 Feb 89 21:37:29 PST
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 21:37:29 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902280537.AA06513@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Qlisp
I may have been wrong about the existence of a current Qlisp task,
since I see that my computer charges are being charged to 2-DMA807,
labeled Qlisp task 19. But I recall Carolyn saying that this account
will soon run out of funds and that major things are being charged to
2-DMA804, the AI contract.
∂28-Feb-89 0858 MPS phone
Call Ron Otero, Communications Services re telephone
3-3099
∂28-Feb-89 1113 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU GC bug
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Feb 89 11:13:43 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08005; Tue, 28 Feb 89 11:14:12 PST
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 89 11:14:12 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902281914.AA08005@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: arg@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
clt@sail, rpg@sail, jmc@sail
Subject: GC bug
Ron fixed the GC problem! It works! Hurray! I'll install a public
version of the system on the Qlisp directory later this week, after
more testing.
I believe the full semantics of qlisp is quite supportable in the
qlisp` system. The only (potentially unsupportable) special case is when
a process wants to spawn tasks and then go away, while leaving
"disembodied" or "unowned" special variable bindings and catch frames,
to be referenced by the orphaned tasks. In my opinion, this
special case is, at least, poor programming style, and may even be
considered to be an error. But I could be biased.
Thanks alot Ron, you've made my month. -dan
∂28-Feb-89 1754 op@polya.Stanford.EDU
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Feb 89 17:54:34 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA02402; Tue, 28 Feb 89 17:52:38 -0800
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1989 17:52:37 PST
From: Oren Patashnik <op@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 27 Feb 89 1227 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.604720357.op@polya.stanford.edu>
Thanks for the addresses. I wound up speaking with William A Brown
(the black med/PhD student who got a poor reception on su.etc), and
he wants to issue a statement of his own (his message appears on
csd.bboard). Do you mind if I give him the addresses you gave me,
or are there some you'd prefer I not give him?
--Oren
∂01-Mar-89 0030 brad@looking.uucp Re: Here's a pretty kettle of fish. See my reply at the end.
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 00:30:01 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa04126; 28 Feb 89 21:40 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:37:24 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA13700; 28 Feb 89 21:33:38 EST (Tue)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:33:37 EST
Subject: Re: Here's a pretty kettle of fish. See my reply at the end.
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Feb 28, 89 at 1734
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902282133.AA13700@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
It is disappointing that the slanted stories from the KW Record made
it down there to Stanford. I have not sent them because those stories
hardly help the case.
To clarify matters, I did not "apologize" to the University. I said
that I regretted that the University had been embarrassed by the affair.
There is a difference. I regret that thousands died in an earthquake
that same month. I don't "apologize" for the earthquake!
I did apologize for the fact that UW was brought into the affair.
That was partly my fault since I a) entered a battle with somebody
who was willing to do this sort of thing to get back at me and b)
granted an interview with that slimy reporter. The affair really
didn't concern UW at all. Richmond only used them as a tool to
get me. I was sorry about that. With Stanford, I didn't do
anything. They did it to themselves.
As for the rest, as we have all agreed, Universities as private
institutions do have the right to control what's on their computers.
We don't think they should.
On the other hand, the boss at UW asked me not to feed his computers
certain stuff. Right or wrong, he's the boss there and he did have
the right to make that request of me.
More to the point, at the time, I wanted the slanted press off my back
more than anything else, and the G-rated deal was the best way to
go. UW is my alma mater and they do provide me with a news and mail
feed, which is quite generous. As such, while I did not approve of
Wright's request, he does have the power to make it, and he (by giving
me the feed) does provide me with a valuable service, so I did it.
I'm not out to force material on people that they don't want, after
all. That's why I code jokes. I don't approve of the decision, but it
is an internal university matter. If I were still at the University,
I would have complained bitterly, as some did. (But then Christmas
arrived, and diffused things.)
If Stanford made the same request of me, I would decline. Stanford
isn't doing anything for me to make it worth my while, really.
I am still working on getting UW to reverse. I sent Doug Wright a
package of info on the Stanford affair today.
∂01-Mar-89 0037 brad@looking.uucp Re: Here's a pretty kettle of fish. See my reply at the end.
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 00:37:21 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa04194; 28 Feb 89 21:46 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:39:08 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA13855; 28 Feb 89 21:39:31 EST (Tue)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:39:25 EST
Subject: Re: Here's a pretty kettle of fish. See my reply at the end.
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Feb 28, 89 at 1734
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902282139.AA13855@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
Oh, another thing that's worth noting... The article "Censure of joke
editor greeted with support" was one of the most slanted.
Their definition of "support" was that the roommate of Jonathan Richmond
(the two original complaintants were Richmond and his roommate) agreed
with the decision.
When the newspaper has to go 500 miles away to Boston to show that
an internal measure by a local University president got support, that's
a pretty odd definition of the word!
Let me know if the KW Record articles cause more trouble, particularly
if they are used out of context. I don't want to release them because
they center on the line from the top ten list.
I feel if the line from the top ten list were made prominent at
Stanford, you would lose supporters. Many people only pay lip service
to free speech, and *nobody* understands that line out of context.
The human rights commission never contacted me. They may have contacted
UW and asked them to investigate, but I don't know much about that.
∂01-Mar-89 0037 brad@looking.uucp Re: Here's a pretty kettle of fish. See my reply at the end.
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 00:37:36 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa04206; 28 Feb 89 21:47 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:44:30 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA13925; 28 Feb 89 21:40:42 EST (Tue)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:40:36 EST
Subject: Re: Here's a pretty kettle of fish. See my reply at the end.
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Feb 28, 89 at 1734
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8902282140.AA13925@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
What is the motive of this person who keyed in the articles?
Who is his friend, and what are the friend's motives?
∂01-Mar-89 0040 brad@looking.uucp how jokes appear at UW
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 00:40:22 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa04374; 28 Feb 89 21:59 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:46:42 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA14082; 28 Feb 89 21:47:11 EST (Tue)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: how jokes appear at UW
Date: Tue Feb 28 21:47:08 1989
Message-Id: <8902282147.AA14077@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
It's worth noting that while UW gets only so called G rated jokes,
all the other jokes still show up on their machine, but with the
body of the joke replaced. The body is replaced with the message
below. It's like the blank pages of South African newspapers that
are censored at the last minute.
Followup-to: uw.general
Distribution: uw
Reply-to: Don't-Reply-Please
The administration of UW has asked that I forward "no material which
might be considered in bad taste, or offensive on racial, sexist
or other discriminatory grounds" to UW over my USENET link to it.
It is their right to ask this, and I have complied. This joke is thus
not available to you. I will not respond to requests to forward it
by other means, such as mail. Given the broad nature of "offense," I
am forced to be very conservative with my decisions on what may be
forwarded. Thank you for your patience.
In the meantime, try "/usr/games/fortune -o" -- a facility which has
been at UW for over 10 years.
Have a nice day.
∂01-Mar-89 0146 bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu Re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 01:46:05 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id ab06392; 1 Mar 89 0:51 EST
Received: by watmath; Wed, 1 Mar 89 00:48:24 EST
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 00:48:24 EST
From: Brad Templeton <bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Message-Id: <8903010548.AA13348@watmath>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <57uPF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Cc:
Canada has no "1st admendment" but the Canadian constitution does say..
"Everybody shall have the right to freedom of ... expression"
This is prefaced by these rights and freedoms are guaranteed "subject
only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society."
Of course it is the preamble, in part, which justifies the hate literature
law, in some people's minds, as well as the provision that says
that laws which undo past racist wrongs are permitted. (ie. AA)
∂01-Mar-89 0336 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM 1,1,5,61,1385,50521,2702765,199360981,19391512145,...
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 03:36:05 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 361863; Wed 1-Mar-89 06:31:34 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 83321; Wed 1-Mar-89 03:27:54 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 03:27 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: 1,1,5,61,1385,50521,2702765,199360981,19391512145,...
To: "DEK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
cc: "jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM,
"wilf@central.cis.upenn.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "igor@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dhb@ew11.nas.nasa.gov"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19881209055541.7.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19890301112708.9.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 88 21:55 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: 08 Dec 88 1125 PST
From: Don Knuth <DEK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I just saw your note about Bailey and Gregory. By now you have surely
recognized the Euler numbers (coefficients of sec z, not counting
factorials).
I missed it!
I computed the first 160 of them on a Turing machine,
more or less, in the 60s, and published them in Math Comp 21 (1967)
657--677.
Tnx!
This leaves the question of why are the Euler numbers hiding in the tail of
the Gregory (arctan(1)) series. I.e., starting with the nth term, putting
z = 1/n, the linear transformation of the tail becomes
1 Z 2 Z 3 Z
----- (1 + ------- (1 + ------- (1 + ------- (1 + . . .,
1 + Z 1 + 3 Z 1 + 5 Z 1 + 7 Z
which formally TAYLORs to
2 4 6 8
1 - Z + 5 Z - 61 Z + 1385 Z + . . ..
This is pretty strange. The former series converges for all Z
except the poles, while the latter converges nowhere. Also, the
latter is an even function, while the former has poles only for
some negative rationals. Serves us right for trying to expand
at an essential singularity (accumulation point of poles at 0).
The kth partial sum of the former, however, is a rational function
with radius of convergence 1/(2k+1), and determines the Euler
numbers thru k-1.
Reverting z to 1/n, and fooling with PARTFRAC led to the observation
r r - j
==== ====
\ k j + 1 \ r
> (1 - 2 j) (- 1) > ( )
/ / i
==== ====
j = 1 i = 0
Euler = ------------------------------------- ,
k r - 1
2
(where r is any integer > k), which is probably in Concrete Math,
but I left mine home.
The Borwein's are circulating a neat paper explaining the appearance
of the Euler numbers in Gregory's series. They also show the
Bernoulli numbers arising in tails of pi↑2/6 = zeta(2) = sum n↑-2, and
tangent numbers in ln 2 = 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - . . ..
A particularly nice path invariant system for zeta(2) is
[ k 1 ] [ n 1 ]
[ ----- - ] [ ----- - ]
K(k, n) := [ n + k k ], N(k, n) := [ n + k n ]
[ ] [ ]
[ 0 1 ] [ 0 1 ]
where the (n0)th tail is 1/n0 times Prod N(1,n), which = Prod K(k,n0).
n>=n0 k>=1
(where you take the upper right elements). Putting n=1/z in the latter gives
1 z 1 2 z 1 3 z 1 4 z 1
- + ----- ( - + ------- ( - + ------- ( - + -------( - + . . .,
1 1 + z 2 1 + 2 z 3 1 + 3 z 4 1 + 4 z 5
which only converges in a unit strip, but indeed TAYLORs to
2 4 6 8
z z z z z
1 + - + - - -- + -- - -- + . . ..
2 6 30 42 30
Note the +1/2 = B[1](1) instead of -1/2 = B[1](0), which, unfortunately,
is the conventional definition of B[1]. (A crock similar to the Gamma
function.) My remedy to this has been a maxim that no formula should
ever contain Bernoulli (or Euler) numbers. I.e., there is "always"
an elegant generalization of such a formula which uses Bernoulli
(or Euler) polynomials (in some entirely new variable), instead. It
will be interesting to see how the new variable appears in the above
formulas, and in the Bernoulli analog of the Euler double sum, which
I expect to find soon (in a book, if not with MACSYMA!).
∂01-Mar-89 0810 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Re: animal rights
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 08:09:57 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Wed, 1 Mar 89 08:06:31 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 08:06:31 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: su-etc@sierra.STANFORD.EDU, JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: animal rights
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <i6wNc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
No, no, the petition to be signed by animal rights protestors should
say
"I hereby promise that I will never allow any surgery to be
performed on me, or on any of my children or loved ones, by
any surgeon who has ever practiced or trained by performing
any practice surgery on animals. Signed________________"
Veterinary surgery for the benefit of an animal is of course allowed.
∂01-Mar-89 0859 MPS messages
hi;
Cindy Larson of NeXt will be bringing over a set of technical
documents tomorrow. If you want to call her, the number of 424-0200.
Also, Tanya from Scotland called and wants me to Fax the title of
your master class with 3 points on what will be covered in the class.
Pat
∂01-Mar-89 0917 boesch@vax.darpa.mil WYSISYG Editors
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 09:17:10 PST
Received: from sun47.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA09822; Wed, 1 Mar 89 11:47:32 EST
Posted-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 89 12:01:00 EST
Message-Id: <8903011701.AA02389@sun47.darpa.mil>
Received: from LOCALHOST by sun47.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA02389; Wed, 1 Mar 89 12:01:03 EST
To: dpsys-pi@vax.darpa.mil, sw-pi@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: boesch@vax.darpa.mil, scherlis@vax.darpa.mil, sowa@vax.darpa.mil
Subject: WYSISYG Editors
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 89 12:01:00 EST
From: boesch@vax.darpa.mil
I am curious about the current state of the art in WYSISYG Editors
(letter quality and ascii) and integrated or better extensible
environments for offices including spreadsheets, drawing(drafting),
slide production, information tracking ...
I have not looked into this area much but I am interested in the
available commercial systems as well as current research directions.
Most commercial systems tend to be vertically integrated and therefore
not well suited to integration with tools developed by others.
I am primarily interested in extensible systems so that it is possible to extend
systems with various tools or to "cut and paste" systems from various
tool-writers.
I am sending this message to a fairly wide distribution what I am
asking for is pointers to what you feel are good systems or good
research in this area.
Thanks
Brian
∂01-Mar-89 1013 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 10:13:29 PST
Date: Wed 1 Mar 89 10:10:19-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES
To: bstempleton%watmath.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
cc: su-etc@Macbeth.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12474582871.174.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Mr. Templeton,
The question of apology simply does not arise. I have simply excerpted
articles that appeared in a newspaper about a relevant topic from your
home base of Waterloo, and have sent copies of the article to both the
University and to Professor McCarthy at Stanford. It is that simple.
You are, however, in a position to clarify your position by simply
forwarding to us all a true copy of the statement you signed and gave
to The University of Waterloo. A copy of that official document, that
seemed to have satisfied to The University of Waterloo, would certainly
be of relevance to all of us.
Finally, I am a bit perplexed that you are willing to edit the jokes for the
UW system simply because they allow you the use of their facilities. If you
pursue this argument, then it appears that other organizations that facilitatethe distribution of these jokes may demand the same "courtesy." Where do you draw the line.
Professor McCarthy:
I am sorry if you think the articles I excerpted were distorted. The only consideration behind my excerpts was to primarily provide information that to the best of my knowledge was not available to us before. I have, however, sent you a
copy of articles I received, and I invite you to type and post each of these articles in their entirety if you so choose.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Nazir Ahmad
-------
∂01-Mar-89 1021 Mailer BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 10:21:09 PST
Date: Wed 1 Mar 89 10:18:36-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12474584379.174.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Oops. I over-reacted to your posting. On rereading your note, I realize
that you accused the newspaper and not me of distorting the story. Distortion,
of course, is a subjective opinion in these situations.
But to set the record straight, I do hope that you will join me in asking
Brad Templeton to disclose the contents of the statement he signed for The
University of Waterloo.
Also, please let me know if any of the quotes in the articles I excerpted
were inaccurate.
Thanks again.
-------
∂01-Mar-89 1056 ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com Lecture yesterday on default logic
Received: from aai0 ([128.18.4.90]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 10:56:51 PST
Received: from localhost by aai0 (3.2/5.00)
id AA22622 for ortiz; Wed, 1 Mar 89 10:17:52 PST
Message-Id: <8903011817.AA22622@aai0>
To: val@sail.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com
Subject: Lecture yesterday on default logic
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 89 10:17:51 PST
From: Charles Ortiz <ortiz@spam.istc.sri.com>
Hi,
I asked a question during your guest lecture yesterday regarding the
relation between
block(x) : ontable(x) / ontable(x) (1)
and
block(x) /\ ~ab(x) => ontable(x) (2)
:~ab(x)/~ab(x)
My question was directed at the observation that (1) seemed more
general in the sense that one could add axioms that specified other
conditions unrelated to the abnormality of the block which could
prevent it from being on the table, e.g. block(s) /\ too-windy =>
~ontable and then using (1) as before. But I can't seem to do that
with (2) unless I'm willing to conjoin, to the antecedent of (2), all
possible exceptions. Your response to my question addressed the
reification of table but that doesn't really address my concern in
instances that don't require the reification of table.
After reflecting on this a bit more it would seem that we want to be
able to admit abnormal situations or rather contexts. Using the
notation you are developing for this, would we want to have something
like:
holds(block(x) /\ ~ab(x) => ontable(x), blocks_world_context)
where the blocks_world_context can only be entered if it is not
abnormal (i.e., if certain assumptions are satisfied. In this case
not being too windy would be one of them).
Similarly, with the standard birds example we would want to associate
a "flying" context with the axioms so that if, for example, the
context was a vacuum, the flying bird axioms (that associated ~flies to
bird abnormalities) would not apply.
Is this reasonable or am I missing something?
Thanks.
Charlie
∂01-Mar-89 1109 guibas@src.dec.com some thoughts on restructuring the 300 level theory courses
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 11:09:08 PST
Received: from jumbo.pa.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA00276; Wed, 1 Mar 89 11:06:12 PST
Received: from jumbo.pa.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
for jmc@sail.stanford.edu; id AA00276; Wed, 1 Mar 89 11:06:12 PST
Received: by jumbo.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA24804; Wed, 1 Mar 89 11:04:18 PST
From: guibas@src.dec.com (Leonidas Guibas)
Message-Id: <8903011904.AA24804@jumbo.pa.dec.com>
Date: 1 Mar 1989 1103-PST (Wednesday)
To: rwf@sail.stanford.edu, ag@pepper.stanford.edu, jones@score.stanford.edu,
mxh@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, mad@polya.stanford.edu,
goldberg@polya.stanford.edu, dek@sail.stanford.edu,
zm@sail.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu, jcm@polya.stanford.edu,
motwani@#polya.stanford.edu,
coraki!pratt%sun.com.ullman@score.stanford.edu, halpern@ibm.com
Cc: guibas@src.dec.com, stager@score.stanford.edu
Subject: some thoughts on restructuring the 300 level theory courses
here is a proposed minor restructuring of our 300 level theory courses,
based on some discussions held by the curriculum committee
we have tried:
a. to cut out courses that were clearly one-time offerings and that
we do not have the faculty to staff regularly
b. do some contracting and eliminating of overlap, so as to bring the
total volume of what we claim to offer more in line with our
current/projected manpower.
c. allow some flexibility so some of the theoreticians we are trying
to hire for next year can teach courses related to their interests,
yet fit within the existing structure.
d. abide by the principle that each faculty member is entitled to
teach a one quarter course yearly on his/her research specialty.
it's likely that i have made several errors of omission/commission,
so please help me get the correct picture by reading what follows
and sending me your comments soon. the curriculum committee is meeting
tomorrow to discuss this topic, among others.
after each course i have written the name of the person who should
be responsible for updating the specific course description in the
catalog. claire stager needs those updates this week, if they are
going to make it into the '89-'90 catalog.
i apologize that all this is happening so close to the deadline; the
theory searches have taken their toll.
l.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A "*" following the course number indicates there is a proposed change.
350 Mathematical Theory of Computation [McCarthy]
as is, assuming jmc agrees
351* Introduction to Complexity Theory [Motwani]
propose to merge it with 366 [Lower Bounds] and offer it as
a yearly topics course that may be repeated for credit (called
Topics in Complexity Theory and Lower Bounds)
353 Algebra for Computer Scientists [Pratt]
as is, assuming pratt agrees
356 Reasoning about Knowledge [Halpern]
as is, assuming halpern plans to continue teaching it
357 Analysis of Concurrent Programs [Manna]
as is, assuming zohar agrees
358 Advanced Computability and Complexity [Floyd]
as is, assuming floyd agrees
359 Topics in the Theory of Computation
as is
360 Analysis of Algorithms [Knuth]
as is; who will teach this course after knuth is gone?
361* Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics
drop it
363ab* Combinatorial Algorithms [Goldberg]
contracts to one quarter and becomes 364 [Advanced Combinatorial
Algorithms], as per the floyd-goldberg proposal; requires the
new 363
364* Combinatorial Optimization [Goldberg]
becomes the new 363
365 Probabilistic Algorithms [Motwani]
stays as is
366* Lower Bounds [Motwani]
merges with 351
367ab* Parallel Computation [Ullman]
contracts to a single quarter 367
368* Computational Geometry [Guibas]
becomes Topics in Computational Geometry and may be repeated
for credit
369 Topics in Analysis of Algorithms
----------------------------------------------------------------------
there has also been some discussion about adding a 300 level Programming
Languages Theory course, to offered by john mitchell, as a sequel
to 258. it looks, though, that this may have to wait till the '90-'91
academic year.
∂01-Mar-89 1138 brad@looking.uucp Re: [In reply to message sent Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:40:36 EST.]
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 11:37:54 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa14946; 1 Mar 89 11:38 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Wed, 1 Mar 89 11:35:39 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA16102; 1 Mar 89 11:35:10 EST (Wed)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 11:35:09 EST
Subject: Re: [In reply to message sent Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:40:36 EST.]
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Mar 01, 89 at 0737
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8903011135.AA16102@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
I sent a message to Ahmad myself. I said that the KW record
articles were slanted, sometimes libellous, and that he should have
checked his facts before posting them. I explained a bit of the truth,
and suggested that he might be the one to apologize. I suggested that
I would allow him to correct himself, and if he didn't, then I would do
it.
∂01-Mar-89 1329 reid@decwrl.dec.com FYI
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 13:29:11 PST
Received: from jove.pa.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA16416; Wed, 1 Mar 89 13:26:54 PST
Received: from jove.pa.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
for jmc@sail.stanford.edu; id AA16416; Wed, 1 Mar 89 13:26:54 PST
Received: from localhost by jove.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA29218; Wed, 1 Mar 89 11:35:04 PST
Message-Id: <8903011935.AA29218@jove.pa.dec.com>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: reid@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: FYI
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 89 11:35:04 PST
From: reid@decwrl.dec.com
One of the things that I do, just for fun, is to measure worldwide
readership of USENET newsgroups such as rec.humor.funny. I've been
doing this since February 1986. The measurement system is completely
automated; it gathers data from 1100 sites all over the world and uses
some reasonably simplistic statistics to make estimates of propagation
and readership.
Here is the full set of data for rec.humor.funny for the entire time
that it has existed:
+-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
| +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
| | +- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
| | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
| | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
| | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader
| | | | | | +-- Share: % of USENET users
| | | | | | | who read this group.
V V V V V V V
feb89: 57000 2978 92% 69 201.9 0.01 14.1%
jan89: 44000 2823 88% 44 101.9 0.01 11.8%
dec88: 43000 2771 87% 52 107.6 0.00 11.6%
nov88: 42000 2816 87% 68 138.2 0.01 11.3%
oct88: 38000 2691 88% 76 136.8 0.01 12.1%
sep88: 35000 2493 89% 49 94.3 0.00 12.7%
aug88: 32000 2565 88% 46 82.4 0.00 12.9%
jul88: 26000 2328 85% 39 57.8 0.00 12.3%
jun88: 24000 2276 84% 61 136.1 0.01 11.7%
may88: 26000 2382 85% 45 90.2 0.01 11.4%
apr88: 28000 2287 83% 28 38.5 0.00 12.0%
mar88: 30000 2464 84% 44 65.7 0.01 12.6%
feb88: 25000 2259 83% 52 105.8 0.03 11.8%
jan88: 25000 2259 83% 52 105.8 0.03 11.8%
dec87: 25000 2164 84% 40 68.2 1.50 12.3%
nov87: 27000 2268 83% 57 129.4 2.60 12.1%
oct87: 24000 1878 75% 27 50.8 0.01 11.2%
sep87: 18000 1352 60% 21 43.3 0.01 8.5%
aug87: 12000 903 42% 34 44.9 0.02 6.0%
It would appear that Salman Rushdie and Brad Templeton are getting the
same reaction from the public.
∂01-Mar-89 1434 P.HARDER@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU boudokh and his insurance problems
Received: from GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 14:34:20 PST
Date: Wed 1 Mar 89 14:31:47-PST
From: Joseph Harder <P.HARDER@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: boudokh and his insurance problems
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12474630469.50.P.HARDER@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU>
While I appreciated your interest in Jacob's insurance problems, I wanted
to let you know that there are a number of PhD students at the business
school who are not necessarily indignant, etc.
In short, we really aren't MBAs. Jacob is a PhD student, as am I. I
really don't mean this in a rude fashion, but rather, as an awareness
increasing message. Thus, I sent it personally, rather than via the
bboard.
In addition, aren't we already deluged with personal injury lawyers (and
lawyers of every kind?)
Joe Harder
-------
∂01-Mar-89 1454 suzuki@russell.Stanford.EDU Your interview on 3rd
Received: from russell.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 14:53:37 PST
Received: from localhost by russell.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA01388; Wed, 1 Mar 89 14:32:32 PST
Message-Id: <8903012232.AA01388@russell.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Your interview on 3rd
Address: CSLI, Stanford University, Stanford, CA94305 (415)723-1684
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 89 14:32:30 PST
From: Hiroyuki SUZUKI <suzuki@russell.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Prof. McCarthy,
I would like to make an arrangement for youe interview with HARP as an
interviewer. I was told we have an appointment at 10am-4pm though the
place of interview is not yet fixed.
I would like to propose using Cordura Hall, CSLI as the site of your
interview. Is this all right with you?
Hiroyuki Suzuki
∂01-Mar-89 1508 eyal@coyote.stanford.edu my Ms.C. thesis
Received: from coyote.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 15:08:08 PST
Received: by coyote.stanford.edu; Wed, 1 Mar 89 15:12:04 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 15:12:04 PST
From: Eyal Mozes <eyal@coyote.stanford.edu>
Subject: my Ms.C. thesis
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Last week I gave you a copy of my M.Sc. thesis, and you said you'll go
over it, and show it to Vladimir Lifschitz, and then meet me to discuss
my work and the possibility of a research project continuing it. I'm
writing to find out whether you've had time to read it yet, and when we
can meet.
Thanks in advance.
Eyal Mozes (eyal@coyote)
∂01-Mar-89 1735 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 17:35:36 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA20230; Wed, 1 Mar 89 17:33:30 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 17:33:30 PST
From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Message-Id: <8903020133.AA20230@csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
The Committee for First Amendment Rights has expressed an interest.
I'm afraid that if this thing does pass, they'll try to cut off
more bboards, not just rhf. I hope I'm wrong, but it wouldn't
surprise me...
∂01-Mar-89 1750 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 17:50:04 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA20606; Wed, 1 Mar 89 17:47:58 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 17:47:58 PST
From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Message-Id: <8903020147.AA20606@csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
I didn't know that... Still, he won't be one of the ones who decides,
will he?
The new interpretation will almost certainly be taken as more of a
license to censor than what we had. AIR and other computer organizations
will probably act on it to at least some extent.
Will you be at the meeting today?
∂01-Mar-89 1924 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
YET ANOTHER FORMALIZATION OF ACTION AND CHANGE
Vladimir Lifschitz
Stanford University
Monday, March 6, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Research on nonmonotonic formalisms, such as circumscription and the
logic of defaults, was motivated to a large degree by problems related
to formalizing properties of actions. After these tools became available,
it seemed that the difficulties known as the frame problem and the
qualification problem could be easily resolved. Then Steve Hanks and
Drew McDermott found an error in that solution. Several fixes have been
proposed, although they were criticized for their inability to handle
some of the more complex forms of reasoning about action.
In this talk I will introduce a new axiom set for actions, which is
particularly close to the formulation studied by Hanks and McDermott.
In fact, it is strange that this simple method was not proposed among
the first responses to the "Yale shooting" challenge.
∂02-Mar-89 0035 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU CFAR meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 00:35:02 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04833; Thu, 2 Mar 89 00:35:36 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 00:35:36 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903020835.AA04833@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: CFAR meeting
I've posted my summary to su-etc. It should appear on SAIL soon if
it's not there already.
∂02-Mar-89 0226 brad@looking.uucp New Stanford Policy?
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 02:26:18 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa08262; 2 Mar 89 2:31 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Thu, 2 Mar 89 02:28:43 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA21457; 2 Mar 89 02:28:13 EST (Thu)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: New Stanford Policy?
Date: Thu Mar 2 02:28:09 1989
Message-Id: <8903020228.AA21452@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
What is this new policy I hear people talking about which says
speech at Stanford must meet accepted community standards? It seems
such a policy would support banning me, possibly even demand it.
Is this a real policy, likely to come about? Or just somebody's idea?
Perhaps you should draw up a list of great scientists, from Galileo to
Darwin and beyond, who didn't meet 'accepted community standards'?
∂02-Mar-89 0227 brad@looking.uucp address
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 02:27:32 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa08354; 2 Mar 89 2:39 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Thu, 2 Mar 89 02:36:28 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA21481; 2 Mar 89 02:33:36 EST (Thu)
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: address
Date: Thu Mar 2 02:33:34 1989
Message-Id: <8903020233.AA21477@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
Also, could you please send me your address there? Also let me
know if you have an Atari ST or not. (I assume you have an IBM PC
type machine, or access to one, right?)
∂02-Mar-89 0259 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM 1,1,5,61,1385,50521,2702765,199360981,19391512145,...
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 02:59:35 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 362275; Thu 2-Mar-89 05:56:30 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 83467; Thu 2-Mar-89 02:53:11 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 02:52 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: 1,1,5,61,1385,50521,2702765,199360981,19391512145,...
To: "DEK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
cc: "jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM,
"wilf@central.cis.upenn.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "igor@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dhb@ew11.nas.nasa.gov"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19890301112708.9.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19890302105222.1.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 89 03:27 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
[...]
1 z 1 2 z 1 3 z 1 4 z 1
- + ----- ( - + ------- ( - + ------- ( - + ------- ( - + . . .,
1 1 + z 2 1 + 2 z 3 1 + 3 z 4 1 + 4 z 5
which only converges in a unit strip, but indeed TAYLORs to
2 4 6 8
z z z z z
1 + - + - - -- + -- - -- + . . ..
2 6 30 42 30
Note the +1/2 = B[1](1) instead of -1/2 = B[1](0), which, unfortunately,
is the conventional definition of B[1]. (A crock similar to the Gamma
function.) My remedy to this has been a maxim that no formula should
ever contain Bernoulli (or Euler) numbers. I.e., there is "always"
an elegant generalization of such a formula which uses Bernoulli
(or Euler) polynomials (in some entirely new variable), instead. It
will be interesting to see how the new variable appears in the above
formulas, ...
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1
- + ----- ( - + ----- ( - + ----- ( - + ----- ( - + . . .
1 n + 1 2 n + 2 3 n + 3 4 n + 4 5
==== B (a + 1) - a B (a + 1)
(formally) \ k k - 1
= > --------------------------- ,
/ k
==== (n + a)
k>=0
(defining B (x) := 0.)
-1
∂02-Mar-89 0815 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 08:15:21 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 2 Mar 89 08:11:53 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 08:11:53 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 01 Mar 89 2324 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.604858312.siegman@>
Referred to Library Committee, with request to draft "statement of
principle", NOT legistlation, perhaps along lines of my draft motion,
and reply with all deliberate speed. You could contact chair of
C-LIB if you wished to have input there.
--Tony S.
∂02-Mar-89 0859 MPS
∂01-Mar-89 0859 MPS messages
To: JMC
hi;
Cindy Larson of NeXt will be bringing over a set of technical
documents tomorrow. If you want to call her, the number of 424-0200.
Also, Tanya from Scotland called and wants me to Fax the title of
your master class with 3 points on what will be covered in the class.
Pat
Hi again,
Tanya called again this morning. She is getting frantic. She needs
the title of the class and those three points so she can get the
advertising out today. Can you send it to me and I will fax it to her?
Thanks
∂02-Mar-89 0915 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Re: reply to message
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 09:15:24 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 2 Mar 89 09:11:52 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 09:11:52 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: reply to message
In-Reply-To: Your message of 02 Mar 89 0849 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.604861911.siegman@>
Hmmm -- It's no great secret, and will be announced in the StC report to
the Senate next Thursday, but I'm cautious about violating StC protocal
Suggest you msg coladarci asking, is it alright to announce this?
∂02-Mar-89 1009 CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 10:09:15 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 10:07:35 PST
To: jmc@sail
From: "Arthur P Coladarci" <CR.APC@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
John McCarthy: I think it best that the wish of the Steering
Committee that the Committee on Libaries offer recommendation on
bboards not be circulated until I know that the committee agrees
to take it on. I'll get back to you.Cheer
∂02-Mar-89 1027 jcm@ra.stanford.edu Re: some thoughts on restructuring the 300 level theory courses
Received: from ra.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 10:27:34 PST
Received: by ra.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA01439; Thu, 2 Mar 89 10:24:17 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 10:24:17 PDT
From: John Mitchell <jcm@ra.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8903021824.AA01439@ra.stanford.edu>
To: guibas@src.dec.com
Subject: Re: some thoughts on restructuring the 300 level theory courses
Cc: ag@pepper.stanford.edu, coraki!pratt%sun.com.ullman@score.stanford.edu,
dek@sail.stanford.edu, goldberg@polya.stanford.edu, halpern@ibm.com,
jcm@ra.stanford.edu, jcm@polya.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
jones@score.stanford.edu, mad@polya.stanford.edu,
motwani@#polya.stanford.edu, mxh@sumex-aim.stanford.edu,
rwf@sail.stanford.edu, stager@score.stanford.edu, zm@sail.stanford.edu
Your proposal on 350-360 level courses looks reasonable to me.
As far as Logic/MTC courses, the primary courses seem to be
157. Logic and Automated Reasoning
257. Automated Deduction and Its Applications [Waldinger]
258. Intro to Programming Language Theory [Mitchell]
306. Recursive programming and proving [McCarthy, et.al.]
350. Mathematical Theory of Computation [McCarthy]
353. Algebra for Computer Scientists [Pratt]
356. Reasoning About Knowledge [Halpern]
357. Analysis of Concurrent Algorithms [Manna]
359. Topics in Theory of Computation [guests]
----
It looks to me like Floyd-Hoare logic, or some logic of programs should
be taught at the 200 level, either in 257 or 258. (This is NOT
the same as "logic programming" mentioned in 257. Logic programming
is to program logics as mathematical programming is to programming
mathematics.) I could add a week of this to 258 on the next pass,
making the course more of a general introduction to the 300 level
offerings.
I see no harm in adding this to the catalog for next year:
3??. Topics in Programming Language Theory
Selected topics of current research interest in
the mathematical analysis of programming languages.
Topics may include structured operational semantics,
domain theory, semantics of concurrency, rich type
disciplines, problems of representation independence
and full abstraction. May be repeated for credit.
Prerequisites: 154,157,258 or equivalents.
It might make sense to offer this course and CS 258 on
alternating years (at least for the time being), in which case
I could teach this next year instead of 258.
As far as numbering, it probably makes more sense to
call this course 358 (after 258), and renumber Floyd's
course to 354 (after 254). However, I know Bob is touchy
about this and I don't really care very much.
If you agree, could you either let me know today, so I can
send this to Claire, or send it to her yourself? I will
be out of town tomorrow.
John
∂02-Mar-89 1030 JMC
vtss papers
∂02-Mar-89 1140 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU press conference
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 11:40:29 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA12421; Thu, 2 Mar 89 11:38:23 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 11:38:23 PST
From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Message-Id: <8903021938.AA12421@csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: press conference
I'm not sure what good a press conference would do.
Granted, it would let the outside world know that they were planning
on violating the First Amendment, but does Stanford listen to the
outside world?
I will discuss it with Rick and Mike, and ask them to keep it confidential.
∂02-Mar-89 1230 cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU re: press conference
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 12:30:09 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA14340; Thu, 2 Mar 89 12:28:02 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 12:28:02 PST
From: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Message-Id: <8903022028.AA14340@csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: press conference
I agree, press coverage is nice, and we could get the press interested in
this pretty easily.
But I don't see, yet, what good "continuing psychological pressure on
the community" will do. Or do you mean the Stanford community? I just
don't see that the people trying to pass this will be influenced very much
by outside press, and I think students and faculty could be reached more
effectively by other methods.
∂02-Mar-89 1301 VAL ysp
I left the current version on your terminal. The new material is in Sec. 3,
where I discuss the qualification problem. As I expected, axiom (9) that you
didn't like is eliminated in the new version in favor of a more general
axiom, (14). I'd like to know if you like (14) better, and if you still feel
that shoot1 is needed.
∂02-Mar-89 1324 brad@looking.uucp re: address
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 13:24:39 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa17672; 2 Mar 89 14:30 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Thu, 2 Mar 89 12:44:07 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA22739; 2 Mar 89 12:44:10 EST (Thu)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 12:44:09 EST
Subject: re: address
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Mar 02, 89 at 0859
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8903021244.AA22739@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
There must be some PC type machine around you somewhere?
Anyway, I was going to send you off a copy of one of my products,
a syntax directed programming environment for teaching, just so that
you could know I was a real computer scientist and not a racist bent
on the destruction of morality as we know it... 8-)
I hope you defeat that policy. In some ways, the library analogy may
have gone too far if it went to a library committee. I am not sure
that librarians (at least not all of them) will understand computer
information feeds as well as we want.
For example, I am told your library does refuse certain publications,
such as sex magazines, because they are controversial and deemed to have
no academic value.
∂02-Mar-89 1414 suzuki@russell.Stanford.EDU Re: Your interview on 3rd
Received: from russell.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 14:14:39 PST
Received: from localhost by russell.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA10149; Thu, 2 Mar 89 14:16:35 PST
Message-Id: <8903022216.AA10149@russell.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Your interview on 3rd
In-Reply-To: Your message of 01 Mar 89 15:12:00 PST.
<Y9sG9@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Address: CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford Univ., CA 94305 (415)723-1684
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 89 14:16:31 PST
From: Hiroyuki SUZUKI <suzuki@russell.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Prof. McCarthy,
Could you come to Cordura Conference Room(Rm#100) on 10am? Then I
would like to start the interview with the question like what is your
definition of AI.
They would like to take image shots of your office/papers, too. So
we will move to MJH in the afternoon after finishing the interview.
I am looking forward to seeing you.
Hiroyuki Suzuki
∂02-Mar-89 1416 CLT ?
Did you lean on Nafeh yet?
Did you complain to Marty about the behaviour of Sail, or shall I.
∂02-Mar-89 1506 MPS
Jessica McCain 512-471-4962 called from LBJ School of
Public Affairs. You received a questionnaire from her
yesterday. She wants to talk to you about it. I told
her to try after 4:30 today or on Monday because of your
filming tomorrow.
∂02-Mar-89 1535 MPS
Ron Getz, Hoover, 3-1454 would like you to call him
∂02-Mar-89 1642 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Folders
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 16:42:09 PST
Date: Thu 2 Mar 89 16:40:08-PST
From: Sharon Hemenway <HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Folders
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12474915979.29.HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I am planning on coming in Sunday afternoon to enter ratings and do
general preparation for Wednesday's meeting but if I could be sure
to have the folders early Monday morning, that would be fine.
Sharon
-------
∂02-Mar-89 1719 VAL Existence of situations
To: baker@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, ginsberg@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, AIR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I gave some thought to Andrew's existence of situations axioms, and it
seems to me that they are really a great invention. This may be the key to
the ramification problem.
Why do we think that Fred doesn't die after we load the gun? Maybe he's so
nervous that, at the sight of a loaded gun, he drops dead. If this is the
case, then
holds(loaded,s) => ~holds(alive,s). (1)
The axioms don't tell us that (1) holds, but they don't exclude
this either. What we use here is a very general default: Any
relationship between fluents is violated in some situation,
unless there is evidence to the contrary. In particular, there
exists a situation s which doesn't satisfy (1), because we
haven't postulated (1) or any other domain constraint. Andrew's
axiom makes this precise.
I like the formalization of this default given at the end of Sec.
5 of Andrew's paper. Its main content can be stated in the form:
(All holds')[~ab(holds') => (Exists s)(All f)[holds(f,s) <=> holds'(f)]],
This seems to call for "second-order circumscription." It would
be nice, of course, to state it in terms of usual circumscription
(without assuming a finite number of fluents). Maybe this can be
done by minimizing a predicate similar to "inconsistent" from the
joint paper by Andrew and Matt, but applied to situations, rather
than state vectors. Such a predicate is used in my joint paper
with Arkady and Michael on concurrent actions; we write formulas
like
holds(at(x,l),s) /\ holds(at(y,l),s) /\ ~x=y => impossible s.
What do you think?
--Vladimir
∂02-Mar-89 1724 VAL Correction
To: baker@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, ginsberg@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, AIR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In my previous message,
"In particular, there exists a situation s which satisfies (1)"
must be
"In particular, there exists a situation s which doesn't satisfy (1)".
Sorry.
--Vladimir
∂03-Mar-89 0214 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM "audioactive decay"
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 02:14:13 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 362680; Fri 3-Mar-89 05:08:01 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 83525; Fri 3-Mar-89 02:04:45 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 02:03 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: "audioactive decay"
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "igor@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890303100351.3.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
R. K. Guy visited tonight, and mentioned another Conway outrage:
What is the next line of this infinite "triangle" of integers?
1
1 1
2 1
1 2 1 1
1 1 1 2 2 1
3 1 2 2 1 1
1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1
1 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1
3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1
1 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1
Hint: the asymptotic line length is proportional to the nth
power of the root of an irreducible polynomial of degree 73.
∂03-Mar-89 0459 wab@sumex-aim.stanford.edu re: my apologies.
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 04:57:25 PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA26167; Fri, 3 Mar 89 04:56:32 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1989 4:56:32 PST
From: "William A. Brown" <wab@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: wab@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Subject: re: my apologies.
In-Reply-To: Your message of 02 Mar 89 1635 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.604932992.wab@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Thank you for the advice, John.
Bill
∂03-Mar-89 0821 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 08:21:40 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09761; Fri, 3 Mar 89 08:21:51 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 08:21:51 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903031621.AA09761@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
In common lisp, hash tables can grow dynamically. When adding an
element to a hash table, and there is no room, the table may be
automatically enlarged. This dynamic expansion involves some
(nontrivial) synchronization.
Question: What kind of synchronization is required when using GETHASH?
*Bug Report: Hash tables don't work in parallel.
The following code breaks in new-qlisp. (qtime (test-hash 2)) seems
to break consistently, while (time (test-hash any-integer)) appears to
work fine.
;;; Creates a hash table, and stuffs 8n distinct things into the table,
;;; growing when necessary; At the end, counts the number of things
;;; in the table.
(defun hash-test (n)
(let ((h (make-hash-table
:size 9
:test #'eq
:rehash-size 8
:rehash-threshold 8)))
(test-adding n h)
(hash-table-count h)))
;;; Spawns 8 processes to add elements
(defun test-adding (n h)
(qlet t
((x0 (add-hash-elements 0 n h))
(x1 (add-hash-elements 1 n h))
(x2 (add-hash-elements 2 n h))
(x3 (add-hash-elements 3 n h))
(x4 (add-hash-elements 4 n h))
(x5 (add-hash-elements 5 n h))
(x6 (add-hash-elements 6 n h))
(x7 (add-hash-elements 7 n h)))
T))
;; adds n elements
(defun add-hash-elements (p n h)
(dotimes (i n)
(setf (gethash (+ p (* *number-of-processors* i)) h)
T)))
∂03-Mar-89 0825 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Existence of situations
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 08:24:56 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA03364; Fri, 3 Mar 89 08:22:57 -0800
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 08:22:57 -0800
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903031622.AA03364@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: AIR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
baker@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, ginsberg@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: Existence of situations
Let's see. I think that reasoning about action involves the following
three things:
(1) All possible situations exist
(2) The result of an action in a situation depends only on the values of
fluents in that situation
(3) The only fluents that influence the result of an action are those that
must influence the result of the action
(1) is handled by Andrew's innovation. (2) is essentially the idea behind
any approach that removes the situation variable from the frame axiom (like
my work with Andrew, or Vladimir's formalization; varying result has the
same effect).
(3) remains the problem; it shows up in some strange examples that are discussed
briefly in Andrew's paper (or our joint paper). It is really the same thing
as (2), but in a slightly more subtle form -- sometimes ambiguities arise
because two situations/state vectors that are "really" the same are
distinguished because they differ on some irrelevant fluent. I think what
would work would be something that said that if some set of fluents holds
in a situation, and it is not possible to *prove* that there are additional
fluents that determine the value of some fluent f after an action is taken,
then the values of the original set of fluents are all that are needed to
compute the resulting value of f. I also believe that you won't be able
to handle the ramification problem until you do this.
I'll try and look at the technical stuff you sent me, but be warned that
I'm leaving on a business trip on Monday -- perhaps we can find some time
to talk in Atlanta.
Matt
∂03-Mar-89 0901 chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Visit to Edinburgh?
Received: from NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 09:01:06 PST
Received: from aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk by NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id aa08509; 3 Mar 89 16:22 GMT
From: Chris Mellish <chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:17:13 GMT
Message-Id: <4037.8903031417@aipna.ed.ac.uk>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Visit to Edinburgh?
I have heard that you will be in Britain for a workshop at the end
of March. Is there any chance that you could visit Edinburgh
during your trip? I am in charge of the AI seminar series in
Edinburgh, and there are many people here who would like to hear
you. We would, of course, be able to cover all necessary travel
and accommodation costs... I do hope you can come.
∂03-Mar-89 0902 jhs%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Re: Stanford bboard censorship
Received: from NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 09:02:34 PST
Received: from computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk by NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
via Janet with NIFTP id aa08518; 3 Mar 89 16:23 GMT
Received: from hall.cl.cam.ac.uk by scaup.Cl.Cam.AC.UK id aa29079;
3 Mar 89 15:46 GMT
Received: by uk.ac.cam.cl.hall (4.12/SMI-3.0DEV3)
id AA04697; Fri, 3 Mar 89 15:46:51 gmt
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 15:46:51 gmt
From: Jerome H Saltzer <jhs%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
Message-Id: <8903031546.AA04697@uk.ac.cam.cl.hall>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: Saltzer@athena.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Stanford bboard censorship
John,
I was glad to see your report of the Stanford CS department statement
of protest on censoring rec.humor.funny. I support your department's
position strongly.
There is a fundamental problem coming at us full-tilt as electronic
text delivery overlaps more and more with printed text delivery.
Print media come from a very strong tradition of free speech, while
electronic media carry the baggage of government regulation,
common-carrier regulation, and institutional regulation arising from a
history of scarcity of resources. Even though that scarcity is
largely a thing of the past, the history leaves administrators at all
levels assuming that they should be controlling what in a paper
context would be instantly identified and defended as free speech. A
loud objection such as the statement of your department can help get
people thinking correctly about this issue, though I fear it will take
much more than that to get everyone to agree that electronic text
delivery deserves the same first amendment protection as the local
newspaper.
Jerry Saltzer
∂03-Mar-89 0924 MPS
I have to file a counter claim today before 4:00. This
is still that same suit I talked to you about previously.
I will probably leave around 3:30. I hope this is okay
with you. Thanks
Pat
∂03-Mar-89 0932 MPS
∂02-Mar-89 1841 agupta@polya.Stanford.EDU
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 18:41:38 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA15716; Thu, 2 Mar 89 18:39:37 -0800
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 18:39:37 -0800
From: Ashish Gupta <agupta@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903030239.AA15716@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: mps@sail
Please forward the following letter to Dr.McCarthy. I did not send it
to him directly assuming that you would be taking care of his
appointments. I would greatly appreciate an appointment for the 17th .
Please let me know of the scheduled time.
Thanks a lot.
ashish
∂03-Mar-89 0932 MPS
∂02-Mar-89 1841 agupta@polya.Stanford.EDU
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 18:41:43 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA15722; Thu, 2 Mar 89 18:39:45 -0800
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 18:39:45 -0800
From: Ashish Gupta <agupta@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903030239.AA15722@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: mps@sail
Dear sir,
This is regarding a request from a new admittee to the PhD
programme. He would like to meet and talk with you. As he is working
and would like to meet a number of people on the same day, it would
be nice of you if you could accomodate him on your calendar on Friday
(17th March). I am also including the names of the other faculty members
he would like to meet and what his interests are.
Thank you.
ashish gupta
agupta@polya
Name: Eric Jackson
University : Havard (CS and Philosophy)
Interests : Knowledge represn., philosophy, Computational Linguistics.
Has also applied for Symbolic Systems at Stanford.
Currently works for Oracle
Plans to meet Prof. Figenbaum,Prof. McCarthy,Prof. Nilsson,Prof. Winograd,
∂03-Mar-89 0933 MPS
∂02-Mar-89 1850 agupta@polya.Stanford.EDU
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Mar 89 18:49:56 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA15925; Thu, 2 Mar 89 18:47:59 -0800
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 18:47:59 -0800
From: Ashish Gupta <agupta@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903030247.AA15925@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: mps@sail
This in continuation of the previous request. As it is possible for 2 of
the appointments to clash, I may send you a request to change the time
on the same day. Or if you prefer to send me a little wider time slot
from which I can choose from and inform you of it, it would be lovely.
I dont know how long the conversation would be though I think that 20
minutes should be an upper limit.
thanks a lot
ashish
∂03-Mar-89 1043 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 10:43:51 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00239; Fri, 3 Mar 89 10:43:55 PST
Message-Id: <8903031843.AA00239@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
In-Reply-To: Dan's message of Fri, 03 Mar 89 08:21:51 -0800.
<8903031621.AA09761@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 89 10:43:51 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Yes, this brings up a question that we've never really resolved.
Namely, which of Common Lisp's primitives should me modified to appear
atomic in a parallel program, and which should require the programmer
to provide the synchronization. Something as simple as PUSH will not
work correctly if several processes are doing it at the same time.
However, the synchronization overhead is wasted if a data structure is
known not to be shared.
I'd like to argue against adding synchronization to primitives such as
the hash table functions. One reason is that is unnecessary in some
cases, as just described. Another is that this might provide a false
sense of security to the programmer, who would be thinking about
synchronization less often, and he would miss places where it is still
necessary to synchronize.
It also argues in favor of functional programming whenever possible;
the problem with hash tables then doesn't come up.
∂03-Mar-89 1059 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:rpg@lucid.com parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 10:59:09 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00288; Fri, 3 Mar 89 10:58:50 PST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA04092g; Fri, 3 Mar 89 10:51:30 PST
Received: by challenger id AA20651g; Fri, 3 Mar 89 10:46:59 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 10:46:59 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8903031846.AA20651@challenger>
To: weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Joe Weening's message of Fri, 03 Mar 89 10:43:51 PST <8903031843.AA00239@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Hm, do you mean that hash tables would be less naturally used in a
functional style or that copies of them should always be made? Also,
are trying to imply that programmers should be encouraged or required
to think about synchronization and performance all the time? Isn't
this like saying there shouldn't be register allocators because if
programmers had to think about what was in registers they would have
to think about performance more?
The problem with functional programming from my point of view is that
it is a solution in search of a problem. That is, functional
programming makes certain types of reasoning about side effects and
performance easier, so people argue that programmers should be forced
or encouraged to think that way about their programming problems. The
better approach is to determine how people will think about their
programming problems and then make fast computers and languages to go
with them that encourage or allow that style, no? Once more, why should
technology be the masters and people the slaves?
-rpg-
∂03-Mar-89 1128 MPS phone call
Call Mrs. Katz 215-436-9770
∂03-Mar-89 1133 AMNESTY%LOYVAX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Stanford bboard
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 11:33:39 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 3 Mar 89 11:31:56 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:30 EST
From: <AMNESTY%LOYVAX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Stanford bboard
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
X-Original-To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, AMNESTY
I just wanted to say that I support and appreciate your efforts
to pressure Stanford not to censor their BBoard. Stanford really has
the right to censor their BBoard - much as they have the right to censor
their library - but it would be a foolish policy if they wish to foster
curiousity and education.
The case of the bboard especially concerns me, because it seems to
me that adminstrators tend to apply a double standard to information -
electronic information is treated differently than printed information.
Typically, access to electronic information is given on a need-to-know basis
or at high costs, while printed information is available to anyone at no
cost. Perhaps people do not realize the great importance electronic
information will have within twenty years.
Phil Goetz
PGOETZ@LOYVAX.bitnet
∂03-Mar-89 1141 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 11:41:06 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00485; Fri, 3 Mar 89 11:40:55 PST
Message-Id: <8903031940.AA00485@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
In-Reply-To: RPG's message of Fri, 03 Mar 89 10:46:59 -0800.
<8903031846.AA20651@challenger>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 89 11:40:52 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
First, when I sent my message just now I had forgotten about Ron's
message sent to Qlisp on December 30, saying that Qlisp does now have
parallel hash tables, with a reader-writer lock to support them. So
what Dan attempted should have worked, and his message was a bug
report.
Regarding functional programming, I mean to say that hash tables don't
fit into a functional style at all, given their mutable nature. At
least I don't see how they could be used, unless copies are made, and
in that case you lose much of their advantage.
This can indeed be used as an argument against functional programming,
because it prevents use of a powerful tool.
It is fairly clear (to me, at least) that functional programs are
easier to handle in the context of parallelism. How then are we to
reconcile a case where the best algorithms are not functional and not
easy to parallelize? My answer is to depart from functional style
when it is advantageous to, so I think we agree on this.
You ask whether programmers should pay attention to synchronization
and performance all the time. One answer is that they wouldn't be
using parallelism if they didn't care about performance. Another
approach which I've heard you say is that parallelism is there to
support a style which is unconcerned about performance, and wins back
a reasonable speed of program execution that would be lost by using
such a style on a sequential machine. While I understand this, I
don't think I could ever feel happy with a system that didn't get as
much as possible out of its potential. It is also much harder to
measure the benefits of this approach, which are qualitative, so we
find it easier to set a quantitative goal of achieving the best
possible speedup.
∂03-Mar-89 1146 binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU amnon shaashua
Received: from Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 11:46:08 PST
Received: by Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA10190; Thu, 2 Mar 89 07:08:45 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 07:08:45 PST
From: binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu (Tom Binford)
Message-Id: <8903021508.AA10190@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: amnon shaashua
John
I don't remember enough to be helpful. I could not find
the folder. If you like, please send me a copy and I will
look through it again.
tom
∂03-Mar-89 1203 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Meeting next week
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 12:03:35 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00594; Fri, 3 Mar 89 12:03:32 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 12:03:32 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903032003.AA00594@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Meeting next week
We should have a Qlisp meeting next week. If anyone has time
constraints, please send me a message.
Joe
∂03-Mar-89 1408 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:rpg@lucid.com parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 14:08:29 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00831; Fri, 3 Mar 89 13:25:48 PST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA00419g; Fri, 3 Mar 89 13:18:27 PST
Received: by challenger id AA20955g; Fri, 3 Mar 89 13:13:56 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 13:13:56 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8903032113.AA20955@challenger>
To: weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Joe Weening's message of Fri, 03 Mar 89 11:40:52 PST <8903031940.AA00485@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
I'm not sure whether this debate should take place on this list, but
I will answer Joe's last remarks.
Joe writes:
``While I understand this, I don't think I could ever feel happy with a
system that didn't get as much as possible out of its potential. It
is also much harder to measure the benefits of this approach, which
are qualitative, so we find it easier to set a quantitative goal of
achieving the best possible speedup.''
I suppose Joe didn't feel happy about using MacLisp on SAIL, because
it ran Tak in .489 seconds while in FAIL it ran in .184, and it is
clear that the MacLisp code didn't get as mush as possible out of
SAIL's potential.
Of course, he didn't mean that.
Joe doesn't feel happy with the Connection machine because you can
calculate the potential speed by the looking at each processor with
minimal communication and no real program comes very close to that.
Of course, he didn't mean that.
Joe doesn't feel happy about the human brain because it doesn't use
its full potential very well, although maybe it the maximum potential
is extracted.
Of course, he didn't mean that.
The qualitative goal of a better language can eventually be measured
quantitatively by the cost of software production, which is currently
quite high. For example, software on the space shuttle costs $1000 per
line.
The research program of designing and implementing language constructs
to see how close to optimum performance you can get is a safe one
because it doesn't necessarily correspond to the best possible
language design research program, but it corresponds to a scientific
research program. The scientific research program happens to be less
important than the best one.
-rpg-
∂03-Mar-89 1409 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Quantities, Qualities and Qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 14:09:00 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00900; Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:08:53 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:08:53 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903032208.AA00900@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: rpg@lucid.com
Cc: weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Richard P. Gabriel's message of Fri, 3 Mar 89 13:13:56 PST <8903032113.AA20955@challenger>
Subject: Quantities, Qualities and Qlisp
>I'm not sure whether this debate should take place on this list, but
>I will answer Joe's last remarks.
I vote that it should take place here. The list has been kind of dull
for a long time, so let's fan the flames.
>I suppose Joe didn't feel happy about using MacLisp on SAIL, because
>it ran Tak in .489 seconds while in FAIL it ran in .184, and it is
>clear that the MacLisp code didn't get as mush as possible out of
>SAIL's potential.
My $1000 worth: Qlisp` runs the TAK benchmark in .094 seconds (.573
serial, speed up of 6), where the serial code was parallelized by
inserting 2 characters. Joe would certainly rather use Qlisp` than
Mac-lisp or FAIL.
;; serial
(defun tak (x y z)
(if (not (< y x))
z
(tak (tak (1- x) y z)
(tak (1- y) z x)
(tak (1- z) x y))))
;; parallel
(defun tak (x y z)
(if (not (< y x))
z
#?(tak (tak (1- x) y z)
(tak (1- y) z x)
(tak (1- z) x y))))
∂03-Mar-89 1412 MPS batch 1
They are on my desk ready for you to read.
∂03-Mar-89 1420 nedzel@cive.STANFORD.EDU CFAR Petition
Received: from cive.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 14:20:17 PST
Received: by cive.STANFORD.EDU (1.2/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA26557; Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:19:26 pst
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:19:26 pst
From: nedzel@cive.STANFORD.EDU (Jared Nedzel)
Message-Id: <8903032219.AA26557@cive.STANFORD.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: CFAR Petition
Cc: nedzel@cive.STANFORD.EDU
Here's a copy of the CFAR petition. Can you post it to su.issues.sclc?
Also, I've figured out how to read the bboard from my account on portia,
but I still have not figured out how to post to the bboard [:-(]. Could
you tell me how to post to the bboard?
Thanks,
Jared Nedzel
PETITION FOR PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH
The lifeblood of a University is the free expression of ideas.
However, the community cannot survive unless members treat each
other with respect and dignity. To limit either of these goals is
to jeopardize the purpose of the University Q the exploration of
ideas and the education of its members. We believe that the
interpretations of the Fundamental Standard need to be clarified
to explicitly state Stanford's commitment both to free speech and
to freedom from harassment. However, we feel that the SCLC's
proposed interpretation of the Fundamental Standard does not
strike an adequate balance between these two ideals.
Therefore, we petition that:
1) The Fundamental Standard should not be interpreted so as to
restrict the right to free speech as defined by current 1st
Amendment principles. Therefore,
a) Harassment of individuals will be considered a violation
of the Fundamental Standard,
b) Speech directed towards groups, as opposed to individuals,
will not be considered a violation of the Fundamental
Standard.
2) The Academic Senate consider these dual issues of free speech
and freedom from personal harassment.
∂03-Mar-89 1446 VAL reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Mar-89 14:45-PT.]
Rabinov, Arkady (415) 964-0787
∂03-Mar-89 1451 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: CFAR Petition
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 14:51:23 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01041; Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:51:55 PST
Message-Id: <8903032251.AA01041@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: CFAR Petition
In-Reply-To: Your message of 03 Mar 89 14:35:00 -0800.
<1Aprd#@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 89 14:51:53 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
JMC forwarded your message to me. If you are using "rn" to read
su.issues.sclc on Portia, then posting a message is fairly
straightforward. You can either followup to an existing message with
the "f" command, or originate a new message by leaving rn and running
the command "Pnews" from the shell. (The "P" is capitalized.) This
will give you a lot of helpful messages the first time you run it.
If you want to use Emacs to compose the message, you should make sure
setenv EDITOR emacs
has been done before you run Pnews. Otherwise when you ask to edit
it, it will run the "vi" editor.
Joe
∂03-Mar-89 1602 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Letter to request DARPA approval for Japan trip
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 16:02:10 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01201; Fri, 3 Mar 89 16:02:36 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 16:02:36 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903040002.AA01201@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, clt@sail
Subject: Letter to request DARPA approval for Japan trip
Let me know if the following letter looks OK. If so, I'll ask Sharon
Bergman to send it. She suggested adding the text explaining the
reasons for the trip, to make approval more likely. The rest of the
letter is identical to one used previously.
Mr. Robin Simpson
Resident Representative
Office of Naval Research
Stanford University
Durand 165
Stanford, CA 94305
Subject: Request for foreign travel approval under Contract N00039-84-C-0211
Dear Mr. Simpson:
I request approval under the subject contract for Dan Pehoushek,
Joseph Weening and myself to attend the "U.S./Japan Workshop on
Parallel Lisp" in Sendai, Japan, June 4-9, 1989. This workshop is a
gathering of about a dozen U.S. researchers and an equal number of
Japanese to present results of our research in parallel Lisp and to
exchange ideas. A similar conference in the U.S. is planned for next
year. I have been invited to give a public lecture, and Pehoushek and
Weening have been invited to present the results of ongoing research
in the Qlisp project, which is funded under the subject contract.
The cost of this trip would be approximately $3,000 per person,
including accomodations. There are sufficient funds available under
the subject contract to cover these costs. We understand that, if
approved, all airline travel is to be done on U.S. flag carriers where
possible, and the least expensive airline fares at the time of the
trip will be utilized.
Sincerely,
John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science
∂03-Mar-89 1603 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 16:03:31 PST
Received: from Sesame.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01198; Fri, 3 Mar 89 16:01:54 PST
Received: by sesame.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C)
id AA04506; Fri, 3 Mar 89 15:58:27 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 15:58:27 PST
From: mkatz@sesame.stanford.edu (Morris Katz)
Message-Id: <8903032358.AA04506@sesame.Stanford.EDU>
To: weening@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Cc: qlisp@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Joe Weening's message of Fri, 03 Mar 89 10:43:51 PST <8903031843.AA00239@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 89 10:43:51 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
I'd like to argue against adding synchronization to primitives such as
the hash table functions. One reason is that is unnecessary in some
cases, as just described. Another is that this might provide a false
sense of security to the programmer, who would be thinking about
synchronization less often, and he would miss places where it is still
necessary to synchronize.
At the very least, someone better document which primitives won't work reliably
in paralle. One can't expect a program to know a language's implementation in
order to write reliable programs.
Morry Katz
katz@polya.stanford.edu
∂03-Mar-89 1730 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
YET ANOTHER FORMALIZATION OF ACTION AND CHANGE
Vladimir Lifschitz
Stanford University
Monday, March 6, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Research on nonmonotonic formalisms, such as circumscription and the
logic of defaults, was motivated to a large degree by problems related
to formalizing properties of actions. After these tools became available,
it seemed that the difficulties known as the frame problem and the
qualification problem could be easily resolved. Then Steve Hanks and
Drew McDermott found an error in that solution. Several fixes have been
proposed, although they were criticized for their inability to handle
some of the more complex forms of reasoning about action.
In this talk I will introduce a new axiom set for actions, which is
particularly close to the formulation studied by Hanks and McDermott.
In fact, it is strange that this simple method was not proposed among
the first responses to the "Yale shooting" challenge.
∂03-Mar-89 2000 JMC
Arkady
∂03-Mar-89 2120 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:OKUNO@ntt-20.ntt.jp Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 21:20:14 PST
Received: from Argus.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01634; Fri, 3 Mar 89 18:04:12 PST
Received: from ntt-sh.ntt.jp ([129.60.57.1]) by argus.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Fri, 3 Mar 89 17:47:34 PST
Received: by ntt-sh.ntt.jp (3.2/ntt-sh-03c) with TCP; Sat, 4 Mar 89 10:19:47 JST
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 89 10:18:31 I
From: Hiroshi "Gitchang" Okuno <Okuno@ntt-20.ntt.jp>
Subject: Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
To: pehoushe@gang-of-four.stanford.edu, qlisp@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: <8903031621.AA09761@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: NTT Software Laboratories
Group: New Unified Environments (NUE) Group
Project: Parallel Programming
Address: 3-9-11 Midori-cho, Musashino, Tokyo 180 JAPAN
Phone: +81 (422)59-3850
Message-Id: <12475185111.13.OKUNO@NTT-20.NTT.JP>
Since the idea of hash table of Common Lisp is, I think, over-defined
and useless for most applications in efficiency, I define my own hash
table in implementing OPS5 and ATMS in QLISP. I use bucket-hashing,
because it provides the potential parallelism to process different
buckets concurrently.
- Gitchang -
-------
∂03-Mar-89 2332 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM "audioactive decay"
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 23:31:53 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 363097; Sat 4-Mar-89 01:51:42 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 83658; Fri 3-Mar-89 22:47:54 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 22:47 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: "audioactive decay"
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "igor@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19890303100351.3.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19890304064743.2.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 02:03 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
R. K. Guy visited tonight, and mentioned another Conway outrage:
What is the next line of this infinite "triangle" of integers?
1
1 1
2 1
1 2 1 1
1 1 1 2 2 1
3 1 2 2 1 1
1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1
1 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1
3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1
1 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1
Hint: the asymptotic line length is proportional to the nth
power of the root of an irreducible polynomial of degree 73.
2nd hint: Ignore previous hint. The rule of formation is trivial.
Answer is lisp fcn below.
Conway calls it "audioactive decay" both for the rule of formation,
and for the 92 "elements" that arise prior to closure in the formal
generative description.
(defun next-line (line &optional (n 1) &aux first)
(and line (if (eql (setf first (pop line)) (car line))
(next-line line (+ 1 n))
(list* n first (next-line line)))))
∂04-Mar-89 0133 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM M.I.T. AI Memo 239
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Mar 89 01:33:35 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 363107; Sat 4-Mar-89 04:28:51 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 83666; Sat 4-Mar-89 01:25:05 PST
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 89 01:24 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: M.I.T. AI Memo 239
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "igor@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890304092453.7.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Another trivium for the 239 item: Since it = 16↑2 - 16 - 1,
1/239 in hex = .0112358D(21)..., i.e. fibdigits. Has anyone
looked it up in that Penguin number dictionary?
∂04-Mar-89 0900 JMC
Sony for Joseph
∂04-Mar-89 1000 JMC
schedule for trip
∂04-Mar-89 1006 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Quantities, Qualities and Qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Mar 89 10:06:05 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02894; Sat, 4 Mar 89 10:06:19 PST
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 89 10:06:19 PST
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903041806.AA02894@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: rpg@lucid.com, weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Dan Pehoushek's message of Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:08:53 PST <8903032208.AA00900@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Quantities, Qualities and Qlisp
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:08:53 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe>
Full-Name: Dan Pehoushek
>I'm not sure whether this debate should take place on this list, but
>I will answer Joe's last remarks.
I vote that it should take place here. The list has been kind of dull
for a long time, so let's fan the flames.
>I suppose Joe didn't feel happy about using MacLisp on SAIL, because
>it ran Tak in .489 seconds while in FAIL it ran in .184, and it is
>clear that the MacLisp code didn't get as mush as possible out of
>SAIL's potential.
My $1000 worth: Qlisp` runs the TAK benchmark in .094 seconds (.573
serial, speed up of 6), where the serial code was parallelized by
inserting 2 characters. Joe would certainly rather use Qlisp` than
Mac-lisp or FAIL.
<code deleted>
I find it amusing with non-trivial implementational effort, on
modern parallel (expensive) hardware one can only do twice as well as
on a fifteen-year-old machine. Even if one gives assembly language its
dues, we still get a total speedup of 5 in fifteen years, which falls
rather short of Joy's law. Did the KL10/MacLisp designers know
something we don't?....
∂04-Mar-89 1053 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Mar 89 10:53:49 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA25121; Sat, 4 Mar 89 10:51:51 -0800
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 89 10:51:51 -0800
From: Yuri Gurevich <gurevich@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903041851.AA25121@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Cc: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Vladimir Lifschitz's message of 03 Mar 89 1730 PST <5puHx@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
When you discussed the appropriateness of Monday, I did not want to speak
out because I did not attend the seminar regularly. In effect, Monday and
Wed are my Almaden days, so now I can't attend your seminar at all.
-Yuri
∂04-Mar-89 1108 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Mar 89 11:08:43 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02017; Fri, 3 Mar 89 21:20:05 PST
Received: from bhopal ([192.9.200.13]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA00999g; Fri, 3 Mar 89 21:12:45 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA27376g; Fri, 3 Mar 89 21:15:06 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 21:15:06 PST
From: Ron Goldman <arg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8903040515.AA27376@bhopal>
To: qlisp@go4.stanford.edu
Subject: re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
I believe that I've fixed the bug that Dan ran into and in the new version of
new-qlisp his example will now work correctly when it tries to update a hash
table from parallel processes.
On the larger issue of which Lisp primitives should appear atomic I think we
previously agreed that for now it is up to the user to correctly interlock any
user data structures that his code might try to modify simultaneously from
several processes. For the general case where one reads the current value of
a variable, computes a new value based on the old, and updates the variable
with the new value it is clearly up to the programmer to explicitly interlock
the critical region. For lower-level Lisp functions like PUSH and INCF a good
case can be made that making them atomic would make the programmer's job much
easier, and if we can do it, I would favor making them atomic in Qlisp.
For code that does a read-modify-write sequence, I think that locks are not
always the right way to make the updating atomic. A better way is to use
something similar to Multilisp's REPLACE-IF-EQ, so no explicit lock is needed.
However to implement REPLACE-IF-EQ requires support from the hardware (e.g.
the 68020's CAS and CAS2 instructions) which unfortunately the Alliant does
not provide. Given that TAS is the only hardware support the Alliant does
provide, to implement some form of REPLACE-IF-EQ would involve being able to
lock every variable, CONS cell, structure (or structure field?), array (or
array element?), etc. I don't think we want to do that at the moment. An
alternative would be a global lock that would need to be acquired in order
to do any atomic operation, but that seems much to coarse and inefficient.
The main reason hash tables are interlocked is to prevent the Lisp system
code from losing badly when it references internal hash tables for things
like packages. It's one thing for a user program to get the wrong answer
because access to data structures weren't properly synchronized. It's
much worse if the Qlisp system crashes because of internal errors caused
by lack of synchronization.
Finally what Lisp primitives do people think should be considered as
candidates to be made atomic? A quick look at Steele (CLtL) gives:
PUSH, POP, PUSHNEW,
INCF, DECF,
NCONC, NREVERSE, NRECONC,
NSUBST, NSUBLIS, NSUBSTITUTE,
NSTRING-UPCASE, NSTRING-DOWNCASE, NSTRING-CAPITALIZE,
NSET-DIFFERENCE, NSET-EXCLUSIVE-OR, NUNION,
(SETF (GETHASH ...) ...),
(SETF (GET ...) ...) ; modifying a property list
(SETF (GETF ...) ...) ; " "
Have I missed any? Actually any SETF method that needs to search some data
structure in order to find the location to modify (e.g. hash tables or
property lists) needs an explicit lock to prevent other processes from
changing the data structure in such a way that would change the result
of the search. This would include some user defined SETF methods.
Ron
∂04-Mar-89 1611 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Mar 89 16:11:08 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03409; Sat, 4 Mar 89 16:10:52 PST
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 89 16:10:52 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903050010.AA03409@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: rpg@lucid.com
Cc: qlisp@go4.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Ron Goldman's message of Fri, 3 Mar 89 21:15:06 PST <8903040515.AA27376@bhopal>
Subject: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Exaggeration of the two main positions:
Summary of Joe's position:
Synchronization cannot be ignored, even if some operations are made
"atomic", so why bother making them atomic in the first place?
Programmer develops a false sense of security, ends up with insidious
bugs. For instance, the use of poop (which pops twice) may require
synchronization for correctness, even if pop is atomic.
(defun poop (l) (pop l) (pop l))
Summary Dick's position:
Develop a better mousetrap which the programmer can easily use to
catch most of the mice. The programmer does not have to deal with the
trivial problems, saves his mental energy for "more complex", higher
level issues.
My position:
I agree with Joe that the programmer should be clearly aware of
synchronization problems. This comes with practice, I believe.
Making some of the primitive lisp operations atomic will reduce, but
not eliminate, the burden on the programmer, so I think it should be
done; especially if the constant costs are small (how small?).
Ron, other "atomic" candidates: vector-push, vector-pop,
vector-push-extend, and adjust-array, sort, and stable-sort.
A Question on Implementation of Read-Modify-Write
How well would a TAS read-modify-write lock on every page work, in
lieu of a lock for every word or bit? It has some pathological cases,
certainly, but might be OK on the average. This is probably a
well-known strategy, especially if it can be made to work without
hardware support. -dan
∂04-Mar-89 1652 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Travel arrangements for Japan trip
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Mar 89 16:52:20 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03478; Sat, 4 Mar 89 16:52:53 PST
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 89 16:52:53 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903050052.AA03478@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Cc: mps@sail
Subject: Travel arrangements for Japan trip
Pat and I are going to try to make travel arrangements for the Japan
trip this week, so I'd like to know your preferences. (I know we
can't commit until DARPA approves it, but apparently the airline seats
are already becoming scarce, so we should try to reserve seats.)
The workshop is Monday June 5 to Friday June 9. It starts on Monday
morning (there is a reception on Sunday evening), and ends late Friday
afternoon. Your public lecture is scheduled for Friday afternoon,
according to RPG's recent message. So a minimal schedule would be:
leave SFO Saturday, June 3 early p.m. (already no seats on a.m. flights)
arrive Tokyo Sunday, June 4 afternoon
arrive Sendai Sunday, June 4 evening
leave Sendai Friday, June 9 evening
leave Tokyo Friday, June 9 late p.m. (if such a flight exists)
arrive SFO Friday, June 9 afternoon
By staying an extra day, we may be eligible for a cheaper airfare
(about $600 less) that requires a 7-day stay, but I don't know if
Stanford would reimburse expenses for a day not spent at the
conference or if you care to stay that long.
My own plan is to go there a few days early and do sightseeing in
Japan at my own expense. Dan doesn't have any money to spend, so he
will go with whatever schedule can reimburse all of his expenses.
∂04-Mar-89 1838 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Debate
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Mar 89 18:38:37 PST
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03571; Sat, 4 Mar 89 17:43:45 PST
Message-Id: <Mp#TR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 04 Mar 89 1742 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Debate
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Dan's characterization of my position is pretty far off. My position is
that programming languages should be at such a level that the current
debate about synchronization should be as relevant as a debate about
manual register allocation is today.
-rpg-
∂05-Mar-89 1042 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Rivin's Law
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Mar 89 10:42:43 PST
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02997; Sat, 4 Mar 89 11:08:41 PST
Message-Id: <5pYb7@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 04 Mar 89 1107 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Rivin's Law
To: qlisp@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
Yes, the KL10 folks did know something that Joy and the designers of
68020's didn't: they knew how to design Lisp machines. The PDP-10
architecture was influenced by the requirements of Lisp. so that certain
operations needed by Lisp were made fast. Examples are 36-bit words broken
into 2 18-bit halves where 18 bits is the size of the adress space; fast
stack instructions, fast simple subroutine calls. In addition, MacLisp is
a low functionality Lisp more in the spirit of C than in the spirit of
Ada.
Joy's law probably refers to machines in some particular family line
(namely, the C family line), and probably is referring to Sun's
performance on benchmarks he designs, or probably is just some attempt to
grab PR. It might be that on paging-intensive programs, KL20's running
TOPS-20 out-performs Sun 4's running Unix. Computer progress is like
Shepherd tones.
-rpg-
∂05-Mar-89 1225 gangolli@wolvesden.Stanford.EDU Re: Withdraw the SCLC proposal!
Received: from wolvesden.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Mar 89 12:25:05 PST
Received: by wolvesden.Stanford.EDU (5.51/inc-1.01)
id AA28904; Sun, 5 Mar 89 12:22:43 PST
Message-Id: <8903052022.AA28904@wolvesden.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Withdraw the SCLC proposal!
In-Reply-To: Your message of 05 Mar 89 12:20:00 -0800.
<5qpfG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 89 12:22:41 PST
From: Anil R. Gangolli <gangolli@wolvesden.Stanford.EDU>
>
> Please post to su-etc also. The su-etc community has been
> important in the rhf matter, and not everyone will get around
> to reading su.issues.sclc.
>
Note that the sclc bboard is getting 10-15 messages per day.
I'm all for getting more people aware, because I think most will
disagree with the new proposal, but it may flood su.etc.
∂05-Mar-89 1822 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Debate
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Mar 89 18:22:38 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05549; Sun, 5 Mar 89 18:23:04 PST
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 89 18:23:04 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903060223.AA05549@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Dick Gabriel's message of 04 Mar 89 1742 PST <Mp#TR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Debate
Dick wrote:
>Dan's characterization of my position is pretty far off. My position is
>that programming languages should be at such a level that the current
>debate about synchronization should be as relevant as a debate about
>manual register allocation is today.
I wasn't that far off. You just want the mouse trap to catch ALL of
the mice, not just most of them.
Nowadays, The compiler takes care of register allocation. Are you
supportive of global automated dependency analysis, so that
parallelization is automated? I thought that was NP-hard (well, so is
optimal register allocation, I guess).
Explicit control over parallelism is dual (usage?) to explicit responsibility
for synchronization. It seems like they go hand in hand.
-dan
∂05-Mar-89 1917 J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Withdraw the SCLC proposal!
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Mar 89 19:17:45 PST
Date: Sun 5 Mar 89 19:14:07-PST
From: Joe Brenner <J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Withdraw the SCLC proposal!
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <5qpfG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12475730441.32.J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
I'd like to add that since su.issues.sclc is a soley a usenet newsgroup,
it can't be read directly from the Tops-20 machines (such as Macbeth).
Hence, the distribution of that newsgroup is a bit narrower than for
su-etc.
-- Joe B.
-------
∂05-Mar-89 2000 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:rpg@lucid.com Debate
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Mar 89 20:00:31 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05701; Sun, 5 Mar 89 20:00:27 PST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA01784g; Sun, 5 Mar 89 19:53:06 PST
Received: by challenger id AA24266g; Sun, 5 Mar 89 19:48:31 PST
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 89 19:48:31 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8903060348.AA24266@challenger>
To: pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Dan Pehoushek's message of Sun, 5 Mar 89 18:23:04 PST <8903060223.AA05549@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Debate
Let me state my position another way: No one setting out today to
design a programming language to conform to modern design principles
would even allow the thought of registers to enter his mind - there
would be no word in his vocabulary for the concept of registers.
Similarly, no one setting out soon to design a programming language
for parallel machines to conform to what will be modern design
principles will even allow the thought of synchronization (at the
level we are discussing it) to enter his mind. Synchronization will be
subsumed by higher level constructs or be dealt with as part of some
more comprehensive semantic model. It might not be part of the vocabulary
of the designer.
Who knows whether the languages that will be our modern languages on
parallel machines will even concern themselves with controlling
parallelism. Just as no one cares whether a register allocator is
optimal, no one will care whether parallelism is optimal.
-rpg-
∂05-Mar-89 2010 ME your home line 44
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: ME@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, tom@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
I've moved one of your home lines from DCA port 44 to port 43.
Let me know if it works any differently.
∂06-Mar-89 0800 JMC
Gary about oil
∂06-Mar-89 0837 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 08:37:02 PST
Received: from Sesame.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06837; Mon, 6 Mar 89 08:36:59 PST
Received: by sesame.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C)
id AA05973; Mon, 6 Mar 89 08:33:22 PST
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 08:33:22 PST
From: mkatz@sesame.stanford.edu (Morris Katz)
Message-Id: <8903061633.AA05973@sesame.Stanford.EDU>
To: pehoushe@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Cc: rpg@lucid.com, qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Dan Pehoushek's message of Sat, 4 Mar 89 16:10:52 PST <8903050010.AA03409@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 89 16:10:52 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
A Question on Implementation of Read-Modify-Write
How well would a TAS read-modify-write lock on every page work, in
lieu of a lock for every word or bit? It has some pathological cases,
certainly, but might be OK on the average. This is probably a
well-known strategy, especially if it can be made to work without
hardware support. -dan
This is exactly what is done in Butterfly Common Lisp from BBN. My
understanding is that it actually works quite well. How well it works actually
seems to have something to do with what type of garbage collector one is using
since this is what determines the contents of each page in all but the newest
pages.
Morry Katz
katz@polya.stanford.edu
∂06-Mar-89 0850 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Pat Simmons......
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 08:50:48 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA11241; Mon, 6 Mar 89 08:48:44 -0800
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1989 8:48:40 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: davis@score, sloan@score
Cc: jmc@sail, rwf@sail
Subject: Pat Simmons......
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.605206120.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
just called. She isn't feeling well and won't be in today.
∂06-Mar-89 0900 JMC
Fogelin at CASBS
∂06-Mar-89 0903 CLT cable
Bringing the cable to the house:
I want to know when they are going to do it and to specify where it enters.
We have interior cables in place and all we need is the cable to the house.
The service:
Can we plug cable ready tv directly to cable port for basic channels
Can we connect stereo directly to cable port (via cable/twin lead adapter
-- not necessarily provided by the installer).
We want active outlets in all rooms -- to move stereo and
tv from place to place. Don't intend to pay $9 (+5% francise tax)
a month for each outlet.
What controls which non-basic services you get? There is $10 fee
for adding a channel. Is there some physical modification that
goes along with this? Does the converter have to be fiddled with?
If we cannot get service reasonably adapted to our needs then I
think we should forget about Co-op until they improve and
have Terry hook the cables to the antennas.
∂06-Mar-89 1000 JMC
Gillespie 3-3063
∂06-Mar-89 1132 BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: help wanted
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 11:32:52 PST
Date: Mon 6 Mar 89 11:30:26-PST
From: Andre Bratcher <BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: help wanted
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <MqpkG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12475908174.20.BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I know of some one who would be interested.
What are the hours and how much are you paying?
-------
∂06-Mar-89 1152 rpg@lucid.com New Attendees
Received: from lucid.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 11:52:06 PST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA02191g; Mon, 6 Mar 89 11:43:42 PST
Received: by challenger id AA25491g; Mon, 6 Mar 89 11:29:57 PST
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 11:29:57 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8903061929.AA25491@challenger>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, jsw@sail.stanford.edu, arg@lucid.com,
halstead@crl.dec.com, ran@vx.lcs.mit.edu, tk@ai.ai.mit.edu,
Kessler@cs.utah.edu, pierson@multimax.arpa, kranz@wheaties.ai.mit.edu,
jmiller@cs.brandeis.edu, katz@polya.stanford.edu,
ito%ito.aoba.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET,
pehoushek@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Subject: New Attendees
We have two new attendees:
******************************
Name: Luddy Harrison
Title: Research Associate
Affiliation: University of Illinois
Attendance: will attend
Talk Title: Theory and practice of automatic parallelization of
Scheme programs.
Abstract:
******************************
Name: Dan Pehoushek
Title: Research Programmer, Qlisp project
Affiliation: Stanford University
Attendance: will attend
Talk Title: A Practical Scheduler for Tree-like Computations
Abstract:
As part of ongoing research in the Qlisp group, Dan has developed a
scheduler which is efficient for a large class of problems. These
problems may be vaguely described as roughly balanced, tree-like
computations.
In this implementation, an outgrowth of Qlisp, scheduling is cheap
(one spawn requires time proportional to the overhead of 2 to 3
(compiled) Common Lisp function calls), "garbageless", and inherently
load balancing. The talk will discuss the implementation. The
results of parallelizing most of the Gabriel Benchmarks will be
presented.
∂06-Mar-89 1203 BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: help wanted
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 12:03:08 PST
Date: Mon 6 Mar 89 12:00:58-PST
From: Andre Bratcher <BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: help wanted
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <IqZs#@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12475913732.20.BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
How long do you think this job will last.
also how many people would you need because I would be
interested myself? Could I work like two hours a day?
-------
∂06-Mar-89 1209 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Qlisp meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 12:09:50 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07522; Mon, 6 Mar 89 12:09:45 PST
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 12:09:45 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903062009.AA07522@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Qlisp meeting
It looks like the time that is best for people is Friday at 2:00 p.m.,
so let's meet then. I'll send out another message in a few days with
the room, which will probably be MJH 301.
Joe
∂06-Mar-89 1324 DAVIS@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: help wanted
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 13:23:46 PST
Date: Mon 6 Mar 89 13:21:32-PST
From: Thea Davis <DAVIS@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: help wanted
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <MqpkG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12475928399.10.DAVIS@Score.Stanford.EDU>
could you send me a little more detail. When do you need the person?
-------
∂06-Mar-89 1324 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:rpg@lucid.com Qlisp meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 13:24:41 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07765; Mon, 6 Mar 89 13:23:45 PST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA02246g; Mon, 6 Mar 89 13:16:21 PST
Received: by challenger id AA25684g; Mon, 6 Mar 89 13:10:20 PST
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 13:10:20 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8903062110.AA25684@challenger>
To: weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Joe Weening's message of Mon, 6 Mar 89 12:09:45 PST <8903062009.AA07522@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Qlisp meeting
Ok, I won't be able to make it.
-rpg-
∂06-Mar-89 1333 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Meeting reschedule
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 13:32:57 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07799; Mon, 6 Mar 89 13:32:51 PST
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 13:32:51 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903062132.AA07799@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Meeting reschedule
It turns out that Dick can't make it on Friday. How about if we try
for 3:00 p.m. Wednesday, instead? One of you (Dan Scales) has already
said that time is bad, but there seems to be no way to satisfy every-
one's schedule this week.
∂06-Mar-89 1340 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Meeting reschedule, debate
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 13:40:03 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07813; Mon, 6 Mar 89 13:39:56 PST
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 13:39:56 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903062139.AA07813@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Joe Weening's message of Mon, 6 Mar 89 13:32:51 PST <8903062132.AA07799@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Meeting reschedule, debate
An obvious observation:
It looks like a synchronization problem... :)
∂06-Mar-89 1446 BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU re: help wanted
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 14:46:14 PST
Date: Mon 6 Mar 89 14:44:02-PST
From: Andre Bratcher <BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: help wanted
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <15qxj0@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12475943419.24.BRATCHER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Sorry but I'm booked those two days.
-------
∂06-Mar-89 1515 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:larus%paris.Berkeley.EDU@ginger.Berkeley.EDU Re: Debate
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 15:15:19 PST
Received: from paris.Berkeley.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08428; Mon, 6 Mar 89 15:15:21 PST
Received: by paris.Berkeley.EDU (5.57/1.25)
id AA13405; Mon, 6 Mar 89 15:10:59 PST
From: larus%paris.Berkeley.EDU@ginger.Berkeley.EDU (James Larus)
Message-Id: <8903062310.AA13405@paris.Berkeley.EDU>
To: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Cc: qlisp@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Debate
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 05 Mar 89 19:48:31 PST.
<8903060348.AA24266@challenger>
Reply-To: larus@ginger.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 89 15:10:56 PST
> Date: Sun, 05 Mar 89 19:48:31 PST
> To: pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
> Cc: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
> From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
> Subject: Debate
>
> Let me state my position another way: No one setting out today to
> design a programming language to conform to modern design principles
> would even allow the thought of registers to enter his mind - there
> would be no word in his vocabulary for the concept of registers.
> Similarly, no one setting out soon to design a programming language
> for parallel machines to conform to what will be modern design
> principles will even allow the thought of synchronization (at the
Here's the crux of the problem. We were talking of synchronization in
Common Lisp, which could hardly be called a language conforming to any
design principles.
/Jim
∂06-Mar-89 1545 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU [searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu (John R. Searle): Re: times]
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 15:45:25 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA20997; Mon, 6 Mar 89 15:43:18 PST
Date: Mon 6 Mar 89 15:43:18-PST
From: Reid Hoffman <HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu (John R. Searle): Re: times]
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <605230998.0.HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <8903062217.AA01450@cogsci.berkeley.edu>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
are there any fridays in April which would not work for you?
reid
---------------
Return-Path: <searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu>
Received: from cogsci.berkeley.edu by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA17123; Mon, 6 Mar 89 14:17:21 PST
Received: by cogsci.berkeley.edu (5.61/1.29)
id AA01450; Mon, 6 Mar 89 14:17:20 -0800
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 14:17:20 -0800
>From: searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu (John R. Searle)
Message-Id: <8903062217.AA01450@cogsci.berkeley.edu>
To: HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU, searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: times
I am giveing a talk at csli on a thursday afternoon in april
( date is yet to be decided) could we also do the discussion with
McCarthy on the same day and save me an extrra trip?
please let me know.
yours
JRS
-------
-------
∂06-Mar-89 1608 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:larus%paris.Berkeley.EDU@ginger.Berkeley.EDU Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 16:08:22 PST
Received: from paris.Berkeley.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08398; Mon, 6 Mar 89 15:05:23 PST
Received: by paris.Berkeley.EDU (5.57/1.25)
id AA13359; Mon, 6 Mar 89 15:01:07 PST
From: larus%paris.Berkeley.EDU@ginger.Berkeley.EDU (James Larus)
Message-Id: <8903062301.AA13359@paris.Berkeley.EDU>
To: qlisp@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Cc: weening@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: parallel hash tables, non-trivial
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 03 Mar 89 15:58:27 PST.
<8903032358.AA04506@sesame.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: larus@ginger.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 89 15:01:01 PST
I think that it is a very interesting and non-trivial question which
"primitives" should be serialized in a parallel Lisp system. There
are a wide range of possible answers that were ignored in the debate
on this list. Let me list a few:
1. No primitives are serialized.
2. Serialize expensive primitives.
3. Serialize primitives that contain potential parallelism.
4. Serialize primitives that a programmer cannot effectively
serialize.
5. Serialize every primitive.
I doubt that anyone will argue for #1 and #5. #2-4 are more
interesting and depend on your view of parallel Lisp. I would argue
for #4 my self and argue that hash tables should be in this catagory
since there is a lot of potential overlap between computing the hash
code and accessing the hash array. A user cannot get this overlap by
wrapping a lock around a table.
/Jim
∂06-Mar-89 1723 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
su-events@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
RELATING DEFAULT AND AUTOEPISTEMIC LOGICS
Wiktor Marek and Miroslaw Truszczynski
University of Kentucky
Monday, March 13, 3:15pm
MJH 301
We introduce a classification of nonmonotonic context-dependent reasonings
according to the way context is used in derivations. A reasoning is symmetric
if context is used to derive both positive and negative information. A reasoning
is asymmetric if context is applied to derive negative information only.
In the talk we concentrate on symmetric and asymmetric reasonings in default
and autoepistemic logics. They give rise to several classes of objects:
weak extensions and extensions in default logic, and expansions and robust
expansions in autoepistemic logic. Our results establish correspondence between
weak extensions and expansions (both notions are related to symmetric
reasonings) and extensions and robust expansions (these notions are related
to asymmetric reasonings). We also find an exact character of the
correspondence between notions based on the parsimony principle: minimal sets
closed under defaults and stable sets with minimal objective parts.
This multilevel correspondence between default and autoepistemic logics
pinpoints the exact character of the equivalence of their expressive powers.
∂06-Mar-89 2232 H.HUSSEIN@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: a true story
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 22:32:51 PST
Date: Mon 6 Mar 89 22:29:06-PST
From: Hussein Al-Hussein <H.HUSSEIN@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: a true story
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <iqXcS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12476028080.82.H.HUSSEIN@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks for the correction; I did not worry about the real stories since
I was trying only to make a pint. Well, a black (racially, black)
Christian, then.
Hussein
-------
∂07-Mar-89 0749 N51LI501%NCSUVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU NCState visit
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Mar 89 07:48:54 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 7 Mar 89 07:46:44 PST
Received: by NCSUVM (Mailer R2.02A) id 1951; Tue, 07 Mar 89 10:44:56 EST
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 89 10:33:06 EST
From: Joe Levine <N51LI501%NCSUVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: NCState visit
To: John McCarthy <jmc@sail.stanford.edu>
Prof. McCarthy
I don't know whether or not Dennis Bahler from Computer Science has been
in touch with you yet, so I'm writing to you directly myself. Anyway,
there are two things I'd like to arrange.
1. I looked into airfares, which are pretty high when you don't stay
over a Saturday night. But, there is one that I found which isn't too
bad. It's on Pan Am, for about $718, from San Francisco to Raleigh,
through New York. I'm assuming you will arrive on Monday, Sept. 25, and
leave on Wednesday, Sep. 27. If you could make a reservation for this
flight (or any cheaper one you can find, if there is one) and then let
me know what the details are, I'd appreciate it. Or, if you like, I can
make the reservation for you. It's probably too early to pay for it yet
- that can wait for awhile, I guess. Just let me know how you want to
handle it.
2. As far as what you'll do while you're here, the main public,
large-audience talk will be on Tuesday, at around 4 PM. For this talk
we'd like something fairly general concerning the approach to cognitive
science embodied in the field of AI - what you think that approach
should be, what are the major problems to be overcome, etc. The series
of talks is titled "Toward a Science of the Mind", so the talk should
fit into that very broad, and flexible framework. Whenever you can let
us know what the title of your talk would be (and you can make that
flexible enough so you don't need to know exactly what you're going to
say long in advance) we'd appreciate hearing, so we can start on
publicity. As far as smaller talks during your stay, we have more time
to arrange those since they won't be included in the big publicity stuff
- we'll do local flyers closer to the actual time.
Thanks again for agreeing to come. We all look forward to meeting you.
Joe Levine.
Replying-To: N51LI501%NCSUVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Reply-Subject: re: NCState visit
Reply-Text:
[In reply to message sent Tue, 07 Mar 89 10:33:06 EST.]
I have some ideas about combining the NC State visit with some
other travel. Therefore, it may not be feasible to buy a ticket
as far in advance as might be required to get the cheapest fares.
Can I assume you'll pay regular coach fare should it turn out
that way?
∂07-Mar-89 0800 JMC
Cable
∂07-Mar-89 0927 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: grumble about aclu
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Mar 89 09:26:51 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA13743; Tue, 7 Mar 89 09:24:49 -0800
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 09:24:49 -0800
From: Oren Patashnik <op@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903071724.AA13743@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: grumble about aclu
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <QqXls@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc: les@gang-of-four
In article <QqXls@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>[In reply to message from les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu sent 6 Mar 89 09:38:19 GMT.]
>
> . . . When the American Civil Liberities Union files lawsuits in
>non-civil liberties causes, it jeopardizes some of its support for
>its civil liberties activities, e.g. it causes people like Thornburgh
>to resign and me not to join.
Although it may indeed cause `people like Thornburgh' to resign,
it's quite unlikely that Thornburgh himself was one of them. I
quote from the latest (Winter 1989) Civil Liberties (admittedly
not an unbiased source, but I've never heard Thornburgh deny it):
. . . Thornburgh, whose reappointment in a prospective Bush
administration had not yet been guaranteed, hastily issued a statement
claiming he left the organization when it allegedly adopted "a
political agenda" in the late 1960s. . . But members of the
Pittsburgh affiliate called the national office immediately to report
that Thornburgh had resigned from the board upon being appointed as a
U.S. attorney, out of his concern about potential conflicts of
interest. Research into the minutes of Pittsburgh's board meetings
from the period in question supported that explanation. On the
record, Thornburgh had never disagreed with what the ACLU was doing,
or with its choice of cases---including the chapter's decision to take
a case defending the right of Pittsburgh high school students *not* to
salute the flag.
By the way, I heard essentially the same thing on MacNeil/Lehrer and,
I think, on one other show during the campaign (though for all I know
the ultimate source may still have been the ACLU).
--Oren
∂07-Mar-89 1010 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU New meeting time & place
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Mar 89 10:10:37 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01923; Tue, 7 Mar 89 10:10:38 PST
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 10:10:38 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903071810.AA01923@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: New meeting time & place
I've rescheduled the meeting for Wednesday (tomorrow) at 3:00 p.m. in
MJH 352. See you there.
Joe
∂07-Mar-89 1150 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu minor adjustment
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Mar 89 11:49:51 PST
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 12:34 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: minor adjustment
To: chervin@ncar.ucar.edu, DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, MBLUMENT@NAS.BITNET,
DONGARRA%ANL-MCS.arpa@arizona.edu, GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com,
JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@rand-unix.arpa, JLH@sierra.stanford.edu,
JMC@sail.stanford.edu, MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa, lewis.a.kapell@dartvax.dartmouth.edu
X-VMS-To: CHERVIN, @NAS, BILLM, KAPELL, MILAN, WILLIS@RAND.COM
From: UAMIS::JMS "The Satanic VAXes. Ken Olsen must die!" 7-MAR-1989 12:01:54.54
To: GOODMAN
CC:
Subj: news
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
On March 16th, 1989, many University of Arizona hosts will be
changing their Internet numbers. This host, mis.arizona.edu,
will change from 128.196.3.12 to 128.196.128.96. You may want
to pass this note on to your system manager.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
∂07-Mar-89 1203 VAL
I'm going to Georgia for the rest of the week--there will be a meeting there
related to the Handbook of logic in AI. On Monday, March 13, Mirek Truszczynski
from Kentucky will give a seminar on his joint work with Marek on a.e.logic.
We're not paying him, so I thought I should at least take him to lunch. Would
you like to join us?
∂07-Mar-89 1208 VAL re: reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 07-Mar-89 12:06-PT.]
He should call me at 11. Let's make it 12.
∂07-Mar-89 1319 decwrl!decvax!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!utep-vaxa!halina@labrea.stanford.edu letter of reference
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Mar 89 13:19:05 PST
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Tue, 7 Mar 89 13:17:00 PST
Received: from decvax.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA13205; Tue, 7 Mar 89 13:16:53 PST
Received: from decvax.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
for labrea!sail.stanford.edu!jmc; id AA13205; Tue, 7 Mar 89 13:16:53 PST
Received: from cs.utexas.edu.UUCP with UUCP by gatech.edu (5.58/GATECH-8.6)
id AA27934 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 89 15:26:21 EST
Posted-Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 12:32:47 MST
Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.59/1.25)
id AA13931; Tue, 7 Mar 89 13:58:45 CST
Received: by utep-vaxa.UUCP (5.51/smail2.2/03-26-87)
id AA02558; Tue, 7 Mar 89 12:32:47 MST
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 12:32:47 MST
From: decwrl!decvax!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!utep-vaxa!halina@labrea.stanford.edu (halina%utep.uucp@cs.utexas.edu [Halina Przymusinska])
Message-Id: <8903071932.AA02558@utep-vaxa.UUCP>
To: apt@cs.utexas.edu, sail.stanford.edu!jmc@cs.utexas.edu,
e.ms.uky.edu!marek@cs.utexas.edu,
cad.cs.cmu.edu!thomason@cs.utexas.edu,
sail.stanford.edu!val@cs.utexas.edu
Subject: letter of reference
Could you please send a letter of reference for me to the following
address:
Prof. Sam Lamonaco
Department of Computer Science
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
5401 Wilkens Ave.
Catonsville, Maryland 21228
Thank you very much, Halina.
∂07-Mar-89 1700 JMC
Papers for Fogelin
∂07-Mar-89 1953 ME Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 7 March 1989
Previous Balance 4.30
Monthly Interest at 1.0% 0.04
Current Charges 4.00 (bicycle lockers)
0.60 (vending machine)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 8.94
PAYMENT DELIVERY LOCATION: CSD Receptionist.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
Please deliver payments to the Computer Science Dept receptionist, Jacks Hall.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your PONY ACCOUNT NAME on your check.
Note: The recording of a payment takes up to three weeks after the payment is
made, but never beyond the next billing date. Please allow for this delay.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.0% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
An account with a credit balance earns interest of .33% per month,
based on the average daily balance.
Your last Pony payment was recorded on 1/10/89.
Accounts with balances remaining unpaid for more than 55 days are
considered delinquent and are subject to reduction of credit limit.
Please pay your bill and keep your account current.
∂08-Mar-89 0847 TALEEN@Score.Stanford.EDU Armenians on the local news
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Mar 89 08:47:28 PST
Date: Wed 8 Mar 89 08:45:14-PST
From: Taleen Nazarian <TALEEN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Armenians on the local news
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12476402390.13.TALEEN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
There is a series on local Armenians visiting the earthquake-stricken
areas of Armenia. Monday and Tuesday evenings showed the first two
parts, and tonight is the third part of the series. Watch KRON
(Channel 4) news at 6:00 tonight, if you are interested. I didn't watch
Monday's story, but last night they showed how a bunch of elementary &
junior high school students travelled there. A group from the Armenian
school in San Francisco also made the trip. They served as translators
for the reporters who followed them into a particular hospital.
Once again, that's 6:00 p.m., channel 4.
Taleen
-------
∂08-Mar-89 1023 JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Deep Knowledge Meeting - Sunderland Polytechnic
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Mar 89 10:23:17 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 8 Mar 89 10:21:23 PST
Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer X1.25) with BSMTP id 7734; Wed,
08 Mar 89 18:19:49 GMT
Received:
Via: UK.AC.RL.IB; 8 MAR 89 18:19:47 GMT
Message-ID: < 8 Mar 1989, 18:19:40 JWS@uk.ac.rl.ib>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 89 18:19:40 GMT
From: "J W T Smith" (JWS AT UKACRL) <JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Deep Knowledge Meeting - Sunderland Polytechnic
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, 0235 21900 Ext 6487
To: Prof. John McCarthy
When do you expect to arrive for the Deep Knowledge Meeting at Sunderland
Polytechnic? Arnold Spector needs to know so he can arrange hotel bookings,
etc.
Also, what are your travel plans? We are currently assuming you will fly to
Newcastle and we will arrange transport from the airport to Sunderland.
John Smith.
∂08-Mar-89 1110 S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Story for Campus Report
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Mar 89 11:09:58 PST
Date: Wed 8 Mar 89 11:05:35-PST
From: Joel Shurkin <S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Story for Campus Report
To: gq.jnk@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU, waters@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
esterly@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU, jacobs@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, z.zenon@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU,
phil@LINDY.STANFORD.EDU, g.gorin@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU,
s.summer-rain@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU, j.jbrenner@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU,
tvr@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, les@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12476427939.20.S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
I am preparing another story for Campus Report and a press release on the
reaction to the joke file. I would like your permission to quote from your
comments on the bulletin board. I think it would be impolite to do so
without your consent. Thanks in advance.
Joel Shurkin
Stanford News Service
-------
∂08-Mar-89 1436 S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Story for Campus Report
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Mar 89 14:36:14 PST
Date: Wed 8 Mar 89 14:32:20-PST
From: Joel Shurkin <S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Story for Campus Report
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Urw0M@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12476465578.19.S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
John:
I meant about "rhf." The ethics of quoting from electronic mail, even
on a public medium, is not entirely clear so I thought good manners
required permission.
Joel
-------
∂08-Mar-89 1623 hdeutsch@csli.Stanford.EDU dinner?
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Mar 89 16:23:29 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA07280; Wed, 8 Mar 89 16:21:21 PST
Date: Wed 8 Mar 89 16:21:20-PST
From: Harry Deutsch <HDEUTSCH@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: dinner?
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <605406080.0.HDEUTSCH@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
John,
Ed mentioned that you stopped by to see me. Are you up for dinner.
My wife arrives around nine.
Harry
-------
∂08-Mar-89 1632 hdeutsch@csli.Stanford.EDU re: dinner?
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Mar 89 16:32:31 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA07621; Wed, 8 Mar 89 16:30:23 PST
Date: Wed 8 Mar 89 16:30:23-PST
From: Harry Deutsch <HDEUTSCH@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: dinner?
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <605406623.0.HDEUTSCH@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <UrzOk@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
six would be fine. At the hotel?
-------
∂08-Mar-89 1730 burke@csli.Stanford.EDU 1962 IFIP article
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Mar 89 17:30:39 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA09516; Wed, 8 Mar 89 17:28:31 PST
Date: Wed 8 Mar 89 17:28:30-PST
From: Tom Burke <BURKE@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: 1962 IFIP article
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <605410110.0.BURKE@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
I would like to take a look at your 1962 article "Towards a mathematical
theory of computation" in the IFIP Proceedings ... except that I can't
find a copy of the latter book (not listed in Socrates). Could you by
any chance forward me a reprint through campus mail? Thanks.
Tom Burke
CSLI Ventura Hall
-------
∂09-Mar-89 0048 JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU re: Deep Knowledge Meeting - Sunderland Polytechnic
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Mar 89 00:47:51 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 9 Mar 89 00:31:52 PST
Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer X1.25) with BSMTP id 6331; Thu,
09 Mar 89 08:28:50 GMT
Received:
Via: UK.AC.RL.IB; 9 MAR 89 8:28:48 GMT
Message-ID: < 9 Mar 1989, 08:28:40 JWS@uk.ac.rl.ib>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 89 08:28:40 GMT
From: "J W T Smith" (JWS AT UKACRL) <JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: re: Deep Knowledge Meeting - Sunderland Polytechnic
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, 0235 21900 Ext 6487
OK, note received. I will pass it on to Arnold Spector at Sunderland.
John Smith.
*** Forwarding note from PROFSNET--UKACRL 09/03/89 08:15 ***
To: JWS --UKACRL J.W.T.Smith
From: John McCarthy <JMC@EDU.STANFORD.SAIL>
***** Use PROFS FORWARD facility to reply to this NOTE *****
***** Do not use PROFS REPLY function *****
Subject: re: Deep Knowledge Meeting - Sunderland Polytechnic
------------------------------------------------------------------------=
Received:
from UKACRL by UK.AC.RL.IB (Mailer X1.25) with BSMTP id 0883; Thu, 09
Mar 89 05:30:32 GM
Received: from STANFORD.BITNET by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer X1.25) with BSMTP id
3667; Thu, 09 Mar 89 05:30:32 G
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 8 Mar 89 12:13:51 PST
Message-ID: <1srZar@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 08 Mar 89 1215 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@EDU.STANFORD.SAIL>
Subject: re: Deep Knowledge Meeting - Sunderland Polytechnic
To: JWS@UK.AC.RL.IB
In reply to message sent Wed, 8 Mar 89 18:19:40 GMT.
My present intention is to fly to Edinburgh from California
on March 25 arriving March 26. My host there will be
Chris Mellish <chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>.
I will go from there to Sunderland according to the best local advice.
I suppose the evening of the 28th will be a good time to arrive. I
still don't know when they plan to schedule my presentation, however,
and I don't have a program yet.
Please acknowledge receipt of this message. I'm uncertain about the
reliability of networks.
∂09-Mar-89 0213 chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK re: Visit to Edinburgh?
Received: from NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Mar 89 02:13:18 PST
Received: from aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk by NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id aa03808; 9 Mar 89 9:30 GMT
From: Chris Mellish <chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 89 10:03:06 GMT
Message-Id: <8207.8903091003@aipna.ed.ac.uk>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: re: Visit to Edinburgh?
Thanks for your message. I am very glad you can come. Do you need
us to book accommodation in Edinburgh? Would you be prepared to
give a seminar on Monday 27th? If so, could you give us a
provisional title?
∂09-Mar-89 1346 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU Hertz Luncheon
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Mar 89 13:46:44 PST
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1989 13:44 PST
Message-ID: <RDZ.12476719013.BABYL@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU>
From: RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Hertz Luncheon
It is Friday March 17 at the Berkeley Marina Marriott Hotel.
Reception and cokctails run 11:45-12:15, lunch is 12:15-1:30.
They'd like confirmation we're coming (you can have Pat confirm
for me too if you decide to come). Their phone is 373-1642.
Ramin
∂09-Mar-89 1431 MPS trip
you are confirm for later flight from Glasgow to Moscow
∂09-Mar-89 1800 mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU my SAIL account
Received: from hanna.cac.washington.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Mar 89 18:00:48 PST
Received: from tomobiki-cho.cac.washington.edu by hanna.cac.washington.edu (5.61/6.12)
id AA05252; Thu, 9 Mar 89 17:57:42 -0800
Return-Path: <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1989 17:56:06 PST
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject: my SAIL account
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <MS-C.605498166.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
Hi -
CSD-CF seems to have flushed my SAIL account, without any notice to me at
all. I'm hoping this was an accident (they didn't flush my Score account),
but in case it isn't, is there any chance I could convince you to sponsor me
on SAIL? I freely admit that 90% of my usage has been to run NS, but
occasionally I've done other stuff. As I remember, my monthly SAIL charges
were something like $20...
Thanks for your consideration.
-- Mark --
-------
∂09-Mar-89 1953 eyal@coyote.stanford.edu Re: my M.Sc. thesis
Received: from coyote.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Mar 89 19:53:32 PST
Received: by coyote.stanford.edu; Thu, 9 Mar 89 19:57:34 PST
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 89 19:57:34 PST
From: Eyal Mozes <eyal@coyote.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: my M.Sc. thesis
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
I am writing again to find out whether you and Vladimir had time to read it,
and, if not, whether you can estimate when you will do so.
Thanks in advance.
Eyal Mozes
∂09-Mar-89 2101 anderson@june.cs.washington.edu censorship
Received: from june.cs.washington.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Mar 89 21:01:19 PST
Received: from localhost by june.cs.washington.edu (5.59/6.13+)
id AA25244; Thu, 9 Mar 89 20:59:16 PST
Return-Path: <anderson@june.cs.washington.edu>
Message-Id: <8903100459.AA25244@june.cs.washington.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: anderson@june.cs.washington.edu
Subject: censorship
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 89 20:59:15 PST
From: anderson@june.cs.washington.edu
Dear Professor McCarthy,
I happened to read a story in the Stanford Observer entitled
"Officials pull the plug on computerized joke file". I gather that
the University has deemed it necessary to protect its students and
employees from offensive material distributed over the net.
I am glad to see that you are protesting this. I am not at all
surprised to see this type of censorship undertaken by Stanford
University. I hope that the entire computer science department
is taking a strong stand on this issue.
Richard Anderson
University of Washington
∂10-Mar-89 0427 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM stirring logs
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 04:26:54 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 364948; Fri 10-Mar-89 07:21:20 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 84011; Fri 10-Mar-89 04:17:28 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 04:17 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: stirring logs
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "igor@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890310121721.4.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
A couple of years ago, I sent around a double series in b, ln b,
and ln ln b, which solved a transcendental equation equivalent to
b
(Q) x = -------- .
a - ln x
I just noticed a simpler form of the solution:
1
(A) x = ----------------------------------------------- ,
n
==== ==== n - k + 1
\ - n - 1 \ (b - a) n
1 - > b > ---------------- [ ]
/ / (n - k + 1)! k
==== ====
n >= 0 k = 0
n
where [ ] are the Stirlings of the 1st flavor:
k
n
====
\ n k
> [ ] t = t (t + 1) . . . (t + n - 1).
/ k
====
k = 0
(A) can also be written as x = unreciprocated "triple" sum,
where the Stirling number is replaced by a partial row sum.
Both solutions seem to require |1-a/b| < 1, for convergence.
Unfortunately, (Q) typically has two roots, and (A) tends to
give the one I don't want! (Perhaps they're simply related?)
Also, (A) may not converge as fast as the earlier one. However,
the convergence rates of both are negotiable, by introducing a
free variable c: just replace x by x/c, and multiply both sides
by c to get an equation of the same form, but with b -> b c, and
a -> a + ln c. Fastest convergence, not surprsingly, is when c
is near the desired value of x, leading to a successive approx-
imations option.
∂10-Mar-89 0708 harnad@Princeton.EDU An alternative approach to categorization
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 07:08:32 PST
Received: from psycho.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/2.6)
id AA01818; Fri, 10 Mar 89 10:01:03 EST
Received: by psycho.Princeton.EDU (3.2/1.78)
id AA07320; Thu, 9 Mar 89 22:57:08 EST
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 89 22:57:08 EST
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8903100357.AA07320@psycho.Princeton.EDU>
To: bt@psych.stanford.edu
Subject: An alternative approach to categorization
To: Barbara Tversky, Stanford University
Dear Barbara,
Thanks for your long and thoughtful reply. Here are some responses;
you wrote:
" McCloskey and Glucksberg (Memory & Cognition, 1978) did a study asking
" people to judge whether instances belonged to categories (including
" bird, and other common categories) on several occasions. People were
" consistent within themselves and across each other for what could be
" called typical exemplars, but were not consistent for what could be
" called atypical exemplars. That is, the same exemplar would be called a
" category member on one occasion but not on another occasion. So it is
" simply wrong to assert that people successfully categorize common
" categories in an all-or-none fashion. Some people some of the time say
" a bat is a bird and a whale is a fish and some of the time they don't
" and sometimes they say a bat is both a bird and a rodent and sometimes
" they say it's neither. Objects and pictures of objects are similarly
" problematic, there are the classic examples of tables and stools and
" vases, bowls, glasses, and cups. It is the fact that people use
" familiar natural categories so inconsistently that makes the data you
" find "irrelevant" (on reaction time, etc.) so interesting.
Let me start with a logical and methodological point: When I refer to
categorization, I am speaking of successful, correct categorization. We
no doubt categorize wrongly sometimes (perhaps often); and there are
also no doubt things we can't categorize reliably, or even categorize
at all. (There are also "categories" that are subjective or arbitrary,
where there IS no right and wrong -- what I've called "ad lib"
categories; I will not be considering those.) But surely we categorize
correctly often ENOUGH to satisfy whatever constraints there really
are on our categorization performance (eating, drinking, recognizing
friend and foe; object recognition, manipulation and use;
taxonomizing, botanizing, etc.). (And sometimes things really DO grade
continuously into one another, with only an arbitrary cut-off point.)
I suggest that if we are interested in inferring the structures and
processes (the "representations") that underlie our ability to
categorize, we ought to begin with and focus on SUCCESSFUL
categorization. For although there are no doubt many cases where our
categorizing ability breaks down, there is nevertheless a vast core in
which it is perfectly reliable, and the fact is that we have absolutely
no idea what kinds of internal representations are responsible for our
success.
One can of course glean one's HYPOTHESES wherever one wishes, and if
our errors gave a fruitful clue to the mechanisms underlying our
success, I would be all for it. But the fact is that they have just
diverted us from successful categorization, and the problem of
modeling how we manage to do it. When I say that the categorization
research (and that includes the kind of study you cite above) has not
looked at the problem of categorization AT ALL, what I mean is that
no attempt has been made to explain how we (or any device like us)
manage to successfully sort our inputs into categories as we do.
Instead, the performance capacity is taken for granted and attention
is focussed instead on its fine tuning (errors, reaction time,
typicality effects).
" Many of the criticisms you bring against Rosch, by the way, are
" inappropriate; they aren't directed against things she claimed, but
" rather against what various interpreters of the field claimed about her
" work.
I'm not sure that's true. It's been a while since I've read Rosch, but
most of my criticisms of categorization research are based originally
on her writings, her findings and her interpretations.
" I want to briefly address what you "put forward as a logical point,
" that where there is evidence of successful all-or-none categorization
" of inputs, there MUST be an invariant basis for that success in the
" inputs." Let's suppose for the discussion something we know not to be
" true, that people always put the X's in the X pile and the non-X's in
" the non-X pile. What could be meant by "invariant basis?" There's a
" trivial and uninformative sense in which your statement has to be true.
" But there's a more interesting way to interpret your statement, as a
" challenge to come forth with that invariant basis. That has turned out
" to be an exceedingly difficult problem. For one thing, we can reach the
" conclusion that something's an X in many different ways, and we seem to
" keep adding to the list.
I completely agree that finding the invariant basis is a difficult
problem. And finding how we find the invariant basis is an even more
difficult problem. But who said cognitive science would be easier than
any other science? Yet are the categorization researchers really
confronting this difficult problem? I don't think so. I think they're
doing folk psychology and hermeneutics, talking (vaguely) about
"prototypes," "family resemblances," "central tendencies," and so on,
and then arguing that some aspect or other of the fine-tuning data
they gather favors one or another of these vague notions more.
Sometimes even a "classical" representation pops up as a contender, so
the logic of the research comes full circle -- but without getting
anywhere.
By way of analogy, let me mention another problem that's hard: finding
the invariants underlying the visual constancies. As with
categorization, the invariants are not obvious, they are not accessible
to introspection, yet they must be there. The same is true of all
the features of the "unconscious inference" underlying most of
perception. Why should discovering the mechanisms of categorization be
any easier?
So not only is the difficulty of finding it not evidence against the
existence of an invariant basis for our categorization performance,
but neither are errors, for it is, after all, only our SUCCESSFUL
categorization performance for which it even makes sense to claim an
invariant basis!
" I may decide it's you by your voice or your handwriting or your face.
" But recently I can recognize you from afar by the new hat you purchased
" or by the song you've been humming lately, or by the way your feet
" shuffle since you broke your toe. I can decide something's a bird
" because I see it flying and recognize that as a bird-like pattern of
" flight or because I see it perched and recognize that as a bird-like
" way of perching or because I hear it sing and recognize that as a
" bird-like way of singing. I can add 14 and 8 to get 22 by starting with
" 14 and counting up to 22, or by splitting 14 into 10 and 4, adding 8 to
" 10 and then 4 to that sum, or by knowing by heart that 14 and 8 make
" 22. (In fact, there is research on children's addition that those are 3
" stages they go through, always getting the correct answer (or almost
" always)).
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a disjunctive invariance as a
basis for categorization (or a conditional one, or a
context-dependent one). All that's necessary is that the invariance be
SUFFICIENT to generate the successful performance. (I doubt that your
introspective lists of factors add up to a sufficient mechanism.)
" Even when we correctly categorize, the differences in reaction time to
" do so indicate that a different set of steps underlies the
" categorization (see work by Smith, Rips and Shoben in the 70's) for,
" say, typical and atypical exemplars. Context further complicates
" things. The small, four-legged and wooden-topped object in my living
" room is called "table" when it's adorned with a bowl of nuts but is
" called "stool" when someone sits on it. And that very same bowl, when
" filled with flowers, is called a "vase."
As I suggested earlier, unless it provides a clue about the actual
mechanism underlying our capacity to categorize successfully AT ALL,
the typical/atypical effect is just a fine-tuning factor. Context is a
more interesting and potentially informative variable than typicality,
but I really don't think categorization researchers have done much with
it (whereas it does play a large role in the "classical"
representational model I am advocating in my book.)
" So, characterizing the "invariant basis" for common categories hasn't
" been done, probably because it's so very difficult. In fact, the work
" of Rosch and Mervis on family resemblance was an attempt along the
" lines you condone (using "ors"), and it did make headway (rather than
" just hand-waving) in demonstrating the use of properties and features
" (implicitly and explicitly) in a wide variety of cognitive tasks, some
" of them entailing explicit categorization, and some of them requiring
" implicit categorization (the sorts of tasks which you don't seem to
" find interesting, are in fact of particular significance because they
" demonstrate the use of categories in other, more natural, cognitive
" contexts).
I'm not sure what the difference between explicit and implicit
categorization is. For me, there are inputs, and what you do is sort
and label them (either correctly or incorrectly, on the basis of
invariant features, selected under the guidance of feedback from the
consequences of getting it wrong). Perhaps you mean consciously vs
unconsciously. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that the reason
finding invariants (and finding out how we find invariants) is so hard
is because most of it is not conscious.
I certainly don't think that "categorization" when there's no right or
wrong of the matter -- what I've called "ad lib" categorization -- is
likely to reveal much about the mechanisms underlying successful
categorization where there is a right and wrong of the matter
("imposed" categorization). Ad lib sorting is a kind of "default"
condition, and seems to me about as informative about category
representation as Osgood's "semantic" differential was about the
representation of meaning (and for remarkably similar reasons).
I continue to think that there ther are serious problems with the
logic and the methodology of current categorization research. Only
time will tell whether the very different approach I advocate in my
book will prove to be a more fruitful one.
With best wishes,
Stevan Harnad
∂10-Mar-89 0900 JMC
visa
∂10-Mar-89 1114 eyal@coyote.stanford.edu Re: my M.Sc. thesis
Received: from coyote.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 11:14:25 PST
Received: by coyote.stanford.edu; Fri, 10 Mar 89 11:18:28 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 11:18:28 PST
From: Eyal Mozes <eyal@coyote.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: my M.Sc. thesis
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
No, there's no special urgency. I've just started a research project
with Tom Binford, but I'm not sure if I really want to continue in
computer vision, so I'd like to also discuss the possibility of a
project continuing my M.Sc. thesis.
I'm not sure yet what I'm going to do in this summer quarter, and my
plans may depend on my discussion with you. So It doesn't have to be
this week, but, if possible, I'd like it to be within the next month or
so.
Eyal Mozes
∂10-Mar-89 1120 collins@psych.Stanford.EDU re: slaves
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 11:20:28 PST
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Fri, 10 Mar 89 11:15:20 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 11:15:20 PST
From: collins@psych.Stanford.EDU (Caroline Collins)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: slaves
t may not have been obvious, but I was replying to a portion
of one of Crispin's postings about secession.
I wonder where he gets such idiotic ideas.
CC
∂10-Mar-89 1154 GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU boxes
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 11:54:20 PST
Date: Fri 10 Mar 89 11:52:13-PST
From: Lynn Gotelli <GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: boxes
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12476960716.33.GOTELLI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Don told me by the end of the day he will probably have approx.
6 more xerox boxes to give you. Lynn
-------
∂10-Mar-89 1224 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Alliant meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 12:24:28 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06127; Fri, 10 Mar 89 12:24:42 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 12:24:42 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903102024.AA06127@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, clt@sail, rpg@sail
Subject: Alliant meeting
Edward Hartline, the Alliant district manager based in Los Angeles,
wants to meet with us to discuss what to do when the loan of the four
processors and cache run out. I think there is some prospect of
getting the loan extended, but this will require a certain amount of
persuasion on our part. They apparently had a disastrous 4th quarter
1988, and keeping loaned equipment on the books annoys some of their
investors, who obviously would prefer that they sell it.
He plans to be in the area during the week of March 20, either
Tuesday/Wednesday or Wednesday/Thursday. Is any time on those dates
especially good or bad?
∂10-Mar-89 1319 tom@polya.Stanford.EDU [MAILER-DAEMON: Returned mail: Host unknown]
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 13:19:34 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA05643; Fri, 10 Mar 89 13:17:23 -0800
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 13:17:23 -0800
From: Tom Dienstbier <tom@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903102117.AA05643@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: [MAILER-DAEMON: Returned mail: Host unknown]
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA04561; Fri, 10 Mar 89 13:05:07 -0800
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 13:05:07 -0800
From: Tom Dienstbier <tom>
Full-Name: Tom Dienstbier
Message-Id: <8903102105.AA04561@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: clt@sail, jmc@ssail
Cc: tom, me
Subject: Home terminals
I checked out your systems at home and the finding is that all
of the hardware is functional. The problem is that the phone line is
still having problems. Carolyn, if you would call the phone company once
more and tell them the problem is with the receive at your house.
The modem at your house keeps dropping off because the phone line is
intermittent. The transmitt at the Stanford end is ok.
Also we need to bill you for one hour($45.00) of time for the service
call. Please provide me an account number for this charge.
thanks
tom
∂10-Mar-89 1409 MPS reference
Joan Springer, Metaware, wants a call concerning
Arkady - 408-429-6382.
∂10-Mar-89 1618 roach@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Nice Results With Dan's NEW-QLISP
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 16:17:55 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07002; Fri, 10 Mar 89 16:17:47 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 16:17:47 PST
From: Kelly Roach <roach@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903110017.AA07002@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Nice Results With Dan's NEW-QLISP
Dan and I have tried running my computer algebra system with his
version of NEW-QLISP. The results are sufficiently impressive that I
feel I should report on them. Briefly, a benchmark test that I've
been using ordinarily speeds up a factor of 3.4 out of a possible 8
(or 7.6). Using Dan's system, the test speeds up by a factor of 6.9,
a real improvement.
The test involves formally integrating (calculus) mathematical
expressions such as
(* (expt x 2) (expt (sin x) 2)))
The time to integrate the expression 8 times sequentially is compared
to the time to do 8 parrallel integrations. Altogether, 154
expressions are integrated each taking on average about .7 cpu seconds
to integrate. The speed up for 10 somewhat representative problems
are shown below:
Problem Ordinairy NEW-QLISP Dan's NEW-QLISP
P230 3.083 6.586
P231 4.227 6.824
P232 4.299 6.880
P233 2.964 6.563
P234 4.000 6.863
P235 4.069 6.857
P236 3.426 6.739
P237 3.308 6.727
P238 3.080 6.569
P239 2.940 6.540
The highest speed up I could see by eyeballing a DRIBBLE file was 7.18
with quite a few "scores" over the 7.0 mark. Out of a possible 7.6,
that isn't too bad.
Dan and I have also noticed that simply running in sequential
mode, Dan's system seems to be about 15% faster than ordinairy
NEW-QLISP. (A total time of 85784 in NEW-QLISP and total time of
103715 in Dan's NEW-QLISP seems to be typical for the sequential
benchmark.) Dan's system is a bit brittle, but the speed improvement
achieved by using Dan's system is quite remarkable. Enough so, that I
thought I'd comment on this. Hats off to Dan.
Kelly
∂10-Mar-89 1623 @Score.Stanford.EDU:tcr@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Scheduling a Meeting
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 16:23:27 PST
Received: from sumex-aim.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 10 Mar 89 16:17:06-PST
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA03643; Fri, 10 Mar 89 16:18:09 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1989 16:18:08 PST
From: TC Rindfleisch <tcr@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: Facil@score.stanford.edu
Cc: Rindfleisch@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Subject: Scheduling a Meeting
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.605578688.tcr@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Friends, as you know, George Wheaton and I have been doing a review of CSD-CF
for the past couple of months, including interviews with department members and
analyses of the current CF operating budget and revenues. We have prepared a
preliminary draft of our findings and will be sending you a hardcopy shortly.
I would like to schedule a meeting of the Facilities Committee during the week
of March 27 to discuss the report and actions that should be recommended as a
result. We have already briefed Jim Ball on an early draft and we should have
inputs from him by then as well on some planning alternatives.
Please let me know when you could meet during the following times:
Monday, 27th: anytime
Tuesday, 28th: afternoon
Wednesday, 29th: anytime
Tom R.
∂10-Mar-89 1725 GP.CML@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 17:25:01 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 17:25:04 PST
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
From: "Chris Lundin 3-4366" <GP.CML@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
In article <1Esxux@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>,
JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>it had the locomotive associated with the completion of the
>transcontinental railroad by Stanford and colleagues. Eitner's
>first act was the banishment of the locomotive. I believe he
>wanted to scrap it, but it survived and is around Sacramento
>somewhere.
John, it seems to me the locomotive is more appropriately
displayed in the California State Railroad Museum. It's given a
treatment which Stanford couldn't or wouldn't have wanted to indulge
in, and is seen by hundreds of thousands each year. Keeping it here
would have restricted its audience. You should check out the
museum if you're ever up that way.
- Chris
∂10-Mar-89 1737 Mailer re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Robert W Floyd <RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from JMC rcvd 10-Mar-89 13:55-PT.]
If you're talking about the locomotive I think you mean,
it's in the new railroad museum close to the original
Central Pacific home station in Old Town, Sacramento,
where the Big Four had their businesses. The RR museum
is one of the finest museums I know, and gets large numbers
of visitors. The expertise is a vailable there to
teach about the technology, and to do historically
accurate restorations. I think Eitner did a public
service by sending the locomotive (the C. P. Huntington?)
to Sacramento. Go there sometime, John, wander around
the restored Old Town, dine at Fat City, and you'll
come back a convert.
∂10-Mar-89 1748 RLM@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Religion. Who was it who said...
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 17:48:29 PST
Date: Fri 10 Mar 89 17:46:21-PST
From: Robert L. Miller <RLM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Religion. Who was it who said...
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Us#tk@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12477025183.18.RLM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I heard you don't read your email. But if you do, thanks for the
answer.
-------
∂10-Mar-89 1843 dmr@csli.Stanford.EDU Re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 18:42:56 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA01528; Fri, 10 Mar 89 18:40:45 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 18:40:45 PST
From: dmr@csli.Stanford.EDU (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
Message-Id: <8903110240.AA01528@csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <1Esxux@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: KZSU, Stanford
Cc:
Could you tell me about your problems with the KZSU Campus Conference
format? We certainly could use helpful suggestions, and I can get them
more or less directly to those involved.
Dan Rosenberg
dmr@csli
--
# Daniel M. Rosenberg /////// CSLI/Stanford //////////////// +1 (415) 328-1373
# INTERNET: dmr@csli.stanford.edu //////////// UUCP: {ucbvax, decvax}!csli!dmr
# Opinions above don't represent those of Stanford University or their lawyers.
∂10-Mar-89 2109 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com maybe new-qlisp isn't so bad after all
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 21:09:33 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08065; Fri, 10 Mar 89 21:09:33 PST
Received: from bhopal ([192.9.200.13]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA00667g; Fri, 10 Mar 89 21:02:11 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA23087g; Fri, 10 Mar 89 21:04:30 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 21:04:30 PST
From: Ron Goldman <arg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8903110504.AA23087@bhopal>
To: qlisp@go4.stanford.edu
Subject: maybe new-qlisp isn't so bad after all
I just tried running a few examples using Kelly's system and discovered some
interesting things that indicate that the regular version of new-qlisp isn't
so bad after all. First off of the time to solve a single problem ranged
from 1-650 msec, with the bulk about 20-150 msec. The average was 88 msec,
which when done 8 times gives the .7 sec time Kelly reported. Now the overhead
to initialize the world before going parallel is about 12 msec. (Actually
that's if you load "/lucid/mods/qlisp/ql-setup" to fix a bug in new-qlisp.
Without the bug fix the overhead is about 44 msec.) I estimated the overhead
by running (qtime t). (Note if you don't compile the expression containing
the call to qtime add about 5 msec for interpreter overhead.) Now in
new-qlisp it takes about 7 msec overhead to create and spawn eight processes.
So if you measure
speedup = (/ (* 8 serial-time) (- parallel-time parallel-overhead))
where parallel-overhead = 12 + 7 = 19, then for most of the problems that I
tested I saw speedups of 6 to 7. The average speedup for the 152 problems I
ran was 6.25. The reason for the lower speedup values is probably due to
contention for internal resources (maybe bignums?) and should be the same for
Dan's system too. With parallel allocation we eliminated one major source
of resource contention, but it looks like we need to go in and find whatever
the new bottleneck is.
Ron
∂10-Mar-89 2116 dmr@csli.Stanford.EDU re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 21:16:52 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA05755; Fri, 10 Mar 89 21:14:42 PST
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 21:14:42 PST
From: dmr@csli.Stanford.EDU (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
Message-Id: <8903110514.AA05755@csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
I will pass the information on that you gave me, though I guess
specific examples might be more useful to the folks I'm going
to talk to. I did not hear the interview myself, and only read the
report in the _Daily_. It would be fairly easy for them to say
that John Perry probably felt the same way as you did, only that
they were biased against him.
Dan
∂10-Mar-89 2258 JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Deep Knowledge Meeting - Provisional Timetable
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Mar 89 22:57:54 PST
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 10 Mar 89 22:57:55 PST
Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer X1.25) with BSMTP id 1653; Fri,
10 Mar 89 18:39:17 GMT
Received:
Via: UK.AC.RL.IB; 10 MAR 89 18:39:15 GMT
Message-ID: <10 Mar 1989, 18:39:09 JWS@uk.ac.rl.ib>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 18:39:09 GMT
From: "J W T Smith" (JWS AT UKACRL) <JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Deep Knowledge Meeting - Provisional Timetable
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, 0235 21900 Ext 6487
To: Prof. John McCarthy
I assume Registration will be before Lunch on Wednesday but the copy of the
Timetable I have doesn't indicate this.
John Smith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deep Knowledge Based Systems SIG - 6th DKBS Workshop
Sunderland Polytechnic, 29-31 March 1989.
PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE
Wednesday 29th March
2.00 pm Introductory Address
2.30 pm Deep Knowledge Based Condition Monitoring
Carl Lloyd, Yard Ltd
3.00 pm Introducing Meta-Levels to Qualitative Reasoning
Bert Bredeweg, University of Amsterdam
3.30 pm Using Qualitative Reasoning for Diagnostic Applications
Chris Price and Mark Lee, University of Wales
4.00 pm Tea/Coffee
4.15 pm Deep Knowledge and Reasoning by Simulation
Ian Pratt, University of Manchester
4.45 pm Applying the Principles of Qualitative Reasoning in the
Financial Analysis Domain
Irene M.Y. Woon and Peter Coxhead
6.00 pm Dinner
Thursday 30th March
9.30 am Aims of and Progress in Deep Knowledge Research
Discussion led by Prof John McCarthy
10.30 am Tea/Coffee
11.00 am Some Global Approximations to Enhance Qualitative Reasoning
A A Willoughby, Open University
11.30 am Representing Topological and Metrical Properties in Physical
Processes
D A Randell and A G Cohn, University of Warwick
12 noon Modelling and Reasoning about Events, Shape, and Motion
in Computer Vision
Hilary Buxton, Queen Mary College
12.30 pm Luncheon
2.00 pm Non-monotonic Reasoning
John McCarthy, Stanford University
2.45 pm Diagnosis using Constraint Models
Simon Nuttall, Open University
3.15 pm Playing with Qualitative Reasoning
Rory Woodward, University of Sussex
3.45 pm Qualitative Simulation of the Cardio-Vascular System
Based on a Quantitative Model: A Preliminary Study
Kave Eshghi and Steve Todd, Hewlet Packard
Friday 31st March
9.15 am KADS, A Methodology for the Construction of Knowledge Based Systems
Bert Bredeweg, University of Amsterdam
10.00 am Simulation of Anaesthetic Clinical Signs
G M Coghill, A J Ashbury, C J van Rijsbergen and W M Gray,
University of Glasgow
10.45 am Tea/Coffee
11.00 am Possible Techniques for the Generation of Explanations
in a Simulation Environment
N P Filer, University of Manchester
11.45 am Closing Discussion
∂11-Mar-89 1554 dash@polya.Stanford.EDU Commonsense Reasoning
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Mar 89 15:54:40 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA28554; Sat, 11 Mar 89 15:52:35 -0800
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1989 15:52:33 PST
Sender: David Ash <dash@polya.stanford.edu>
From: David Ash <dash@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Commonsense Reasoning
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.605663553.dash@polya.stanford.edu>
I am a PhD student interested in AI and reasoning and would like to talk with
you about your research, with a view to possibly becoming involved in it. Is
there a good time that you and I could meet? I am free most mornings as well
as MWF afternoons. I look forward to meeting with you.
Thanks--David Ash.
∂11-Mar-89 1603 dash@Portia.stanford.edu re: Commonsense Reasoning
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Mar 89 16:03:13 PST
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA20366; Sat, 11 Mar 89 16:00:13 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1989 16:00:08 PST
From: Dave Ash <dash@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Commonsense Reasoning
In-Reply-To: Your message of 11 Mar 89 1559 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.605664008.dash@Portia.stanford.edu>
Monday at 11 seems fine to me. I'll see you then.
-Dave
∂11-Mar-89 1656 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Need: Qlisp Policy Statement
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Mar 89 16:56:40 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00934; Sat, 11 Mar 89 16:56:35 PST
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 16:56:35 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903120056.AA00934@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL, CLT@SAIL, RPG@SAIL, weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
arg@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, roach@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Need: Qlisp Policy Statement
Do you folks generally agree with the following position? If so, how
would you phrase the policy, and would you call it a policy? If
you don't agree (in principle) with the position, forget it.
BOMBAST:
In presenting experimental data, we should be very careful to avoid
misrepresentation, to the best of our abilities. Whether this
involves compiler options or futures overhead, or initialization
overhead, the results we present should be easily and clearly
understandable and reproducible. It's a matter of Scientific
Integrity and all that...
When I am presenting results, I want the data to be in the form an
ironclad fortress, completely defendable and dependable, to avoid any
distraction from the main points that I'm trying to make.
THE MAIN POINT:
I think we need a formal definition of how to measure serial time and
speed-up in Qlisp; some kind a Qlisp group policy statement that should
be included in all Qlisp papers containing experimental results.
-dan
∂11-Mar-89 1705 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Need: Qlisp Policy Statement
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Mar 89 17:04:55 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00981; Sat, 11 Mar 89 17:04:54 PST
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 17:04:54 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903120104.AA00981@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: JMC@SAIL, CLT@SAIL, RPG@SAIL, weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
arg@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, roach@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Need: Qlisp Policy Statement
Sorry. I sent the last message TO: instead of cc:, and not to qlisp,
because I think the policy should be formulated privately.
∂11-Mar-89 1712 dash@Portia.stanford.edu re: Commonsense Reasoning
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Mar 89 17:12:37 PST
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA23514; Sat, 11 Mar 89 17:09:40 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1989 17:09:35 PST
From: Dave Ash <dash@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Commonsense Reasoning
In-Reply-To: Your message of 11 Mar 89 1617 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.605668175.dash@Portia.stanford.edu>
> How long have you been at Stanford?
I am in my second year here at Stanford.
> What have you studied?
My background at the undergraduate level was strong in Math but not strong
in CS: therefore I have primarily been concerned with picking up the back-
ground I need for the Comp. I have taken the introductory AI course (224).
> What mathematical logic have you studied?
I took a course in mathematical logic at the fourth year/intro grad level as
an undergrad.
> How do you stand with the comps?
I do still have the Applications Comp to pass this spring, but I do not
anticipate a problem.
> What faculty if any have you worked with?
I have not really been involved in research as yet, but I hope to be soon.
That's one reason why I'm contacting you at this time.
> Have you had a Research Assistantship and will you want one?
I have been supported by TAships (courses: 140 and 157) thus far this year.
I would be interested in an RAship.
Hope this answers your questions...if you'd like to know more before Monday,
don't hesitate to send e-mail.
-Dave
∂11-Mar-89 1818 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: Thomas Sowell (was Re: Discrimination)
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Mar 89 18:18:10 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Sat, 11 Mar 89 18:15:40 PST
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 18:15:40 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Thomas Sowell (was Re: Discrimination)
In-Reply-To: Your message of 11 Mar 89 1757 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.605672139.siegman@>
I'll look -- but the newsprint flows thru pretty fast in our place.
∂11-Mar-89 1840 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Need: Qlisp Policy Statement
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Mar 89 18:38:25 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01176; Sat, 11 Mar 89 18:38:28 PST
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 18:38:28 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903120238.AA01176@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL, CLT@SAIL, RPG@SAIL, weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
arg@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, roach@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Need: Qlisp Policy Statement
Some of the problems in defining Serial-Time are:
There may be slow downs in the basic lisp itself to accomodate
futures, dynamic stacks, parallel allocation of memory, etc. Some of
these slowdowns are not noticeable, and some would be irrelevant under
another architecture. For instance, with tag-checking hardware,
futures might not cost very much in terms of time, as Joe pointed out.
On the Alliant, the processors, when in complex mode, run about 5%
slower than in serial (CE) mode. The processors do not even run at
identical speeds in complex mode, thus making the maximum Ideal speed-up
(the way I measure it) roughly 7.6.
Personally, I think that the most consistent way to define serial-time
is by timing a program which uses no parallelism constructs whatsoever,
in CE mode. But this definition also has certain drawbacks, such as
having to explain the 7.6 upper bound.
Some of you probably consider all of this a non-issue, as we are researching
the language itself. Well, you might be right, but I've still got the
problem of defining "serial-time".
-dan
∂11-Mar-89 1923 hhughes@Portia.stanford.edu `Help
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Mar 89 19:22:54 PST
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA29303; Sat, 11 Mar 89 19:19:48 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 19:19:48 PDT
From: Mohamad Ali <hhughes@Portia.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8903120319.AA29303@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: `Help
I hate to bother you, but I was wondering what the syntax
is for posting messages on su.market.
Thanks,
Mohamad.
∂11-Mar-89 1932 hhughes@Portia.stanford.edu re: `Help
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Mar 89 19:32:12 PST
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA29549; Sat, 11 Mar 89 19:29:07 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 19:29:07 PDT
From: Mohamad Ali <hhughes@Portia.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8903120329.AA29549@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, hhughes@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: re: `Help
thanks for the info.
Mohamad.
$
∂12-Mar-89 0650 CLT Formal reasoning budget
I will do a computation on Monday.
Students are cheap, so I expect it will be
no problem.
∂12-Mar-89 0800 JMC
Michaelson
∂12-Mar-89 1044 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU [searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu (John R. Searle): Re: an invitation]
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Mar 89 10:44:34 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA04210; Sun, 12 Mar 89 10:42:24 PST
Date: Sun 12 Mar 89 10:42:23-PST
From: Reid Hoffman <HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu (John R. Searle): Re: an invitation]
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <605731343.0.HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Well, I would greatly prefer a debate with you, but if his schedule only
dictates first half of April, then I am sort of stuck.
I will ask about May and early June
reid
---------------
Return-Path: <searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu>
Received: from cogsci.berkeley.edu by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA03961; Sun, 12 Mar 89 10:24:23 PST
Received: by cogsci.berkeley.edu (5.61/1.29)
id AA00360; Sun, 12 Mar 89 10:24:34 -0800
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 89 10:24:34 -0800
>From: searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu (John R. Searle)
Message-Id: <8903121824.AA00360@cogsci.berkeley.edu>
To: HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU, searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: an invitation
When does John McC leave exactly. i am extremely busy in the second half
of April, so the 6th is much the best day for me. mayber if he cant make
it we could turn it inot a discussion with ,e.g. Brian Smith, or Rumelhart
.What do you think?
-------
-------
∂12-Mar-89 1100 JMC
Statement for Daily
∂12-Mar-89 1400 S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: secession and new admissions policy
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Mar 89 14:00:45 PST
Date: Sun 12 Mar 89 13:56:34-PST
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: secession and new admissions policy
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9tCHB@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12477507643.65.S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
answer: 6250
reason: obvious :)
Alex
-------
∂12-Mar-89 1423 S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU re: secession and new admissions policy
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Mar 89 14:23:39 PST
Date: Sun 12 Mar 89 14:19:30-PST
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: secession and new admissions policy
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <MtxUF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12477511818.65.S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Actually, that sounds plausible too. It's slightly more subtle than 3250
(which is the "essentially different" number) so for example if you assume
that they want to pick out a student who has good ESTIMATING heuristics,
then heuristic 1 will yield "3 zeros" and then it makes sense to pick
the middle number...
Alex
-------
∂12-Mar-89 2146 VAL re: meeting about Soviet visitors
[In reply to message rcvd 12-Mar-89 20:43-PT.]
March 21 is ok.
∂12-Mar-89 2146 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
RELATING DEFAULT AND AUTOEPISTEMIC LOGICS
Wiktor Marek and Miroslaw Truszczynski
University of Kentucky
Monday, March 13, 3:15pm
MJH 301
We introduce a classification of nonmonotonic context-dependent reasonings
according to the way context is used in derivations. A reasoning is symmetric
if context is used to derive both positive and negative information. A reasoning
is asymmetric if context is applied to derive negative information only.
In the talk we concentrate on symmetric and asymmetric reasonings in default
and autoepistemic logics. They give rise to several classes of objects:
weak extensions and extensions in default logic, and expansions and robust
expansions in autoepistemic logic. Our results establish correspondence between
weak extensions and expansions (both notions are related to symmetric
reasonings) and extensions and robust expansions (these notions are related
to asymmetric reasonings). We also find an exact character of the
correspondence between notions based on the parsimony principle: minimal sets
closed under defaults and stable sets with minimal objective parts.
This multilevel correspondence between default and autoepistemic logics
pinpoints the exact character of the equivalence of their expressive powers.
∂12-Mar-89 2235 op@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Sowell
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Mar 89 22:35:19 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA14979; Sun, 12 Mar 89 22:33:14 -0800
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1989 22:33:12 PST
From: Oren Patashnik <op@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Re: Sowell
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.605773992.op@polya.stanford.edu>
Tony Siegman posted a bboard comment complaining about Thomas Sowell,
and in asking him (Tony) about some rec.humor.funny stuff I included
the paragraph below, which he suggested I forward to you (I think
I've mentioned some of this to you before):
> I agree with your conclusions completely. I read an article of his
> during the Rose Bird controversy that was intellectually dishonest at
> best, and contained out-and-out lies at worst. I was really pissed.
> Also, his intellectually-dishonest streak made a complete ass of him
> during the Bork hearings. He came on to testify for Bork, but he,
> evidently, hadn't been following the hearings very closely---he said
> something that contradicted earlier evidence from the hearings, and
> when Arlen Specter (the lone Republican on the Judiciary Committee who
> ultimately voted against Bork) questioned him about the discrepancy,
> instead of simply saying "Oh, I'm not familiar with such and such",
> he tried to fake his way around it. He failed, and in so doing I
> think he got Specter pretty outraged. . .
--Oren
∂13-Mar-89 0552 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM the li sequence
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Mar 89 05:52:42 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 365399; Mon 13-Mar-89 08:46:00 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 84146; Mon 13-Mar-89 05:42:14 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 05:33 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: the li sequence
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "igor@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"hen@bu-cs.bu.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "ilan@score.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890313133313.7.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
The li function, which approximately counts the primes < x, is
x
/ ====
[ 1 \ n!
li(x) := | ----- dt ~ x > ---------- ,
] ln(t) / n + 1
/ ==== ln(x)
0 n >= 0
where the asymptotic series comes from integrating by parts. Together with
==== n
\ ln (x)
li(x) = gamma + > ------ + ln(ln(x)) ,
/ n n!
====
n >= 1
this gives a plausible way to compute gamma := Euler's constant ~~ .5772156649 .
Prime(x) ~ the inverse of li(x), which, by reversion of the asymptotic, is
2 3 2
1 - ll + 1 ll - 3 ll + 3 2 ll - 11 ll + 24 ll - 21
x / ( - + -------- + -------------- - ---------------------------
l 2 3 4
l l 2 l
4 3 2
6 ll - 50 ll + 177 ll - 324 ll + 263
+ ---------------------------------------
5
6 l
5 4 3 2
12 ll - 137 ll + 690 ll - 1974 ll + 3278 ll - 2571
- ------------------------------------------------------ + . . .) ,
6
12 l
where l := ln(x) and ll := ln(ln(x)), and the triangular array of coefficients
(C239) GENMATRIX(LAMBDA([N,K],GEN(K,N)),5,6);
[ - 1 1 0 0 0 0 ]
[ ]
[ 1 - 3 3 0 0 0 ]
[ ]
(D239) [ - 2 11 - 24 21 0 0 ]
[ ]
[ 6 - 50 177 - 324 263 0 ]
[ ]
[ - 24 274 - 1380 3948 - 6556 5142 ]
is given by
(C240) GEN(K,N);
k - 1
====
n - k + 1 (n - 1)! \ n + 1
(D240) (- 1) ------------ > [ ] foo .
(n - k + 1)! / k - i i
====
i = 0
n
As usual, [ ] := Stirling_S1(N,K). This leaves one mystery: What is foo??
k
(C241) MAKELIST(FOO[I],I,0,9);
1 61 343 197227 7221449 32804158687 9564287095583
(D241) [1, 0, 1, - -, --, - ---, ------, - --------, -----------, - --------------]
4 72 864 259200 15552000 45722880000 19203609600000
Yes DEK, I see the 61 ! Not this time, I bet.
∂13-Mar-89 0641 underdog@Portia.stanford.edu bboard regular and bboard su-etc
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Mar 89 06:41:11 PST
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA14176; Mon, 13 Mar 89 06:38:09 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 06:38:09 PDT
From: Dwight Joe <underdog@Portia.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8903131438.AA14176@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: bboard regular and bboard su-etc
I'm a bit perplexed as to what the official rules for posting on
bboard regular and/or bboard su-etc are.
Could you clarify them or direct me to a official rules list (or
something to that effect)?
A few people have given me conflicting information, and I'd
like to know, once and for all, what's the RULES????
(One person, in particular, (I suspect) has been leading me astray
on purpose.)
Thanks,
fellow bboarder
∂13-Mar-89 0642 underdog@Portia.stanford.edu oh, also
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Mar 89 06:42:48 PST
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA14197; Mon, 13 Mar 89 06:39:45 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 06:39:45 PDT
From: Dwight Joe <underdog@Portia.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8903131439.AA14197@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: oh, also
are the rules for bboard regular and bboard su-etc different or the same?
∂13-Mar-89 0659 op@polya.Stanford.EDU re: Sowell
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Mar 89 06:59:43 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA21872; Mon, 13 Mar 89 06:57:37 -0800
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1989 6:57:36 PST
From: Oren Patashnik <op@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: siegman@sierra
Subject: re: Sowell
In-Reply-To: Your message of 12 Mar 89 2244 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.605804256.op@polya.stanford.edu>
> I have found many of Sowell's remarks to be quite well-taken. Both
> of you found something Sowell said sufficiently bad to discount him
> completely. Do you find anything good in him at all?
I don't doubt that he has some good ideas. But when a reader believes
a writer is intellectually dishonest---without independent
confirmation, I just don't trust anything he says---then that reader
has little use for the writer.
> I saw one of his articles on the California judges that persuaded me
> to take his advice and vote against all but two or three.
I suspect that that article was the one that got me upset (the one you
left in the MJH lounge). At the time, I was fairly familiar with the
issue; that article contained enough distortions and twistings (at
least some of which were clearly intentional) that it completely
overshadowed, at least for me, the valid points he made.
> Oren, was it your opinion that there were arguments in favor of Rose
> Bird that ought to have convinced a conservative?
My main point of contention was not so much with the specific
judgments of the voters (although I didn't agree with their decisions
to remove) as with the voters having the ability to remove judges for
any old reason in the first place. One of the main purposes of an
independent judiciary is its protection of the rights of the minority
against the whims of the majority. California's system makes it more
likely, for instance, that Japanese-internment-like situations will
occur (in the present atmosphere, Iranians are potential targets,
albeit, as things are now, for less sweeping measures). I'm not
claiming that some of the arguments about Rose Bird and the death
penalty weren't valid (although I am against both the death penalty,
and the death penalty as an issue---I think the death penalty makes
its proponents feel good but has a negligible affect on crime---hence
it is a "phony" issue). However, I don't think the valid death
penalty arguments came anywhere close to being sufficient to warrant
removal. I think I could convince some open-minded conservatives of
my views (after a deeper discussion than my brief comments here), and
I think I could fail to convince other open-minded conservatives
(because of differences on fundamental assumptions). But my big beef
with Sowell's article was its intellectual dishonesty; furthermore, as
I recall I, it failed to make the arguments that I think would have
convinced the open-minded conservatives of his side.
--Oren
∂13-Mar-89 0753 MPS
Good Morning
What paper are you talking about that you want me to TeX
for Berstam? Thanks
∂13-Mar-89 0846 @Score.Stanford.EDU:wheaton@Athena.Stanford.EDU Scheduling a Meeting
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Mar 89 08:46:28 PST
Received: from Athena.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Mon 13 Mar 89 08:43:39-PST
Received: by Athena.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA08670; Mon, 13 Mar 89 08:42:56 -0800
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 08:42:56 -0800
From: George S Wheaton <wheaton@Athena.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903131642.AA08670@Athena.Stanford.EDU>
To: tcr@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Cc: Facil@score.stanford.edu, Rindfleisch@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: TC Rindfleisch's message of Fri, 10 Mar 1989 16:18:08 PST <CMM.0.88.605578688.tcr@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Scheduling a Meeting
All those times are OK with me except Monday 3/27 between 11:30 & 2:00.
gw
∂13-Mar-89 0916 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: Sowell
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Mar 89 09:16:03 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Mon, 13 Mar 89 09:13:20 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 09:13:20 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Sowell
In-Reply-To: Your message of 12 Mar 89 2244 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.605812397.siegman@>
I can't bring specific topics to mind, but in general I had found
Sowell's commentaries to be interesting and reflective of a different
viewpoint than many other commentators. I still think his CIV comments
(which I'm forwarding to you) were petty and ill-informed; but maybe he
just had a bad day.
∂13-Mar-89 1000 JMC
philp about saturday Sowell column
∂13-Mar-89 1000 JMC
Telegram to Moscow
∂13-Mar-89 1130 weening@polya.Stanford.EDU
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Mar 89 11:30:00 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA03632; Mon, 13 Mar 89 11:27:52 -0800
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 11:27:52 -0800
From: Joe Weening <weening@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903131927.AA03632@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Path: polya!shelby!russell!john
From: john@russell.STANFORD.EDU (John Perry)
Newsgroups: su.issues.sclc
Subject: PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL STANDARD
Message-ID: <7838@russell.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 2 Mar 89 23:35:30 GMT
Sender: john@russell.Stanford.EDU (John Perry)
Reply-To: john@russell.stanford.edu ()
Distribution: su
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Lines: 81
Dear users of su.issues.sclc,
Here is the current version of the proposed interpretations and
applications of the fundamental standard, on which we desire comments.
The whole process of adopting any such interpretations takes several
months, during which the committee will actually pay attention to what
is said. I will send two subsequent message, one a series of
questions and answers, expressing most of my current relevant opinions
on the matter, the next some topics that it would really be helpful to
hear comments on, which is not to say any comment will be
unappreciated.
PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE FUNDAMENTAL STANDARD
The Fundamental Standard now reads:
Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the
University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the
rights of others as is demanded of good citizens. Failure to do this
will be sufficient cause for removal from the University.
[This was written about 1891. Actually, in spite of the last
sentence, penalties for Fundamental Standard violations vary from
official rebukes to permanent expulsion.--JP]
The Student Conduct Legislative Council (SCLC) proposes to leave this
statement unchanged and to follow it with this text:
INTERPRETATIONS AND APPLIATIONS OF THE FUNDAMENTAL STANDARD IN THE
AREA OF DIVERSITY.
1. Stanford is committed to diversity both of ideas and persons.
The members of the Stanford community are bound together by the desire
to participate in the interplay of ideas in the pursuit of truth, and
they differ from each other in many other ways. In this statement,
"personal and cultural diversity" refers to differences in gender,
race, color, sexual orientation, physical abilities, national or
ethnic origin, and religious affiliation, while "intellectual
diversity" refers to difference in beliefs, including political
beliefs.
2. Freedom of speech has long been cherished in our society, and
nowhere does it have greater or more special power than in a
university, where unconventional and heterodox ideas are the very
breath of life. Precisely because Stanford values diversity and
welcomes the many cultures that feed the University's intellectual
life, students must expect to find, and are expected to tolerate,
opinions that they no only disagree with, but may find abhorrent. No
student at Stanford has a right to prevent another from holding a
particular opinion or from expressing it in ways appropriate to
exploring, developing, vigorously promoting and defending it, and thus
entering it into the life of the University, there to flourish or
wither according to its merits.
3. In general, Stanford's commitment to the diversity of ideas
and persons and to the principle of freedom of speech reinforce one
another. But they can come into conflict. All members of the
University have a right to be protected from exposure to conduct that
is intended, or could reasonably be expected, to discourage them from
full participation in the University's life on the bases of personal,
cultural, or intellectual differences. In certain circumstances, some
forms of expression can thus constitute violations of the Fundamental
Standard. The following statements are intended to clarify these
circumstances.
4. PERSONAL ABUSE. Students and other members of the Stanford
community have the right to be free from personal attacks which
involve the use of obscenities, epithets, and other forms of
expression that by accepted community standards degrade, victimize,
stigmatize or pejoratively characterize them on the basis of personal,
cultural, or intellectual diversity.
5. DEFAMATION OF GROUPS. Members of the Stanford community have
the right not to be inescapably and involuntarily exposed to
obscenities, epithets, and other forms of expression that by accepted
community standards stigmatize, victimize, or pejoratively
characterize persons or groups on the basis of personal or cultural
differences.
∂13-Mar-89 1220 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU [Jaap Suermondt <hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu> : cs 323 hw ]
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Mar 89 12:20:41 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA06976; Mon, 13 Mar 89 12:18:31 -0800
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1989 12:18:28 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: [Jaap Suermondt <hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu> : cs 323 hw ]
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.605823508.alex@polya.stanford.edu>
What am I supposed to tell these people???
Alex
---------------
Return-Path: <hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA04839; Mon, 13 Mar 89 11:48:22 -0800
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA16743; Mon, 13 Mar 89 11:49:24 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1989 11:49:23 PST
From: Jaap Suermondt <hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: Alex@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: cs 323 hw
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.605821763.hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Alex,
In the homework due tomorrow, it appears as though the optimal course of
action would be to simply adopt a solution proposed in Ginsberg's book. The
advantage of such an approach would be, that the solution has the desired
properties and that a proof is readily available. Is there a problem with
this? (i.e., do you want us to design our own approach, rather than endorsing
either Shoham's or Lifschitz's approach)?
Making us solve the frame problem seems a somewhat unreasonable homework
assignment, don't you think?
Thanks
J Suermondt
∂13-Mar-89 1225 chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK re: Visit to Edinburgh?
Received: from NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Mar 89 12:21:46 PST
Received: from aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk by NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id aa02571; 13 Mar 89 9:37 GMT
From: Chris Mellish <chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 89 09:36:04 GMT
Message-Id: <10643.8903130936@aipna.ed.ac.uk>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: re: Visit to Edinburgh?
I have booked you accommodation in the Edinburgh
University Staff Club for the nights of the 26th and 27th March.
The address of the Staff Club is 9-15 Chambers Street. The best
way to get there from the airport is to take a taxi. This might
require up to 10 pounds in cash. We will, of course, refund all
your travelling and accommodation expenses. The Staff Club is
about 1 minute's walk from the AI department's building at
80 South Bridge. I have scheduled your seminar to be there at
2pm on Monday 27th.
Thanks for your title. I'll ask my secretary to send you
some maps and information about the department. Could you
send a short abstract to be included in advance publicity
for the seminar? I presume that while you are in
Edinburgh you would like to visit the LFCS group. Shall
I get in contact with them and suggest that you visit
them on Tuesday 28th?
∂13-Mar-89 1341 MPS phone calls
Nat Hentoff, Washington Post and NY Village Voice, would like
to talk to you about censorship on computers, 212-475-3300
Mr. Mischloff would like to talk to you before 3:00, 415-456-2532
∂13-Mar-89 1501 VAL re: Here's my part of the telegram.
[In reply to message rcvd 13-Mar-89 14:27-PT.]
Vladimir Lifschitz plans to arrive on April 3 and leave on April 18. He
suggests the following topics. First: Mathematical models of default
reasoning. Second: Mathematical models of introspection. Third: Reasoning
about action and change.
∂13-Mar-89 1524 MPS High school student
Brian Meux of the San Mateo Union High School District
348-8834, extension 273 would like to talk to you regarding
their Gate Mentorship Program. They have a student who
is very interested in AI and they would like to know if
you would work with and guide this student
∂14-Mar-89 0739 @Score.Stanford.EDU:daniel@mojave.Stanford.EDU Scheduling a Meeting
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Mar 89 07:39:37 PST
Received: from mojave.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 14 Mar 89 07:37:04-PST
Received: by mojave.Stanford.EDU (5.59/inc-1.0)
id AA07921; Tue, 14 Mar 89 07:38:18 PDT
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 07:38:18 PDT
From: daniel@mojave.Stanford.EDU (Daniel Weise)
Message-Id: <8903141538.AA07921@mojave.Stanford.EDU>
To: tcr@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Cc: Facil@score.stanford.edu, Rindfleisch@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: TC Rindfleisch's message of Fri, 10 Mar 1989 16:18:08 PST <CMM.0.88.605578688.tcr@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Scheduling a Meeting
I will be in Ixtapah those dates.
∂14-Mar-89 0908 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:ag@pepper.stanford.edu Reminder about Sequent talk
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Mar 89 09:06:11 PST
Received: from pepper.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09465; Tue, 14 Mar 89 09:06:02 PST
Received: by pepper.stanford.edu (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C)
id AA03525; Tue, 14 Mar 89 09:02:56 PST
Message-Id: <8903141702.AA03525@pepper.stanford.edu>
To: mips@mojave.Stanford.EDU, compilers@mojave.Stanford.EDU,
dsg@pescadero.Stanford.EDU, qlisp@gang-of-four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Reminder about Sequent talk
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 09:02:54 PST
From: ag@pepper.stanford.edu
Just a reminder that Shreekant Thakker will be visiting from Sequent today
and giving a talk in CIS-101 at 1:15pm. -- Anoop.
The Performance of Symmetry Multiprocessor System
------------------------------------------------
Shreekant Thakkar
Sequent Computer Systems
CIS-101, 1:15-2:30pm
Abstract
---------
The Symmetry Series is a bus-based, shared-memory multiprocessor system
which can contain from two to thirty 32-bit microprocessors with a total
performance of around 100 MIPS. Each processor subsystem contains an Intel
80386/80387 microprocessor/floating point unit, optional Weitek 1167
floating point accelerator, and private cache. The system features a 53
Mbyte/sec pipelined system bus, up to 240 Mbytes of main memory, and a
diagnostic and console processor. The cache hardware supports two different
cache coherence policies: write-through and copyback. Symmetry represents
one of the first shared-memory bus-based multiprocessor systems to use both
write-through and copyback protocol with split transaction system bus. The
performance of the two cache coherence policies and the bus has been
measured and is compared here for various benchmarks and applications.
∂14-Mar-89 1155 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU [Jaap Suermondt <hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu> : Re: cs 323 hw ]
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Mar 89 11:55:28 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA02153; Tue, 14 Mar 89 11:53:20 -0800
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1989 11:53:16 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: [Jaap Suermondt <hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu> : Re: cs 323 hw ]
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.605908396.alex@polya.stanford.edu>
Progress...
Alex
---------------
Return-Path: <hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA08942; Mon, 13 Mar 89 20:25:14 -0800
Received: by sumex-aim.stanford.edu (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA02211; Mon, 13 Mar 89 20:26:15 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1989 20:26:14 PST
From: Jaap Suermondt <hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
To: Alex Bronstein <alex@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: cs 323 hw
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 13 Mar 1989 17:40:14 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.605852774.hjs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
I agree that for this assignment, the "thinking" part dominates; after doing
the homework, I no longer feel that it was an unreasonable assignment, since
it gave me much better insight in circumscription and the framing problem.
My concern with grades is a remnant of the pre-medical ratrace; apologies.
Please let Professor McCarthy know that I no longer consider the homework
unreasonable, just slightly intimidating at first.
J Suermondt
∂14-Mar-89 1254 lamport@src.dec.com jokes
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Mar 89 12:54:09 PST
Received: from jumbo.pa.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA05184; Tue, 14 Mar 89 12:52:04 PST
Received: from jumbo.pa.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
for jmc@sail.stanford.edu; id AA05184; Tue, 14 Mar 89 12:52:04 PST
Received: by jumbo.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA05626; Tue, 14 Mar 89 12:51:04 PST
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 12:51:04 PST
From: lamport@src.dec.com (Leslie Lamport)
Message-Id: <8903142051.AA05626@jumbo.pa.dec.com>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: jokes
John,
I was recently reminded of the Stanford joke list fiasco, and of your
championing the cause of freedom of the terminal. I have a suggestion:
Start a file containing only material offensive to Muslims and
followers of other eastern religions, since that seems to be the one
form of free speech that's popular in this country.
Leslie
∂14-Mar-89 1513 MPS phone call
∂14-Mar-89 1455 DAVIS@Score.Stanford.EDU phone call
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Mar 89 14:55:52 PST
Date: Tue 14 Mar 89 14:53:35-PST
From: Thea Davis <DAVIS@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: phone call
To: mps@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12478042308.25.DAVIS@Score.Stanford.EDU>
brian meux call for mc carthy about gate mentorship 348 8834 ext 273
-------
∂14-Mar-89 1834 alex@polya.Stanford.EDU [Irwin E. Welker <welker> : homework ]
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Mar 89 18:34:17 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA19371; Tue, 14 Mar 89 18:32:00 -0800
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1989 18:31:59 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@polya.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: [Irwin E. Welker <welker> : homework ]
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.605932319.alex@polya.stanford.edu>
Prof. McCarthy,
Do you remember talking to this student? He claimed he left his
HW3 on my desk this afternoon, and I did NOT find the homework on my desk
(I found the homework of 2 other students). This could turn unpleasant
since I've had dealings with this student which lead me to question his
honesty...
Alex
---------------
Return-Path: <welker>
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA11916; Tue, 14 Mar 89 16:30:28 -0800
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 89 16:30:28 -0800
From: Irwin E. Welker <welker>
Full-Name: Irwin E. Welker
Message-Id: <8903150030.AA11916@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: alex@polya
Subject: homework
Since I couldn't be in class today, I dropped by your office about 4:10 or 4:15
and put my homework on your desk. Professor McCarthy told me you would most
likely still be coming back from class to your office within a few minutes.
I thought I'd let you know just in case you weren't planning to go back to
your office.
∂14-Mar-89 1938 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU circumscription language : reality check
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Mar 89 19:38:17 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 14 Mar 89 19:35:25 PST
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1989 19:35:24 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: circumscription language : reality check
Cc: alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.605936124.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
After re-reading your papers I think I've found what I was confusing:
which was mainly the NAME of things, and not the intent, which is why I was
still able to follow your circumscription examples, and agree with the
conclusion. (I.e. I didn't see the bug in my understanding earlier.)
Let me check that I have the language right now:
When you say: "circumscribe P while varying Q"
then it's short for: "minimize wff P(x) while varying both P and Q".
Correct?
(In other words, your 2nd notation, wff circumscription, is clearer.)
Alex
∂14-Mar-89 2224 boyer@CLI.COM Arrays in Functional Programming
Received: from CLI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Mar 89 22:24:28 PST
Received: by CLI.COM (4.0/1); Wed, 15 Mar 89 00:19:09 CST
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 00:19:09 CST
From: Robert S. Boyer <boyer@CLI.COM>
Message-Id: <8903150619.AA17634@CLI.COM>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, rww@sail.stanford.edu, rb@lfcs.edinburgh.ac.uk,
ham@cs.utexas.edu
Cc: moore@CLI.COM, wfs@CLI.COM
Subject: Arrays in Functional Programming
Reply-To: boyer@cli.com
The following short, informal note describes what I think is a very
neat idea. It is so simple and obvious that it must have been used
elsewhere. However, if so I wish someone had told me about it long
ago! If you have heard of something like it, please let me know.
Arrays in Functional Programming
Robert S. Boyer, J Strother Moore, William F. Schelter
A common complaint about applicative or functional programming is that
it lacks arrays. Since the array is the basic data structure of the
von Neumann programming model, a large number of programming tasks
that are easy and natural to experienced programmers become difficult
for them to do efficiently in a functional programming language, e.g.
Pure Lisp or SASL. We report an extremely simple technique which
permits us to obtain roughly the equivalent of arrays in a functional
programming language (the language of the theorem-proving system
described in [ACLH]), a close relative of Pure Lisp. The idea we
present below seems obvious, even trivial, and we are mainly surprised
that we have not heard of this technique from others. The bottom line
is that we are able (on a Sun-3), in typical cases, to do random
accesses in 8 microseconds and random alterations in 40 microseconds
on arrays of arbitrary length, but with a purely applicative,
non-destructive semantics, that of the classic a-list.
By way of introduction, let us present the idea of a-lists, a notion
well known to the Lisp programmer, a concept used in the Lisp 1.5
interpreter. Consider for example:
((1 . 5) (2 . 3) (4 . 22) (3 . g))
This is an a-list with 4 members, and it may be thought of as a
representation of the function, which maps 1 to 5, 2 to 3, etc. The
operation ASSOC is typically used to look up the value of an element
in such a list. THE problem is that ASSOC takes time linear in the
length of the a-list: it starts at the beginning and scans the list
until it finds a pair whose first element is the desired key.
To conclude the introduction, we note that one traditional way to
``non-destructively update'' an a-list is to ``cons a new pair on the
front''. For example, if we wished to update the a-list above so that
4 now has value 29, we might cons the pair (4 . 29) on to the front of
the a-list, thus obtaining the new a-list.
((4 . 29) (1 . 5) (2 . 3) (4 . 22) (3 . g))
Of course, we could have searched down to where 4 occurred previously
and put the new pair at that spot, nondestructively copying as we go;
but the ``consing onto the front'' strategy has the advantage that it
takes unit time -- the cost of two conses.
The question is, can we come up with a way to implement in a
functional programming language a pair of ``access'' and ``change''
operations that execute in a *VERY* small, constant amount of time (a
few microseconds)?
The idea of this note is that a programmer who wishes to code in our
functional programming environment as though he has arrays is invited
to use two new functions, AREF and ASET, which as far as the formal
semantics are concerned operate just like the ASSOC and cons-updating
functions above. However, ``in the background'' we, the implementors,
keep associated with certain a-lists certain arrays and hash tables
which make access very fast. The programmer starts matters by calling
a special function, COMPRESS, about which more later. It suffices for
the moment to think of COMPRESS as semantically just the identity
function. But it has three effects. First, it causes the system to
create a hash link from the object, X, passed to COMPRESS to a pair
<A, H> consisting of a new array A and a new hash-table H. Into the
array are stored those elements of X that are pairs whose first
element is a non-negative integer less than some initially declared
range (specified by the programmer with the call to COMPRESS). Into H
are stored those elements of X which do not qualify for entry in A.
Thus if we call
(COMPRESS '((1 . a) (3 . b) (2 . 6) (4000000 . 10)) 12)
then we shall associate (via a global EQ hash table) a link from the
(passed in) list structure:
'((1 . a) (3 . b) (2 . 6) (4000000 . 10))
to a pair consisting of an array A of length 12:
<f,a,6,b,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f>
and a hash table H:
4000000 -> 10
Whenever we wish to access, with AREF (which, recall is just ASSOC
semantically) we first check to see whether the alist being accessed
is associated with an array/hash pair, by looking up the alist in a
hash table. If it is, we access the array if the other argument to
AREF is within bounds. If it is not in bounds, we look into the hash
table.
But what about updates? Whenever ASET is called on an a-list which
has an array/hash pair associated with it, we ``steal'' the
associated array/hash pair, do the update destructively into the
stolen array/hash pair, remove the association between the a-list
being updated to the array/hash pair, and create a new association
between the newly created list structure and the old array/hash pair.
Thus if we call (ASET X 3 10), where X is the value returned by
COMPRESS above, the result returned will be
'((3 . 10) (1 . a) (3 . b) (2 . 6) (4000000 . 10))
However, the array above will be destructively changed to be
<f,a,6,10,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f>
If the programmer subsequently does AREFs on the old alist, the
computation will be as slow as a normal ASSOC, but AREFS to the new
a-list will take a very small amount of time because they can be done
using the stolen array and hash table.
In order avoid hashing altogether in the typical cases of ordinary
repeated array references to the same array or two on integers of
``reasonable'' size, we ``cache'' the two most recently referenced
alists (and their associated arrays) in global variables, thus
avoiding the hashing that AREF and ASET require in general to find the
array/hash that is associated with a given alist.
In the best, and typical case, running on a Sun-3 in AKCL, the time
for a AREF is 8 microseconds and the time for an ASET is 40
microseconds. The 8 microseconds includes a full check - that the key
is a non-negative integer and that it is less than the length of the
corresponding array, in addition to the array reference itself. The
40 microseconds is mostly taken up with the 2 conses required.
Drawbacks. The major drawback to this scenario is that a large number
of ASETs may cause the a-list to grow. (This has always been a
problem with the cons-onto-the-front sort of a-list updating.)
However, a secondary aspect of the function COMPRESS is that it
actually eliminates irrelevant pairs. In the best case (the one in
which all the elements fit in the associated array), the time cost of
a COMPRESS operation is linear in the length of the associated array,
regardless of how many ASETs have been called to form the a-list. In
the worst case, we will have to scan the entire array and, of course,
the associated hash table. Thus the programmer is advised to all
COMPRESS every once in a while.
A second major drawback due to the fact that in the underlying Common
Lisp, which we use as an implementation langauge, hash tables do not
release their <key,value> pairs even when the keys are inaccessible
except via maphash. As a result, the programming is obliged to
``flush'' his arrays if he wants the array/hash storage kept in the
background to go away. We provide a FLUSH-HASH function whose formal
semantics is that of the identity function just for this purpose.
[ACLH] Robert S. Boyer and J Strother Moore, ``A Computational Logic
Handbook'', Academic Press, 1988.
∂15-Mar-89 0107 VAL "Solovki Power"
It was very good. It'll be shown again today (Wednesday) at 1:30 in
Kabuki Cinemas, 1881 Post.
∂15-Mar-89 1152 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
RAMIFICATION AND THE YALE SHOOTING PROBLEM
Matt Ginsberg
Stanford University
Monday, March 20, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Most existing solutions to the Yale shooting problem suffer from
the difficulty that they cannot deal with "ramifications," where
the value of some fluent depends on the value taken by another.
In this talk, we present a simple idea, combining some work of
Lifschitz and of Baker, that addresses this difficulty. Of course,
other problems still remain -- qualification, dealing with domains
about which we have only partial information, and so on. We describe
briefly the role we expect our work to play when these more difficult
problems are solved as well.
∂15-Mar-89 1202 VAL visas
The consulate wants Styopin to confirm that the dates are ok. Pat included this
in the telegram to Styopin.
∂15-Mar-89 1216 @WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM:Greenwald@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM yet faster factorials
Received: from WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM ([128.81.57.24]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Mar 89 12:13:33 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 244282; Wed 15-Mar-89 11:53:01 PST
Received: from STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 84371; Wed 15-Mar-89 11:21:17 PST
Received: from NOEL-COWARD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via INTERNET with SMTP id 557637; 15 Mar 89 14:24:47 EST
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 14:30 EST
From: Michael Greenwald <Greenwald@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: yet faster factorials
To: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, numerics@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM,
"rivin@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19890220121135.7.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19890315193019.6.GREENWALD@NOEL-COWARD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 04:11 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Spurred by a suggestion from Igor, I compared the speed of reconstructing
a factorial from primes (INTEGER-FACTORIAL) against recursively folding
together the odd and even factors of the product (si:factorial). The
former seems an improvement (assuming the primes are already cached),
but, of course, nowhere near the analogous hack for binomials, where
it obviates division(s).
Deja vu:
; Date: Tue, 16 Jul 85 11:50 PDT
; From: Marc Le Brun <MLB@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
; Subject: [DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA: Lisp times:]
; To: Greenwald@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA
; cc: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, dlw@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA,
; SGR@SCRC-PEGASUS.ARPA, Cassels@TENEX.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
; rlb@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA, metering@SCRC-PEGASUS.ARPA,
; cjt@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, tk@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
;
; Date: Tue, 16 Jul 85 09:28 EDT
; From: Michael Greenwald <Greenwald@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
;
; Date: Tue, 16 Jul 85 02:47 PDT
; From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
;
; Then in *my* environment, *with* interrupts, using
;
; (DEFUN FACTORIAL (N &OPTIONAL (BEG 1) (STEP 1))
; (SELECTQ N
; (0 1)
; (1 BEG)
; (T (IF (AND (EVENP BEG) (EVENP STEP))
; (ASH (FACTORIAL N (ASH BEG -1) (ASH STEP -1)) N)
; (LET ((FLOOR-N-2 (ASH N -1)))
; (* (FACTORIAL (- N FLOOR-N-2) BEG (* 2 STEP))
; (FACTORIAL FLOOR-N-2 (+ BEG STEP) (* 2 STEP))))))))
;
; (= (how-long (fact 1000)) (how-long (factorial 1000)))
; 0.573001 seconds
; 0.552251 seconds
; T
;
; (To me) slightly more interestingly,
; (= (how-long (fact 10000)) (how-long (factorial 10000)))
; 52.589718 seconds
; 38.03298 seconds
; T
;
; Once we're trying various definitions for factorial, how about using the
; prime factorization of N factorial?
;
; On my machine, w/o interrupts, using microsecond-clock
; DCP Gosper Fact-prime
; (fact 1000.) 646 msecs 619 510
; (fact 8000.) 68,976 msecs 57,984 49,840
; (fact 10000.) 99,750 msecs 94,215 81,577
;
; OK, but RWG's note is NOT really about factorial algorithms. Please note the
; discrepancies between your numbers and Gosper's. This is not due to an error,
; this is due to the fact that he has got prototype bignum FFT operations working
; (which fact he is being excessively modest about). I have no such compunctions,
; I hope this is interesting enough not to get lost in the shuffle!
;
;
; ;;; Syntax: Common-Lisp
;
; ;; How many times will PRIME be in the prime-factorization of NUMBER
; ;; factorial?
; (DEFUN TOTAL-NUMBER-OF-PRIME-FACTORS (NUMBER PRIME)
; (LET ((FACTORS (FLOOR NUMBER PRIME)))
; (IF (ZEROP FACTORS)
; 0
; (+ FACTORS (TOTAL-NUMBER-OF-PRIME-FACTORS FACTORS PRIME)))))
;
; (DEFUN FACTORIAL-PRIME (N) ...)
;
Anyway, the source to this stuff is in
s:>Greenwald>random>algor>factorial.lisp (which, although covered with
four years of rust, still compiles on an I machine). It, in turn,
depends on s:>Greenwald>random>algor>primes.lisp having been compiled,
first.
It experiments with 4 different approaches.
All of them reserve the power of two multiplication for a final shift.
The first uses the cached product of the first N primes. Iterate down
the primes, from the highest prime that is a factor of factorial, doing:
(let ((prime-power (total-number-of-roots n prime)))
(unless (= prime-power current-power) ; this was already included
(setq product
(* product
(expt (product-of-first-n-primes prime)
(- prime-power current-power))))))
The second ignores the cached primes, and recursively folds the
multiplication over the prime factorization. I.e.
(labels ((collect-prime-factors (prime-index width)
(if (= width 1)
(let ((prime (get-nth-prime prime-index)))
(expt prime (total-number-of-roots n prime)))
(multiple-value-bind (width1 excess)
(floor width 2)
(* (collect-prime-factors prime-index width1)
(collect-prime-factors (+ prime-index width1)
(+ width1 excess)))))))
(ash (collect-prime-factors 2 highest-prime-index) power-of-two))
The third does the same recursive folding, but does the multiplication
in a contorted way - it holds on to FACTOR1 POWER1 PRODUCT1 FACTOR2
POWER2 PRODUCT2 and tries to do as many fixnum or small-bignum
multiplies as possible, and only combines stuff at the very end.
The fourth does another variant on this.
Both of these factorials presume "subquadratic" multiply, and strive for
few big*big, vs many small*big. INTEGER-FACTORIAL doesn't actually
power up individual primes, but instead records them in an array
according to which bits are on in the exponent. Then the whole
product is computed in one addition chain at the end. I also added a
hack to stop at arg/2, after which all the primes occur just once,
thereafter using a separate prime-interval-product. But this didn't
seem to buy much.
∂15-Mar-89 1426 CLT house seeker
Brian Wundell (325-4813) would like to come at 9:30 Saturday.
Since you have arranged for someone at 9 could you also stay
for him?
∂15-Mar-89 1513 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Meeting with Alliant
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Mar 89 15:13:21 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05277; Wed, 15 Mar 89 15:13:08 PST
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 89 15:13:08 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903152313.AA05277@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, clt@sail, rpg@sail
Cc: jlz@lucid.com
Subject: Meeting with Alliant
I've set up the meeting with Edward Hartline from Alliant for next
Wednesday, March 22, at 10:00 a.m.
∂15-Mar-89 2044 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU my circumscription misunderstanding: Post-Mortem analysis
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Mar 89 20:44:01 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 15 Mar 89 20:41:06 PST
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1989 20:41:05 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Cc: alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU
Subject: my circumscription misunderstanding: Post-Mortem analysis
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.606026465.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
As you can tell from my previous msg to you, I have fixed my
mistake about circumscription which was to equal:
- circumscribe P while varying Q and R
with
- circumscribe P,Q,R simultaneously.
I was however, very very puzzled by the fact that I did not
"bug-check" earlier: i.e. why is it that during all your lectures, what you
were saying kept making sense to me even though I had this false definition
in mind.
Therefore this afternoon I went back to the library and watched
the videotapes for all your (4) circumscription lectures, trying to see when
I SHOULD have bug-checked. And the unfortunate answer is I think: never.
In detail: your first introduced circumscription on one predicate (isblock)
then you mentioned how this could be [vector-] extended to many predicates
(but then we still have { minimized predicates } = { variable predicates }.
Then you went through several examples. When you got to the "Generalized"
version (i.e. { variable predicates } > { minimized predicates }) you
went into the Birds/Flying/Feathered example, with
Circumscription(AB1,..,ABn ; Flies, Feathered)
but the unfortunate coincidence (unless of course I'm still mistaken) is that
in order to minimize ABs, the VARIABLE predicates Flies and Feathered ALSO
end up being minimized...
As an additional unfortunate coincidence, when you discuss what happens if
you also allow Bird to be variable, the conclusion is that its extension will
be empty, i.e. it's also minimized!
Hence my misunderstanding only bug-checked when I read the problem in our
final exam which minimizes AB while varying LARGE, but leads to maximizing
LARGE in order to minimize AB, and hence puzzled me, and hence the puzzled
question you got from me Tuesday evening.
CONCLUSIONS:
- I hope I'm the only one who got similarly confused. Re-reading the papers
(yours and Lifschitz) more carefully corrected my confusion. Since the final
is open-book, maybe similar experiences will happen to the others.
- There might be something "deep" about the fact that in non-contrived examples
the variable predicates also end up being minimized (at least in the case
of abnormality-theories), although I am generalizing from a small set.
Alex
∂15-Mar-89 2113 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU two things
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Mar 89 21:13:20 PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA02966; Wed, 15 Mar 89 21:11:04 PST
Date: Wed 15 Mar 89 21:11:03-PST
From: Reid Hoffman <HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: two things
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <606028264.0.HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
(1) As I never heard your travel dates, I wasn't able to arrange anything
with Searle, and Searle says "next fall" as he will be gone most of the
quarter. Is this ok?
(2) Would you like to try for Dreyfus in the Spring, or would you prefer
to wait, or would you -- perhaps, I haven't asked him -- like to talk
about Connectionism?
thanks
reid
-------
∂16-Mar-89 1014 MPS phone
Prof. Hilton - 322-2026 - would like you to call him
∂16-Mar-89 1245 JMC
Get book back from Della Rowley.
∂16-Mar-89 1315 jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Meeting
Received: from glacier.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Mar 89 13:15:30 PST
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu; Thu, 16 Mar 89 13:14:28 PST
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 13:14:28 PST
From: John B. Nagle <jbn@glacier.stanford.edu>
Subject: Meeting
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
You wanted to get together to talk about "superclothing" (?).
Next Monday is good for me.
John Nagle
∂16-Mar-89 1320 MPS book
Don't forget the book, The Computer Age
∂16-Mar-89 1449 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU Catch/Throw and Processes
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Mar 89 14:49:09 PST
Received: from Sesame.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09416; Thu, 16 Mar 89 14:48:43 PST
Received: by sesame.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C)
id AA07589; Thu, 16 Mar 89 14:46:44 PST
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 14:46:44 PST
From: mkatz@sesame.stanford.edu (Morris Katz)
Message-Id: <8903162246.AA07589@sesame.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@gang-of-four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Catch/Throw and Processes
Can anyone explain to me how QLisp handles the interaction between Catch/Throw
and processes? In particular, if a processes throws to a catch point defined
external to that process, what happens? Are any other processes effected, or
only the one which performs the throw? Is there a written discussion of these
issues anywhere? Thanks for the info!
Morry Katz
katz@polya.stanford.edu
∂16-Mar-89 1731 VAL CBCL
I found Baran's paper in the Public Interest. Your exposition of his ideas
isn't quite accurate, but I think it's close enough. So I suggest that we
do without the disclaimer footnote that you proposed.
∂16-Mar-89 2028 brad@looking.uucp Re: freedom of speech
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Mar 89 20:28:16 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa13426; 16 Mar 89 21:35 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Thu, 16 Mar 89 21:32:14 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA14462; 16 Mar 89 21:33:27 EST (Thu)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 21:33:26 EST
Subject: Re: freedom of speech
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Mar 16, 89 at 1728
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8903162133.AA14462@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
Excellent to hear. Perhaps time time is good for a declaration of
the reverse -- a rededication to the principles laid down in your
constitution, with a particular emphasis on freedom to read, speak
and communicate regardless of the medium.
In some way, I feel a small amount of pride in the removal of that
document. The banning of my work and the subsequent backlash, led by
you, played a part in raising awareness of the dangers of vague speech
bans with "good intentions."
Of course, that may have only been a small part, but a worthwhile one.
In many ways, the SCLC interpretation came out at the wrong time.
If you agree with this conclusion, let me know, bucause it is an
interesting lesson to those who are trying to ban me elsewhere.
Their bans work against their own interests.
∂16-Mar-89 2051 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU news
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Mar 89 20:51:47 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 16 Mar 89 20:48:51 PST
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1989 20:48:50 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: news
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.606113330.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
I just came to the office, and found your new final printout. I
have photocopied it and replaced the old copies in the 323 box.
As for the mishap with the TV people missing out a chunk of
your lecture, I went to check the video tonight, and indeed, it's missing
a piece of your discussion of the final. (Or in other words, the TV man
who came to you and said they missed "20 minutes" underestimated their
mistake significantly, since you started talking of the final around 3:20pm.)
Anyway, more precisely, the tape starts when you add "to reason" to the
text of problem 6. I don't remember when that happened in the sequence
of questions. In any case, I noticed that several people who normally
watch the class on tape came to class today, so I guess the damage will be
minimal...
Alex
∂17-Mar-89 0754 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU re: CSD Retreat
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 07:53:55 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA19357; Fri, 17 Mar 89 07:51:44 -0800
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1989 7:51:42 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: CSD Retreat
In-Reply-To: Your message of 16 Mar 89 1623 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.606153102.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
May 5-6-7.
∂17-Mar-89 0852 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU CSD Faculty Retreat
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 08:52:23 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA20900; Fri, 17 Mar 89 08:49:38 -0800
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1989 8:49:35 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: cab@sail, binford@coyote, rwf@sail, m@sierra, rpg@sail,
sgi!baskett@decwrl.dec.com, ag@pepper, halpern@ibm.com,
horowitz@amadeus, lantz@score, dcl@sail, zm@sail, jmc@sail, ejm@sierra,
pereyra@score, pratt@polya.Stanford.EDU, reid@glacier,
rindfleisch@sumex-aim, der@psych, stan@sri.com, als@sail, shoham@score,
vardi@ibm, com@polya.Stanford.EDU
Cc: chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: CSD Faculty Retreat
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.606156575.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Today is the day that I will give the folks at Chaminade in Santa Cruz the
final head count for the annual CSD faculty retreat. If you want to be
assured space, you will need to let me know. Please be aware that if you
reserve space, we will be bound by contract to pay for that space, whether or
not you attend, so please be sure if you make a reservation that you plan to
attend.
You can call me (725-1430) for detaiils if you like.
∂17-Mar-89 0924 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU re: CSD Faculty Retreat
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 09:24:18 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA22589; Fri, 17 Mar 89 09:22:08 -0800
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1989 9:22:06 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: CSD Faculty Retreat
In-Reply-To: Your message of 17 Mar 89 0919 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.606158526.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
I will include you, John. Please advise whether you will require single or
double accommodations. If single accommodations are required you will be
responsible for paying the difference between the single and double room.
The department will pay for a double room for you. If a single, how will you
pay the $65.00 per day difference?
∂17-Mar-89 1016 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU re: CSD Faculty Retreat
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 10:16:17 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA26282; Fri, 17 Mar 89 10:14:06 -0800
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1989 10:14:03 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: CSD Faculty Retreat
In-Reply-To: Your message of 17 Mar 89 0936 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.606161643.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Thanks, John. I'll reserve a single for you.
∂17-Mar-89 1045 looking!brad@watmath.waterloo.edu Re: freedom of expression
Received: from watmath.waterloo.edu ([129.97.128.1]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 10:44:53 PST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Fri, 17 Mar 89 13:36:05 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA01114; 17 Mar 89 13:36:11 EST (Fri)
To: watmath!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 13:36:09 EST
Subject: Re: freedom of expression
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Mar 17, 89 at 0932
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8903171336.AA01114@looking.UUCP>
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
It is still under ban at the University of Waterloo, but it is, and will
always be, an issue on the net.
The lesson here is that those who wish to fight racism must take care
that they not step on freedom of speech to do it. The lesson is that
Jonothan Richmond, in his quest to get something banned, caused such
a backlash that other anti-racist measures such as this SCLC got reversed.
The lesson is that book banning doesn't work -- it hurts the cause more
than helps it, and this is a practical example of how. Rushdie is another
very clear one.
∂17-Mar-89 1049 VAL re: visas
[In reply to message rcvd 17-Mar-89 10:29-PT.]
I didn't know that you plan to leave early. I would suggest that Pat
call the Consulate right away and give them this date, and maybe pick up
your visa at the Consulate when it's ready, instead of having them mail it
to us.
∂17-Mar-89 1104 CLT $
Has Nafeh come through? Thats 13.25 interest we'll be paying
∂17-Mar-89 1129 brad@looking.uucp Re: freedom of expression
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 11:29:43 PST
Received: from [129.97.128.1] by RELAY.CS.NET id aa25751; 17 Mar 89 13:41 EST
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath; Fri, 17 Mar 89 13:37:29 EST
Received: by looking.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA01128; 17 Mar 89 13:37:42 EST (Fri)
To: John McCarthy <SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 13:37:40 EST
Subject: Re: freedom of expression
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy" of Mar 17, 89 at 0932
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Message-Id: <8903171337.AA01128@looking.UUCP>
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.uucp>
Oh yes, my address, if you don't have it, is:
Brad Templeton
Looking Glass Software
124 King St. N.
Waterloo, ON
N2J 2X8
And the fax number is:
519 886 9495
I hear there was a piece in the "New Scientist." Somebody reported
reading about Stanford and RHF down in Australia.
∂17-Mar-89 1231 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com Qlisp documentation
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 12:31:25 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03095; Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:31:02 PST
Received: from bhopal ([192.9.200.13]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA01090g; Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:23:27 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA18377g; Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:25:39 PST
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:25:39 PST
From: Ron Goldman <arg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8903172025.AA18377@bhopal>
To: qlisp@go4.stanford.edu
Subject: Qlisp documentation
In response to Morry's question it seems appropriate to remind people that
there is some online Qlisp documentation in the file /qlisp/qlisp.doc on
gang-of-four. As new features are added to Qlisp the file is updated. Any
suggestions on how to improve the documentation is welcome.
Ron
∂17-Mar-89 1233 anderson@polya.Stanford.EDU Appointment with prospective Ph.D. Student
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 12:33:36 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA04834; Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:31:25 -0800
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Appointment with prospective Ph.D. Student
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:31:24 -0800
Message-Id: <4832.606169884@polya.Stanford.EDU>
From: anderson@polya.Stanford.EDU
Prof. McCarthy,
One of our prospective Ph.D. students is interested in meeting with you
during his visit to Stanford.
Here's the relevant information:
Name : John Greiner
Undergrad university : Rice University
Dates he will be at Stanford:
Afternoon Thurday March 23rd.
All day Friday March 24th.
Please let me know if you will be available any of these times to
meet with John.
Thank you,
Jennifer Anderson
∂17-Mar-89 1242 tom@polya.Stanford.EDU 4wire circuit to your new home
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 12:42:43 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA05408; Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:40:28 -0800
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:40:28 -0800
From: Tom Dienstbier <tom@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903172040.AA05408@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: clt@sail
Cc: jmc@sail
Subject: 4wire circuit to your new home
Carolyn, I ran into John in the parking lot and he was asking if I knew
anything on the moving of the circuit. I don't,, when is the actual
due date? I expect to see some people here at Jacks tuning that circuit
but I haven't as yet. Keep me posted so I can be on the look out.
thanks
tom
∂17-Mar-89 1312 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Qlisp documentation
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 13:12:03 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03402; Fri, 17 Mar 89 13:11:17 PST
Message-Id: <8903172111.AA03402@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Qlisp documentation
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:25:39 -0800.
<8903172025.AA18377@bhopal>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 13:11:14 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
I've started work on a Qlisp reference manual (based heavily on the
qlisp.doc file), but I haven't yet written up the section on catch and
throw. Suggestions for what is important to include in this manual
are also welcome.
Joe
∂17-Mar-89 1343 MPS Meeting with Professor McCarthy
∂17-Mar-89 1224 levy@polya.Stanford.EDU Meeting with Professor McCarthy
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 12:24:29 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA04192; Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:22:10 -0800
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1989 12:22:08 PST
From: "Alon Y. Levy" <levy@polya.stanford.edu>
To: MPS@Sail
Subject: Meeting with Professor McCarthy
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.606169328.levy@polya.stanford.edu>
I couldn't find Professor McCarthy's e-mail address, so if you could
please forward this to him.
Thank you, Alon
Professor McCarthy,
I have a perspective student coming for a visit on monday and
tuesday (the 20 & 21st) and she would like to meet with you.
She already has quite a few meetings on tuesday, so if you could
meet her some time on monday that would be the best.
Her name is Virginia Peck.
Thank you,
Alon Levy
∂17-Mar-89 1358 MPS
I hope you remembered that I was going to court this coming
Monday. I wish to take the whole day off because I would
like to sit in the court room in the morning to see how things
are done. Also, I do not think I will be worth much, as I
am really nervous aaout having to go. If I am heard early in
the pm, I will return to work. Otherwise, I will see you on
Tuesday.
I certainly hope this is alright with you.
Pat
∂17-Mar-89 1408 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Qlisp documentation
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 14:08:12 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03402; Fri, 17 Mar 89 13:11:17 PST
Message-Id: <8903172111.AA03402@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Qlisp documentation
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:25:39 -0800.
<8903172025.AA18377@bhopal>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 13:11:14 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
I've started work on a Qlisp reference manual (based heavily on the
qlisp.doc file), but I haven't yet written up the section on catch and
throw. Suggestions for what is important to include in this manual
are also welcome.
Joe
∂17-Mar-89 1436 anderson@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: Appointment with prospective Ph.D. Student
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 14:36:05 PST
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) id AA13920; Fri, 17 Mar 89 14:33:54 -0800
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Appointment with prospective Ph.D. Student
In-Reply-To: Your message of 17 Mar 89 14:19:00 -0800.
<1sArV7@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 14:33:53 -0800
Message-Id: <13918.606177233@polya.Stanford.EDU>
From: anderson@polya.Stanford.EDU
2:00pm Thursday it is. I've set up an appointment for John with
Carolyn Talcott for 10:30am Friday. I'll put a copy of
his statement of purpose in your mailbox.
Thank you,
Jennifer Anderson
P.S. I don't know off-hand if he is related to Russ.
∂17-Mar-89 1627 levy@polya.Stanford.EDU re: Meeting with Professor McCarthy
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 89 16:27:23 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA21455; Fri, 17 Mar 89 16:25:08 -0800
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1989 16:25:06 PST
From: "Alon Y. Levy" <levy@polya.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Meeting with Professor McCarthy
In-Reply-To: Your message of 17 Mar 89 1423 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.606183906.levy@polya.stanford.edu>
Monday at 2:00 is fine. I'll bring her statement of purpose to you
shortly.
Thank you,
Alon Levy
∂17-Mar-89 1739 VAL Reminder: Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
RAMIFICATION AND THE YALE SHOOTING PROBLEM
Matt Ginsberg
Stanford University
Monday, March 20, 3:15pm
MJH 301
Most existing solutions to the Yale shooting problem suffer from
the difficulty that they cannot deal with "ramifications," where
the value of some fluent depends on the value taken by another.
In this talk, we present a simple idea, combining some work of
Lifschitz and of Baker, that addresses this difficulty. Of course,
other problems still remain -- qualification, dealing with domains
about which we have only partial information, and so on. We describe
briefly the role we expect our work to play when these more difficult
problems are solved as well.
∂18-Mar-89 2147 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Hertz fellow
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Mar 89 21:47:20 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04941; Sat, 18 Mar 89 21:47:20 PST
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 89 21:47:20 PST
From: Ramin Zabih <rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903190547.AA04941@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Hertz fellow
His name is Larry Hostetler. He graduated from Johns Hopkins (I think
Lowell mentioned that he was young, and went through Hopkins in 3.5
years).
Ramin
∂19-Mar-89 1650 GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: possible whiteball
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Mar 89 16:50:08 PST
Date: Sun 19 Mar 89 16:49:57-PST
From: Mike Genesereth <GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: possible whiteball
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <MBtMv@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12479374213.13.GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John,
What about Galbiati?
mrg
-------
∂19-Mar-89 1939 rpg@lucid.com Prof ITO
Received: from lucid.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Mar 89 19:39:23 PST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA04440g; Sun, 19 Mar 89 19:34:01 PST
Received: by challenger id AA19406g; Sun, 19 Mar 89 19:29:21 PST
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 89 19:29:21 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8903200329.AA19406@challenger>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, jsw@sail.stanford.edu,
pehoushek@gang-of-four.stanford.edu, arg@lucid.com,
clt@sail.stanford.edu, katz@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: Prof ITO
He is supposed to be visiting tomorrow. I have not been able to exchange
information with him well enough to know for sure when he will be here.
He wants to talk to the folks at Stanford who need financial support
for the Workshop, but I don't know when.
I asked him to come to Lucid at 9:30am, but I received no
confirmation.
Stay tuned.
-rpg-
∂19-Mar-89 2058 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU Homework # 3: done - epsilon
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Mar 89 20:58:30 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Sun, 19 Mar 89 20:57:36 PST
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1989 20:57:35 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Cc: alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU, alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Homework # 3: done - epsilon
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.606373055.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
After a Saturday night which few teenagers would envy, I'm done
with grading all homework # 3 except ONE. It's giving me trouble because
it has a brand new idea which to me seems quite wrong, but the person
giving it seems quite convinced it works, and from previous interactions
with her, I know she is intellectually honest. So I'm in a quandary.
Would you take a look at her homework? It's only 2 pages, and
well written.
I could bring it to you this evening if you'd like (I'm at the
office in MJH now) or tomorrow morning at your office. Let me know.
Alex
∂19-Mar-89 2106 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: Homework # 3: done - epsilon
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Mar 89 21:06:19 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Sun, 19 Mar 89 21:05:26 PST
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1989 21:05:25 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: re: Homework # 3: done - epsilon
In-Reply-To: Your message of 19 Mar 89 2104 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.606373525.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Will do. On the original which you will get, please try to ignore my
red writings on a first reading...
Alex
∂19-Mar-89 2153 mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU Prof ITO
Received: from sesame.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Mar 89 21:53:24 PST
Received: by sesame.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C)
id AA10624; Sun, 19 Mar 89 21:52:53 PST
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 89 21:52:53 PST
From: mkatz@sesame.stanford.edu (Morris Katz)
Message-Id: <8903200552.AA10624@sesame.Stanford.EDU>
To: rpg@lucid.com
Cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, jsw@sail.stanford.edu,
pehoushek@gang-of-four.stanford.edu, arg@lucid.com,
clt@sail.stanford.edu, katz@polya.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Richard P. Gabriel's message of Sun, 19 Mar 89 19:29:21 PST <8903200329.AA19406@challenger>
Subject: Prof ITO
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 89 19:29:21 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
He is supposed to be visiting tomorrow. I have not been able to exchange
information with him well enough to know for sure when he will be here.
He wants to talk to the folks at Stanford who need financial support
for the Workshop, but I don't know when.
I asked him to come to Lucid at 9:30am, but I received no
confirmation.
Stay tuned.
-rpg-
His message to me said he was meeting with you at 10:30. I will call Lucid at
about 9:30 to see what the plans are as I won't be able to get my email. If
you find out the time of the meeting, would you please leave a message on my
answering machine (415)321-1719.
Morry Katz
katz@polya.stanford.edu
∂19-Mar-89 2308 T.TEDEBEAR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: bill bennett
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Mar 89 23:08:14 PST
Date: Sun 19 Mar 89 23:06:10-PST
From: the little lisper <T.TEDEBEAR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: bill bennett
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <QBtxL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12479442701.11.T.TEDEBEAR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
perhaps it's a tribal yell. but i hardly think it's inappropriate.
bill bennett has shown an appalling lack of sensitivity, knowledge, or
understanding in this matter. as a person who had problems obtaining
EQUAL, not EQUIVALENT education, i have reasons to be interested in this
matter. and, MR. professor, i resent your implication that i am a
"reader of Mother Jones" simply because i dislike bill bennett.
bill bennett meshes perfectly with the reagan administration's lack of
interest in pursuing civil rights of minorities and handicapped people.
i assume from your response, that you are male, caucasian, physically
able, and well-to-do. this is obviously not a fair statement, but it
is just as fair as yours.
-------
∂19-Mar-89 2311 T.TEDEBEAR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU whoops.
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Mar 89 23:10:58 PST
Date: Sun 19 Mar 89 23:08:55-PST
From: the little lisper <T.TEDEBEAR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: whoops.
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12479443203.11.T.TEDEBEAR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
that message was intended for bboard, but reply directed it to you.
i apologize.
-------
∂20-Mar-89 0800 JMC
cate
∂20-Mar-89 0829 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Serial Time
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 08:29:26 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08938; Mon, 20 Mar 89 08:31:11 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 08:31:11 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903201631.AA08938@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Serial Time
I propose that something like the following description of Serial Time
be used for Qlisp papers, especially when using the Alliant. To
preserve the integrity of the Qlisp group, we should use the same,
"nearly consistent", definitions of Serial and Parallel time, for
official presentations.
For the purposes of measuring speed-up and efficiency, the serial
program should have zero parallelism overhead. The serial program
should not use locks, qlets, qlambdas, or futures, nor should the
underlying Lisp primitives. Textually, the serial program is not
necessarily identical to the parallel program; however, a Serial
Macros package should be made available which translates parallel
code to zero-overhead, serial code, when compiled.
The *compiler-optimizations* variable should be:
((SPEED . 3) (SAFETY . 3) (SPACE . 0) (COMPILATION-SPEED . 0))
A Key Point:
The Serial Program is then run in Parallel Mode on the Alliant, using
qtime or %qtime. GC time should not be included in this running time.
Only 1 processor works on the program, while the rest just idle.
Averaging a number of trials is probably a wise thing to do.
The reason for timing the serial program in complex mode, on the
Alliant, is that the processors run roughly 5% slower than in CE
(serial) mode, due paging/cache/bus vagaries. For techreports that
include experimental results, a formal definition of both serial and
parallel time should always be included, as part of an appendix.
Obviously, the above description does not account for contortions
which are sometimes required to parallelize a piece of serial code.
In this case, two distinct serial times may be necessary.
-dan
P.S. It is plausible Spawning Overhead and Idle Time (or fair
estimates) be readily available from the %qtime function. In the
qlisp' system, I distinguish Spawning, Swapping, and Idle overhead.
∂20-Mar-89 1114 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU I borrowed a book from you.
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 11:14:29 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09925; Mon, 20 Mar 89 11:16:23 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 11:16:23 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903201916.AA09925@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Cc: pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: I borrowed a book from you.
"The Anatomy of Dependence" by Takeo Doi,
I will return it to you or to Pat.
-Dan
∂20-Mar-89 1206 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Re: education, ignorance and intelligence
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 12:06:40 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:05:45 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:05:45 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: education, ignorance and intelligence
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <5Btmr@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
Yi, yi, yi! You really do want to make your life exciting!
Do you really believe one can measure a difference in "intelligence"
at the 111 versus 100 level between children in two nations as
culturally different as the U.S. and Japan? I don't. (I'm not
attacking IQ tests generically; I just don't believe they're accurate
enough, or the concept of IQ is precise enough, that this difference
is likely to be meaningful.)
Are you taking up Shockley's sword, or something? (I hope not).
∂20-Mar-89 1223 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Alliant meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 12:22:56 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00358; Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:24:57 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:24:57 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903202024.AA00358@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, clt@sail, rpg@sail
Subject: Alliant meeting
Before we meet with Ed Hartline, the Alliant district manager (this
Wednesday, 10:00 a.m., MJH 352), I think we should decide what we
would like the outcome to be, and how to negotiate for it.
The current situation: we signed a loan agreement for four CE
processors and one CE processor cache (CPC), for the period 1 Apr 88
to 31 Mar 89. Alliant agreed to do this as part of the original deal
for the machine. My recollection is that they weren't actually
delivered until late April or May, so we should certainly be able to
get the end of the loan extended by a month.
What we would obviously like is to have the loan extended as long as
possible. Alliant has no reason to do this, except goodwill, as far
as I can see. So we need to come up with a reason for them to extend
the loan, or find some compromise.
When we talked on the phone, Hartline asked me if we would be inter-
ested in buying the equipment; I asked him to suggest a price, and he
proposed $150K. I told thim this was way too high, and reminded him
that we bought the whole system for a little over $200K. We didn't
proceed beyond this.
One other fact that may influence the outcome: a few months ago, we
asked DARPA for funds for an additional 32MB memory board. I didn't
think we had much of a chance, but apparently they have given the
go-ahead on this. I found this out from Hartline, when he mentioned
hearing that our request and several similar ones had been approved by
someone at ISI that deals with these things. If this is really true,
then would such a purchase induce Alliant to extend our processor
loan? Is it even legitimate to suggest a connection between the two
events?
∂20-Mar-89 1231 rpg@lucid.com ITO
Received: from lucid.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 12:31:21 PST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA04891g; Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:26:00 PST
Received: by challenger id AA20179g; Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:21:19 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:21:19 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <rpg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8903202021.AA20179@challenger>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu, jsw@sail.stanford.edu,
pehoushek@gang-of-four.stanford.edu, arg@lucid.com, carol@lucid.com,
katz@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: ITO
He would like the people going to Japan to meet him in Carolyn
Talcott's office today at 4pm.
-rpg-
∂20-Mar-89 1243 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:arg@lucid.com Serial Time
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 12:43:39 PST
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00437; Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:45:24 PST
Received: from bhopal ([192.9.200.13]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA04933g; Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:37:57 PST
Received: by bhopal id AA27861g; Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:40:11 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:40:11 PST
From: Ron Goldman <arg@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8903202040.AA27861@bhopal>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Dan Pehoushek's message of Mon, 20 Mar 89 08:31:11 PST <8903201631.AA08938@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Serial Time
Minor point: there's no real reason that the compiler safety setting be 3 when
compiling code for serial or parallel timings. What is important is that the
same setting be used for producing both the serial and parallel code that is
to be timed.
Ron
∂20-Mar-89 1305 VAL trip to El Paso
I'm flying to El Paso Tuesday night for the rest of the week, to give a seminar
and to do some work with Gelfond.
∂20-Mar-89 1353 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Export restrictions?
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 13:53:20 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01003; Mon, 20 Mar 89 13:55:23 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 13:55:23 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903202155.AA01003@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Export restrictions?
I've received a request for information from someone in Korea who read
my simulator paper. He wants to see the code, which I'll be glad to
send him unless this might cause a problem with technology export
restrictions. Should I worry about this?
∂20-Mar-89 1443 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU Serial Time
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 14:43:45 PST
Received: from Sesame.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01522; Mon, 20 Mar 89 14:45:02 PST
Received: by sesame.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C)
id AA11509; Mon, 20 Mar 89 14:43:06 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 14:43:06 PST
From: mkatz@sesame.stanford.edu (Morris Katz)
Message-Id: <8903202243.AA11509@sesame.Stanford.EDU>
To: pehoushe@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Cc: qlisp@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: Dan Pehoushek's message of Mon, 20 Mar 89 08:31:11 PST <8903201631.AA08938@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Serial Time
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 08:31:11 PST
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
The reason for timing the serial program in complex mode, on the
Alliant, is that the processors run roughly 5% slower than in CE
(serial) mode, due paging/cache/bus vagaries. For techreports that
include experimental results, a formal definition of both serial and
parallel time should always be included, as part of an appendix.
Unlike much of the parallel computing community, I find such definitions of
speedup completely unacceptable. Subtracting out the overhead of performing a
parallel computation is misleading and dishonest. One of the costs of parallel
execution is that the processors often run slower than they would if you were
building a uniprocessor using the same technology. This is a real overhead of
parallel processing which should be recognized and included in timings. What
we really want to know is whether we can make multiprocessing "competitive"
with the "best" uniprocessors. Explaining how the values were calculated in an
appendix does not make the proposed form of measurement significantly less
problematic in my opinion. I would only be satisfied with a comparison to the
best the machine can do in serial mode. If one wants to include both forms of
serial performance, this would be OK as well.
Morry Katz
katz@polya.stanford.edu
∂20-Mar-89 1554 tom@polya.Stanford.EDU your home system
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 15:53:55 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA20884; Mon, 20 Mar 89 15:53:50 -0800
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 15:53:50 -0800
From: Tom Dienstbier <tom@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903202353.AA20884@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, clt@sail
Cc: tom@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: your home system
It doesn't look like I will make it today..I would like to make an appointment
at 10:00 tomorrow. Would that work out ok for you?
tom
∂20-Mar-89 1602 shashank@coyote.stanford.edu Re: ignorance, American education, Japan
Received: from coyote.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 16:02:48 PST
Received: by coyote.stanford.edu; Mon, 20 Mar 89 16:07:27 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 16:07:27 PST
From: Shashank Shekhar <shashank@coyote.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: ignorance, American education, Japan
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <sAusS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
Prof. McCarthy,
Do you know the source of the first theory that goes like " The number
of students scoring above 700 has gone down in between 65 and 85 'cause
intelligent people reproduce less ........". I am intereseted in reading
it. Thanks, (and to mention that though it may seem obvious when
the birth rate in industrialized nations and others are compared it
would be a trend worth noticing on solid grounds !!)
-shashank
∂20-Mar-89 1735 hayes@arisia.xerox.com Frameproblem workshop
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 17:35:41 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA01027; Mon, 20 Mar 89 17:34:30 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 17:34:30 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8903210134.AA01027@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Frameproblem workshop
John, greetings. The man who is organising a workshop in Florida this
May asked me to try to get in touch with you. His name is Ken Ford.
He would like to invite you to attend it, or at least make sure that
the invitation did get through to you. It looks like it might be more
fun than a straightforward interaction with Ford might suggest.
Several of the old CASBS group will be there ( Pylyshyn and Dennett
and me, at least ) and quite a few smart younger people, and the place
is just fantastic: a hotel on a pure white beach 30 miles long, warm
azure ocean ( well, Bay ) and wonderful fishing ( or fish-eating
) sailing, sailboarding, etc.. ( I just spent a few days there after
giving a seminar. ) He has booked a 40-foot wooden sailboat for an
evening cruise for everyone.
Anyway, I thought you might like to get another perspective on the
thing. Ford is rather lacking in selfconfidence and is scared that
his invites have somehow failed to get to you, and that you would be
terribly peeved if you thought he hadnt tried to invite you, with you
being the father of the Frame Problem ( which has now enlarged itself
to being something like the generalised AI problem, but never mind )
and all. He would just love it if you decided to come.
Pat
∂20-Mar-89 2020 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: education, ignorance and intelligence
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 20:20:09 PST
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Mon, 20 Mar 89 20:19:11 PST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 89 20:19:11 PST
From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: education, ignorance and intelligence
In-Reply-To: Your message of 20 Mar 89 1432 PST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.606457150.siegman@>
No, I didn't send it to su-etc, because it was more of just a private
comment. I don't have any objection to sending to it su-etc, other than
wanting to keep my messages there somewhat limited in number. For
simplicity and efficiency, how about your saying, in a msg from you to
su-etc:
A. E. Siegman has sent me a private message (reproduced here by
permission) saying:
>
> (whatever portion you wish to quote)
and then adding whatever reply you like.
∂21-Mar-89 0310 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM joint posting (or kneecapping?)
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Mar 89 03:10:41 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 367666; Tue 21-Mar-89 06:05:09 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 84769; Tue 21-Mar-89 03:01:45 PST
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 03:01 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: joint posting (or kneecapping?)
To: logophiles@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "dan@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19890321110131.1.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Easy proof of nonlogophilia: I've never read Language
on Vacation. But in case this isn't in there:
Change my last letter from S to T
And reduce my syllables to 2 from 3.
A symmetrically trivial math problem that at least
namedrops 3n+1:
2n+1 is the easiest way to map the integers onto the nonmultiples
of 2. What is a really succinct map onto the nonmultiples of 3?
∂21-Mar-89 0612 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM tanfabulence
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Mar 89 06:12:42 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 367681; Tue 21-Mar-89 09:08:32 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 84781; Tue 21-Mar-89 06:05:12 PST
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 06:05 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: tanfabulence
To: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "dan@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19890321110131.1.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19890321140501.6.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
tan(a-b) tan(b-c) tan(c-a) = tan(a-b) + tan(b-c) + tan(c-a) .
∂21-Mar-89 0731 MPS Can a PhD admittee see Prof Mccarthy?
∂20-Mar-89 1808 phillips@polya.Stanford.EDU Can a PhD admittee see Prof Mccarthy?
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Mar 89 18:07:59 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA29807; Mon, 20 Mar 89 18:07:56 -0800
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1989 18:07:54 PST
From: "Steven J. Phillips" <phillips@polya.stanford.edu>
To: mps@sail
Subject: Can a PhD admittee see Prof Mccarthy?
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.606449274.phillips@polya.stanford.edu>
Alan Hu is a PhD admittee interested in AI and Algorithms. Can he meet with
Prof McCarthy, say on Friday at 3:00, or early Thursday morning?
-- Steven.
∂21-Mar-89 1008 hayes@arisia.xerox.com Frameproblem workshop
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Mar 89 10:08:35 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA14391; Tue, 21 Mar 89 10:07:21 PST
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 10:07:21 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8903211807.AA14391@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 20 Mar 89 1744 PST <sB#V2@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Frameproblem workshop
OK, its a threeday invitation-only workshop which will have about 40
people at it, May 11-13 ( just before the Toronto conference ), in
Pensecola. Not all invitees are expected to give papers ( Im not, for
example ) but they are expected to take part in some of the
discussions. If you were to go you would probably be embarrassed by
the way that some of the locals treat you like a demigod, be warned.
It looks like it is going to have a heavily philosophical orientation
( apparently, they tried to invite Fodor but he declined when he heard
I was going... ) but there will be enough AI people there to enable
some sensible conversations to be had.
Ford ( an interesting character, an ex-SEAL who talks like he has no
selfconfidence, something wrong somewhere ) wants to put together a
book afterwards based on the meeeting, so he may pester one to produce
something in writing - for example, I have provisionally agreed
to draft an introduction - but I imagine that in your case he would
be sufficiently pleased just to have you come along.
I will snailmail a piece of paper about it, and you can contact Ford
directly if you are interested. (kford@UWF.bitnet)
Pat
zPS Matt, Vladimir and Yoav are listed as participants, so you can probably
get other perspectives from them.
∂21-Mar-89 1049 GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: elaboration
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Mar 89 10:49:14 PST
Date: Tue 21 Mar 89 10:48:50-PST
From: Mike Genesereth <GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: elaboration
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <5BuAA@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12479832761.40.GENESERETH@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John,
Avoiding the process is no way to fix it. There is no us vs them mentality
here. People have changed other peoples' minds about things. IN this case,
your argumnets did not sway the others on the committee. By not
participating you are ensuring that there is no chance that your views will
prevail over opposition.
I for one am not satisfied with all of the choices, though by and large agree
with them. I also have a set of recommendations on how t imrove things
next year. What I am not sure about in your comment is whether you
are unhappy because the majority disgarees with your views on young applicants
or whether there is something wrong with the process, say, for example,m the
participation of non-faculty in making the decisions.
As for Galbiati, the question is whether you want to whiteball him or
this other guy.
mrg
-------
∂21-Mar-89 1329 tom@polya.Stanford.EDU home system
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Mar 89 13:29:21 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA19474; Tue, 21 Mar 89 13:29:04 -0800
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 13:29:04 -0800
From: Tom Dienstbier <tom@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903212129.AA19474@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: clt@sail
Cc: jmc@sail
Subject: home system
I have called the phone folks at 11:00 this morning and now just called again.
They are all backed up. I do expect to get someone to call back soon.
tom
∂21-Mar-89 1341 VAL
If you need to contact me this week, please call Gelfond at (915) 581-9452.
∂21-Mar-89 1343 jucovics@polya.Stanford.EDU CS323 exam question
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Mar 89 13:43:15 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA20426; Tue, 21 Mar 89 13:43:10 -0800
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1989 13:43:07 PST
From: Russ Jucovics <jucovics@polya.stanford.edu>
Reply-To: jucovics@polya.stanford.edu
To: mccarthy@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: CS323 exam question
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.606519787.jucovics@polya.stanford.edu>
In problem 6, do you want the "asking for objects" included in part a
or part b? (There is no mention of "asking" in part a and if it refers
to the elaborations, I don't think "includes" should have an 's' on
the end.)
∂21-Mar-89 1717 SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Performance Appraisal
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Mar 89 17:17:52 PST
Date: Tue 21 Mar 89 17:17:29-PST
From: Yvette Sloan <SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Performance Appraisal
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12479903514.25.SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Professor McCarthy--
I need to get the performance appraisals on Pat, Dan Pehoushek, Vladmir
Lifschitz, and Ian Mason as soon as possible. They were due back to me by
March 8. Thanks.
--Yvette
-------
∂22-Mar-89 0320 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM tanfabulence
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Mar 89 03:20:04 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 368012; Wed 22-Mar-89 06:15:29 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 84831; Wed 22-Mar-89 03:11:59 PST
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 03:11 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: tanfabulence
To: MLB@WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM
cc: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dan@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19890321140501.6.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>,
<19890321235040.7.MLB@BLUE.SWW.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19890322111144.9.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 06:05 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
tan(a-b) tan(b-c) tan(c-a) = tan(a-b) + tan(b-c) + tan(c-a) .
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 15:50 PST
From: Marc Le Brun <MLB@WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 06:05 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
tan(a-b) tan(b-c) tan(c-a) = tan(a-b) + tan(b-c) + tan(c-a) .
Cool!
Gene Salamin points out this is a trivial conseqence of
tan(x) + tan(y) + tan(z) - tan(x) tan(y) tan(z)
tan(x+y+z) = ----------------------------------------------- ,
<even stuff>
guaranteeing its antiquity. Next in that sequence would be
TAN(A - B) + TAN(B - C) + TAN(C - D) + TAN(D - A)
-------------------------------------------------
TAN(A - B) TAN(B - C) TAN(C - D) TAN(D - A)
1 1 1 1
= ---------- + ---------- + ---------- + ---------- ,
TAN(A - B) TAN(B - C) TAN(C - D) TAN(D - A)
with elegance decaying exponentially thereafter.
Just the other day I amused myself by writing exp in terms of tan, a stunt I
don't remember ever seeing in the elementary texts.
Probably while I was writing exp(n "angles") in terms of sin(n angles)!
The sin formula can be written
n
====
\
sin > c
/ i
====
i = 1
n n
==== /===\
\ ! !
= limit eps > ! ! (cos(c ) - cot(a - a - eps) sin(c )).
eps->0 / ! ! j j i j
==== j = 1
i = 1
Big deal. I got a sum of n products of n terms, while
exp(sum n things) is just a product of n terms! However, the
formula has n degrees of freedom (gensyms) a[j]. Testing it for
n=3 is where I got the tan result: a, b, and c were the gensyms.
I'll check if n=4 makes prettier tans (and maybe open a salon).
Notice that if the lh sum converges as n -> inf, then so does the
rh product. Problem: for what choice of a[j] does the rh sum
converge? <Same question> optimally? Note that, for the limit
to make sense, the a[j] must differ mod i pi.
∂22-Mar-89 0325 rdz@polya.Stanford.EDU Prolog
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Mar 89 03:25:05 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA18299; Wed, 22 Mar 89 03:25:00 -0800
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 03:25:00 -0800
From: Ramin Zabih <rdz@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903221125.AA18299@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Prolog
I recall that you suggested a good Prolog book once (we're looking for
a recommended source for the AI Qual). What book did you like?
Ramin
∂22-Mar-89 0614 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM Calculation of pi
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Mar 89 06:13:55 PST
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 368024; Wed 22-Mar-89 09:12:19 EST
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 84834; Wed 22-Mar-89 06:08:55 PST
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 06:08 PST
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Calculation of pi
To: "trusted!N107BQ%TAMVM1.BITNET@VM1.NoDak.EDU"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
cc: "rcs@la.tis.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "keiper@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"dan@wri.com"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <8903211855.AA05666@rhmr.com>
Message-ID: <19890322140840.0.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
[cc: Schroeppel because he may have to forward this.
cc: others, since it took a while to type.]
. . .
Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was THEORYNT@YKTVMX
From: Terry Walker <trusted!N107BQ%TAMVM1.BITNET%VM1.NoDak.EDU>
Subject: Calculation of pi
To: Rich Schroeppel <trusted!rcs>
Status: R
This may not be the correct place to post this question, but I'm running
out of options. I hope somebody out there can help me.
What I'm looking for is an algorithm for computing the digits of pi made
What the hell good are digits?
specifically for computers.
You think the record setters are using methods for slide rules?
I know that when pi is computed these days,
there are always 2↑n digits found.
The latest record, Kanada's 201326000, is not a power of 2. Nor was
my 17526200.
There's *got* to be an efficient way
of doing it. Can anyone help me?
- Terry Walker "The Mellow Tigger"
All methods implement F(ast) D(iscrete) F(ourier) T(ransform) multiplication,
and reduce the computation a small number of huge multiplies. The latest
Monthly has an article by Bailey and the Borweins (~ How to Compute a
Billion Digits of Pi), touting their iterated mean. They do their FDFT in
decimal to duck the massive, final radix conversion. (But what the hell
good are digits?)
Kanada sent those guys a letter saying that, even if they were clever,
and didn't take two sqrts to get a 4th root, they'd still be slower than
Salamin's old iterated mean.
Schroeppel was probably first to show that such means cost
K2 n (ln n)↑2 lnln n time units for n bits, while all known
(generalized) hypergeometric series for pi are K3 n (ln n)↑3 lnln n.
Nevertheless, I claim that, for the better series, K3 is so much
smaller than K2 that the crossover is astronomical. The only advantage
I see for the iterated means is the brevity of the top level program.
I believe the best series to be the Chudnovsky's recent
m-1
/===\
! ! [ - (6 n + 1) (6 n + 3) (6 n + 5) 545140134 n + 13591409 ]
! ! [ ]
! ! [ 3 ]
n = 0 [ 0 Max(1, (320160 n) ) ]
[ A(m) 426880 Sqrt(10005) B(m) ]
~~ [ ]
~~ [ ] ,
[ 0 pi B(m) ]
where, after Schroeppel, you take the product by pairwise coalescing
the matrices lg m times, and jettison B(m) with a huge integer divide
of the lr element (shifted 3 m lg 53360 bits) by the ur. (The divide
must be done with multiplies, using Newton's method for reciprocal.)
Of course, to retrieve pi, you must also compute 3 m lg 53360 bits
of Sqrt(10005).
If you find a more efficient way, we'd be interested!
If you're a number theorist, you should calculate the continued fraction
or something. The only purpose of decimalizing would be to compare
your result with Kanada's. If you wish to leave the decimal bandwagon,
you could compare with my 17000000 partial quotients instead.
-- Bill Gosper
∂22-Mar-89 0944 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Japan trip
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Mar 89 09:44:52 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09954; Wed, 22 Mar 89 09:46:40 PST
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 09:46:40 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903221746.AA09954@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, pehoushek@go4, katz@polya
Subject: Japan trip
Based on Monday's discussion with Prof. Ito, it seems that my original
plan for travel to the workshop (arrive Tokyo Sunday afternoon, train
to Sendai on Sunday evening) is not so good, since it will mean
arriving fairly late, missing the opening reception, and having to get
over jet lag in just one night. So I think I'll change the
reservation to leave one day earlier (Friday instead of Saturday).
The question then is, should the first night be spent in Tokyo or in
Sendai?
∂22-Mar-89 0951 mkatz@sesame.Stanford.EDU Japan trip
Received: from sesame.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Mar 89 09:51:19 PST
Received: by sesame.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C)
id AA13531; Wed, 22 Mar 89 09:51:02 PST
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 09:51:02 PST
From: mkatz@sesame.stanford.edu (Morris Katz)
Message-Id: <8903221751.AA13531@sesame.Stanford.EDU>
To: weening@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Cc: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU, pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
katz@polya.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Joe Weening's message of Wed, 22 Mar 89 09:46:40 PST <8903221746.AA09954@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Japan trip
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 09:46:40 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Based on Monday's discussion with Prof. Ito, it seems that my original
plan for travel to the workshop (arrive Tokyo Sunday afternoon, train
to Sendai on Sunday evening) is not so good, since it will mean
arriving fairly late, missing the opening reception, and having to get
over jet lag in just one night. So I think I'll change the
reservation to leave one day earlier (Friday instead of Saturday).
The question then is, should the first night be spent in Tokyo or in
Sendai?
For financial reasons probably Sendai.
Morry Katz
katz@polya.stanford.edu
∂22-Mar-89 1328 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU coordinating cs 323 final/grades & your trip
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Mar 89 13:28:23 PST
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 22 Mar 89 13:27:26 PST
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1989 13:27:23 PST
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Cc: alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU
Subject: coordinating cs 323 final/grades & your trip
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.606605243.alex@Jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy,
Pat told me this morning that you're leaving Saturday for Russia
(w/ some stopovers in Europe). Therefore we need to coordinate final
grading and grade assignment for 323 tightly (with maybe one planned phone
call from you to me on Monday or Tuesday).
The constraint I need to know is the last allowable day for us to turn
the grades in.
In terms of final grading:
- if you grade all Problem 6 on Friday, (or even starting Thursday evening
if you like, since they'll be turned in at Thursday at 5pm) then I can
grade everything else Sunday+Monday (I don't work Saturday).
- if timing is really tight (i.e. grades due Monday say) then I can work
in parallel with you on Friday.
In terms of class grades:
- once final grades are in the database, I can quickly produce a report
showing all students ordered by total points, with whatever weights you
want for Hw1..3+Final. (A suggestion: weights proportional to estimated time
to do the work seem fair to me, something of the kind: 3, 1, 2, 3)
- you can then look at the ranked students and assign letter grades.
- I may add a few personal comments for some students with whom I
interacted, to affect such final grade.
- If you are remote when we do the final grading, then we can probably
do that in one pass over the phone. My number at home is 415-966-1263,
if you are in Europe/Russia, then it should be fairly easy for you
to catch me around 8am at home.
Let me know,
Alex
∂22-Mar-89 1511 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Alliant
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Mar 89 15:11:35 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01216; Wed, 22 Mar 89 15:13:34 PST
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 15:13:34 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903222313.AA01216@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, clt@sail, rpg@sail
Subject: Alliant
My impression from the meeting: Hartline seemed to be saying,
indirectly, that our project is no longer very important to Alliant,
because they are unlikely to get a marketable product out of it. I
think they are in some financial trouble and doing whatever they can
to sell equipment. So I doubt that they will agree to a simple
extension of the loan with nothing in return. But we might be able to
get the boards fairly cheaply.
I would like to first contact Pullen and find out if DARPA is at all
willing to spend money to purchase the boards. If so, I think a
reasonable starting offer would be $45K (9.5K per CE and 7K for the
cache board), which is 1/5 of the list price at the time we originally
bought the system. (The figure that Hartline suggested when we first
talked on the phone was $150K.)
Maybe Pullen will let the person at ISI do the price negotiation for
us, since he's probably better at it and knows what a reasonable
figure would be. We would undoubtedly retain the processors during
the inevitable delay while this happens.
In the long run, I don't think we will win by staying with Alliant.
If the Encore port happens soon enough, and an Encore machine remains
available for us to use, we could switch to that.
∂22-Mar-89 1523 CLT alliant
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I have already sent the following to Pullen
∂22-Mar-89 1355 CLT qlisp
To: pullen@VAX.DARPA.MIL
We met with the Alliant folks today to discuss the processor loan.
The outcome of the meeting was that they aren't willing to
extend the loan for another year and would like us to
purchase the processors -- probably by having ISI negotiate
a deal we/DARPA can't refuse. Meanwhile the local representatives
will do there best to see that the processors don't get taken
away until something definitive happens.
The Alliant reps also wondered about the state of the purchase order for
the additional memory board. They have the impression the purchase
was approved and the ball is in ISI's park. But the folks at ISI
are not returning phone calls. Do you know anything about it?
∂22-Mar-89 1525 CLT ps
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, weening@GO, RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Although I am not anxious for extra work, it has been my experience
that we should stick with one person negotiating with DARPA.
Otherwise it becomes hopelessly confused. So, either I should
continue to do that, or drop out completely.
∂22-Mar-89 1529 CLT ps
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[If this is the second ps ignore it, the mailer said
it failed to deliver one or more messages]
Although I am not anxious for extra work, it has been my experience
that we should stick with one person negotiating with DARPA.
Otherwise it becomes hopelessly confused. So, either I should
continue to do that, or drop out completely.
∂22-Mar-89 1531 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to the address(es) below
because the destination Host Name(s) are Unknown:
weening@GO
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
22-Mar-89 1531 JMC re: ps
To: CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, weening@GO, RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from CLT rcvd 22-Mar-89 15:25-PT.]
OK, negotiate.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂22-Mar-89 1643 tom@polya.Stanford.EDU home system
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Mar 89 16:43:14 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA22484; Wed, 22 Mar 89 16:43:02 -0800
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 16:43:02 -0800
From: Tom Dienstbier <tom@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8903230043.AA22484@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: clt@sail
Cc: jmc@sail
Subject: home system
Not sure that I that I told you earlier,, your terminals and printer are
working fine. We will be out later to clean things up.
tom
∂22-Mar-89 1800 JMC
Cuthbert