Nilsson's book was published in 1980. I suspect that, even at that time, it was considered as having a fairly limited perspective.
As far as PRESS is concerned, it would be possible to import it entirely into SAGE (assuming that PRESS is open source). I believe there is an open implementation of Prolog, apparently fairly efficient, in Lisp. Since SAGE includes a complete Lisp system, it could also include a complete Prolog system. In fact, I doubt that many students do the kind of step-by-step analysis outlined, but take much bigger steps after learning just a little. What they really do, I suspect, is study the examples in the text and study the difference between the example and the problem. This is partly an indictment of how math texts are written, and how math is taught, and how students "learn" math -- realize that they do not want to learn it necessarily. Most of them just want to get credit for taking it. (Not all of course, but lots of them.) On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 2:16:58 PM UTC-7, William wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Ted Kosan <ted....@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Richard wrote: > > > >> I think that calling this Artificial Intelligence is probably unhelpful > and > >> arguably wrong. But maybe you (and maybe the PRESS people) are > >> calling rules + search + evaluation as AI? > > > > I am currently reading a book titled "Principles of Artificial > > Intelligence" by Nils J. Nilsson. Two of its nine chapters are devoted > > specifically to search, and most of the chapters discuss rules. > > According to Nilsson's Wikipedia page, he is one of the founding > > researchers in the field of artificial intelligence. I call my > > step-by-step equation solver Artificial Intelligence because > > everything I have read so far on classic AI indicates that is what it > > is. > > The term "AI", especially in the 1990s, has a bad reputation among > some people, due to having massively over-promised and > under-delivered. It got hyped like crazy by both academics and > companies at certain points in the past. The term can -- in some > cases -- cause some people who have been paying attention to CS > research for a few decades (such as RJF) to cringe. > > For what it is worth, in recent years, there is a field that's been > labeled "machine learning", (which is of course closely related to > statistics, AI, etc.). The term "machine learning" is generally > viewed in a fairly positive light, since the practioners tends to make > more limited claims, and have had some impressive recent successes > (e.g., beating top human Go players, doing automatic language > translation, etc.). > > My position: Ted, whatever you want to call it, many thanks for > sharing your work with us Sage devs. It is really potentially very > valuable to possibly massively enlarge the range of people who might > use Sage. We sage devs have done relatively little in quite some time > to enlarge the potential user base of Sage itself. > > > > > Ted > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "sage-devel" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > William (http://wstein.org) > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
