COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.NSECP(Evaluating AM)
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
.NSECP(Evaluating AM)

This chapter contains discussions "meta" to AM itsself.

First we'll summarize what precisely AM itself managed to do, what it tried
to do but failed, and what it "should" have tried but never even noticed.
This is a compact summary of all of AM's results -- and its glaring$$
The judgment that AM should have noticed X is based on hindsight. Namely, X
is now a well-known part of current mathematics. For example, real numbers. $
omissions.

Subsection 2 deals with the capabilities and limitations of AM.

.B48

   What are some notable omissions in AM's behavior? Can the user elicit these?

   What concepts can be elicited from AM now? Withing a little tuning/tiny additions?

   What could proabably be done within a couple months of modifications?

   Aside from a total change of domain, what kinds of activities does AM lack
   (e.g., proof capabilitites), what concepts and discoveries are beyyond its design
   limitations.

.E

Next comes an essay about judging the performance of a system like AM.
This is a very hard task, since AM has no "goal". Even using current mathematical
standards, should AM be judged on what it produced, or the quality of the
path which led to those resuls, or the difference between what it started with
and what it finally derived?


Next is an evaluation of the human engineering features (and humans' reactions).
What is the role of the user, both in actuality and ultimately?