COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00018 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00003 00002	Mailed to CSD.GENESERETH@SCORE, GENESERETH@SUMEX, MRC@MIT-AI 13:14 23-June-80
C00005 00003	∂23 Jun 1981 1445-PDT	CSD.GREINER	Functors, and friends
C00007 00004	∂ 1 Jul 1981 1005-PDT	CSD.GENESERETH 	things
C00012 00005	∂TO MRG 15:14 22-Jul
C00017 00006	∂TO MRG 13:33 29-Jul
C00019 00007	∂TO MRG 16:39 30-Jul
C00022 00008	∂TO STT (CC MRG) 18:21 31-Jul-81
C00028 00009	∂TO MRG 13:23 28-Oct
C00029 00010	∂29 Oct 1981 1058-PST	Russell Greiner <CSD.GREINER>	Little MercuriVenereal
C00032 00011	∂ 6 Nov 1981 1352-PST	<CSD.GREINER>	"Mycin" and Mycin (NOT Mycin↑ or ...)
C00036 00012	∂21 Feb 1982 2001-PST	<CSD.GREINER at SU-SCORE>	Records (note absense of "er")
C00038 00013	∂TO csd.genesereth@score 18:54 26-Feb
C00039 00014	∂TO csd.genesereth@score 15:19 10-Mar
C00041 00015	∂TO csd.genesereth@score, ars, tom@kestrel 18a9:50 6-Apr
C00042 00016	∂18-Jun-82  1830	<CSD.GREINER at SU-SCORE> 	Quote from MRG
C00043 00017	∂13 Jul 1982 2126-PDT	<CSD.GREINER at SU-SCORE>	Theory Parts
C00048 00018	∂TO csd.genesereth@score 15:09 26-Aug-82
C00049 ENDMK
C⊗;
Mailed to CSD.GENESERETH@SCORE, GENESERETH@SUMEX, MRC@MIT-AI 13:14 23-June-80
Mike:
	Going over my notes from Qual studying, I found a comment that I should
tell you about an article by Tanimob (from U of Wash, @ Seattle) which deals with
min'l cost rep'ns. It appears on page 871 of IJCAI-79. See if you think it's
at all relevant.

	Also, (in case you are reading this from afar,) do you want me to pick up
newspaper, mail or whatever from you abode in your absence. I was going to ask 
before I left last Saturday, but forgot.

	Ciou,
Russ

∂23-Jun-80  1412	CSD.GENESERETH at SU-SCORE 	Re: Unimportant MISC       

Ok I'll look at Tanimob's article.  The problem with the IJCAIs is that
there are too many articles for me to read them all.   Actually I would
appreciate it if you could drop by my house maybe once each week and collect
the pile of newspapers that will appear.  Mail goes inside so that's no
problem.  An thnaks.  It's incredibly hot here (suppsedly 106
degrees).
						-- Mike
-------

∂23 Jun 1981 1445-PDT	CSD.GREINER	Functors, and friends
To: CSD.GENESERETH
cc: CSD.GREINER

I followed up on your suggestion, and meandered over to the Math/CS library,
intent on finding literature about "function generation".  Results:
in a word, blank. (<- or is that Zero Words?)  Anyway, have you any
idea of even the category in which to probe?  Functors, category theory
and various subspecies of combinatorics are all out --  or at least I
couldn't begin to understand what was being said in the various notes,
books and journals.  Under the heading of Functions were hordes of sub-
entries -- none of which seemed pertanent.  I consulted a few "organization
of the (math) world" indices; with equally little success.
	Any other suggestions?  Have you any math friends who owe you
half-a-favor?  I "enclose" below a brief statement of the issue, both
to refresh your memory (as you're probably by now "What is he talking about!"
[in your confusion you probably even got the pronoun correct]) and to forward
to that mystery friend, as well.
------
<<blurb>>

Thanks,
	Russ
-------
∂ 1 Jul 1981 1005-PDT	CSD.GENESERETH 	things
To: csd.greiner

How's the homestead?  Have you found a tenor yet?  I had an idea
the other day that may be worth pursuing.  I've been
wanting to play my lute for a while.  How about if we form a "broken consort"
of 2 recorders, lute, and viola da gamba?  Would Elizabeth join us?

mrg
-------
∂ 1 Jul 1981 1425-PDT	CSD.GREINER	Re: (ANY)things ?
To: CSD.GENESERETH
cc: CSD.GREINER
In-Reply-To: Your message of 1-Jul-81 1005-PDT

I've yet to reside there -- first my bro Seth & friend were there, and now
Elizabeth's bro, Bill, has taken over the residence.  (It seems the last
clause of my "Feel free to stay there WHILE YOU SEARCH FOR A PERMANENT
PLACE" was ignored -- and I haven't the guts to play ogre and throw the
usurper out.  Oh for some assertiveness...)

Well, what's the great new idea?

Elizabeth would probably consent (sp) to join us -- when are we'all meandering
East (E will be at Julliard starting late Sept...).

How was DIA?  And MIT in general? and Arthur?  any other Axxx females?

The ACL thing here is just winding down.  One or two good talks -- a lot
more not-so-good.  Do you know of John Barwise's work, with John Perry?
(They're some local philosphers, attempting to non-Montague-ise semantics.)
Bob Moore seems to really like it -- anyway, I felt there is something,
potentially useful there; and I do want to learn more about his stuff.
Another cute bit of (to me irrelevant)
research dealt with the famous when-are-pronoun-"referents"-resolved problem.
Nice solid work.  The conclusion (that, in most cases, they are determined
at "input" (as opposed to later q/a-ing) time) might have some indirect
value -- perhaps as another idication of the sophisticated economy of
cognitive processing of which people are capable.

One paper had "analogy" in the title (should that have been `"analogy"'?
[actually that last quoted phrase (note I hereby refuse to help resolve
this problem by actually typing its extension) probably should have been 
embedded in yet another set of quotes - yes?]) -- a bit disappointing.
It said nothing about how analogies are formed, or how they "work" --
only about how people actually generate a new context within an
analogizing clause.  Nice, but irrelevant.
Which well summarizes my feel about that conference in general.
You're welcome to borrow my proceedings for a quick look see,
if you've a yen to confirm/deny this perspective.

I yakked with Hofstadter the other day, about analogies.  He had little
to say, beyond the superficial stuff presented in his paper.  Oh well...

In case you didn't know STT is beginning to MRS -- he called me in frustration
the other day - unable to figure out what happened to a few of the functions
mentioned in OUR manual...  Now that DE2 has returned he can probably
begin work in earnest.

Your grass is green, and, at last check, there are no new infestations
(besides your usual warriors).  Anything else I can check on for you?
When are you boating?

See you when you return...
	Russ

∂TO MRG 15:14 22-Jul
Thesis related stuff
	Whew... I came awfully close last Sunday to losing any chance
of ever graduating from Stanford:  
I almost missed a little notice placed in your mailbox then,
telling you, in bold terms, to remove those offending blackberries from your
front yard, or suffer all sorts of bad consequences.
Figuring you'd have a hard time signing my thesis from behind prison bars,
I took the liberty of spending Sunday morning stripping in your yard.
(Yes, I agree it seems immoral, but 'dem are 'de rules.)

<I'm tempted now to go into great detail about the pain and anguish 
I had to suffer during this arduous task;
and mention what a pathetic, wretched sight I was at its completion,
with blood spurting through each of the thousands of orifices opened
by those sharp, painful thorns on those hideous death-defying plants.
But you might feel I was exaggerating a tad, to get sympathy and perhaps
some unjustified faculty backing during subsequent thesis sorts of things.
So you're spared -- I will not now mention
those 7 long miles, thru snow and sleet, I had to trudge....>

Anyway, U No Hu U'r Friends Really R (← original subject of this message).

Other things:
They came and disconnected your phone the other day.  Boo, hiss!  I was all
set to do a full day of hacking, whilst recording.

Bill went back east for a while, so the house has been relatively vacant.
(He escaped just in time, to avoid the slow and excruciatingly painful chore
of denuding that obnoxious plant of yours.)
He apparently reglued one of your chairs, and unstopped your sink during
his stay.  All I got for playing nice guy and going out of my way
by inviting him to stay is his sister's wrath -- who's now furious at me.
I just don't understand people in general, or women in particular.

Anyway, in addition to those sorts of thesis-promoting stuff I mentioned
above, I've also spent some time assembling the start of what may eventually
become something which sorta resembles a thesis draft.
(I realize that's not the best use of my time, considering the other favors
I could be doing for people like you and Doug, but someone's got to do
this sort of dirty work...)
Hopefully this skeleton will be sufficiently fleshed out by the time you
return to permit you to peruse it...

Hope you enjoyed your sailing, and rest of your vacation.
Doesn't it feel terrible to know it's now behind you -- that you've
used up all the leisure time you're likely to get for at least a year...
(Just thought I'd rub it in...)

Russ
∂TO MRG 13:33 29-Jul
Exploring the Depths of Undying Gratitude
Mike
	E's bro Bill called, and asked how best he could express his
gratitude for the use of your "in abstentia" hospitality, and house.
After hanging up it dawned on me there was a nice, inexpensive giftee
he could supply:
Bill seems just the sort of person who would savor the opportunity to
go spelunking about your "basement".  So when he calls, if you still
desire that service, you could suggest this possibility...

(Remember this would really count as a favor FROM ME, as it was really
my magninimity(sp) he is now paying back; and by the transitivity of
favors ...)

Russ
∂TO MRG 16:39 30-Jul
"x is a variable"
Mike -
	First, your house is once again yours -- I have cleared out;
leaving only messages in my wake. (Sounds poetic, no?)
	Second, I have a question about various degrees of meta.
--- Begin Story ---
Let's say I have a variable, x, which is a member of the set, S.
I think we'll agree that x:Isa = (S)  
[or, in MRG-ise, ($ASSERT '(MEMB x S))].

Now we want to state that x is a variable -- ie it makes sense to store
things like what is may be "skolemed on" on x.  So we should be able to
make a meta statement, which is
x:MyIsa = (Variables)  
[translation: ($ASSERT '(MEMB ↑x Variables))].

True so far?  After all, x doesn't know whether it's a constant or not,
but the unit representing it had better, to know certain things about
how to handle dealings with this x...

Anyway, now some joker comes along and asks us how many properties does
this x unit have.  When we say 31, he says "Aha, so x is a verbose unit",
and proceeds to make such a declaration:
x:MyIsa = (VerboseUnit)  
[or, before he was enlightened: ($ASSERT '(MEMB ↑x VerboseUnits))].
--- End of Story ---
(Don't cry -- I never said it would be a happy story...)

Doesn't this seem wrong to you?  Saying "x is a variable" seems clearly
different from "the x unit has many facts"; should both of these be lumped
together?
The 3rd assertion seems right to me, but I question the second one --
So now the question:
how do I represent the fact that x is a variable?

Russ
∂TO STT (CC MRG) 18:21 31-Jul-81
NonTerminal Terminology
I just yakked with Mike, and found that his terminology is quite
different from what I had thought.
He uses the term "abstraction" to refer to the mapping from an object
to a theory, and "generalization" to relate a pair of theories.

His justification was a little obscure, and had to be teased out:
he claims that any theory we might write about Fido would necessarily
contain only a subset of the possible facts about this entity --
i.e. many (significant but extraneous to the task) facts would be omitted.
Hence this "representation", T, would be a mere subtheory of the full
theory of Fido -- where that full encoding holds every possible fact
about Fido.

Now any subset of that theory, T, (call it S) is a "generalization"
of T -- ie every model of T is also a model of S.

As best I understand, it appears that Abstraction is inverse of Satisfies --
ie if the theory A is an abstraction for some object M, then M satisfies A;
and vice versa.

Comments:
1) To avoid problems of logical implication, we define theory
to refer to the deductive close of the initial axioms.
Realize that a proper generalization will therefore require removing
an infinite number of propositions to be.

2) Any Generalization of an Abstraction is still an Abstraction.

3) Note we need not, at this "epistlemological level", worry about isomorphism...
Two theories are equivalent iff they have the same models.
Hence the actual symbols used are irrelevant
-- this mapping from object to constant, etc,
is in the jurisdiction of the interpretation of the model's elements
in the theory.
[Heuristically this will clearly the bulk of the analogizing work --
finding the method of mapping from symbols in one theory into the
corresponding symbols in the other.]

The related issue of how we can "default" some relations, become irrelevant --
it just means the interpretation of this symbol is slightly 
different in this theory than in the other one.

-----
I still liked using the term abstraction to refer to the relation
connecting a pair of theories -- if 
(Abstraction A B) <=> (ForEvery (M in Models) (Satisfies M B) => (Satisfies M A)).

However this seems quite a bit harder to pin down, as this quantification over
models is a tricky business.  Comments, Mike?

Russ

-- To MRG again  20:18 1-Aug ---
∂01-Aug-81  1358	SYS  
Queued mail to csd.genesereth at SU-SCORE -- ok
The following message was received from the remote host:
Mail to csd.genesereth at SU-SCORE ready
∂TO STT, MRG 10:57 1-Aug
FollowUp
I'd even be content to consider something like

(Abstraction A B) <=> (ForEvery (M in Models).
			  (Exists (I, I' in Interpretations).
				(Satisfies M B I) =>
				(Related I I') & (Satisfies M A I'))),
where this Satisfies relation considers the Interpretation used; and
the Related relation insists that the pair of interpretations are closely
related to one another: preferably identical, but it may allow things like
the teriary R relation symbol in I to correspond to the binary relation symbol
R' in I'.  (I'm considering the interpretation I as a mapping of objects
in the domain of M into symbols in (the language of) B, such that every
relation ...)
  Has anyone defined such a type of satisfaction; or dealt with
this sort of similar interpretations?

	Russ
∂TO MRG 13:23 28-Oct
Cuteness for MRS manual
(all x (if (pair-of-sentences x) 
	   (exist x1 x2 (if (equal x (stack-sentences x1 x2))
			    (equivalent x1 x2)))))

(if (pair-of-sentences $x) 
    (if (equal $x (stack-sentences ?x1 ?x2))
	(equivalent ?x1 ?x2)))

[You may want:
(all x x1 x2 (if (and (pair-of-sentences x) 
		      (equal x (stack-sentences x1 x2)))
		 (equivalent x1 x2)))

(if (and (pair-of-sentences $x) 
	 (equal $x (stack-sentences $x1 $x2)))
    (equivalent $x1 $x2))
...]
∂29 Oct 1981 1058-PST	Russell Greiner <CSD.GREINER>	Little MercuriVenereal
To: CSD.GENESERETH
cc: CSD.GREINER

How could we both have forgotten Venus?  Any way, the Greek Hermaphrodite-
culus sound like a combination between a poisoning and a disease.  No
wonder the Roman's overtook them...

Jeanne, Tom and I were all able to cancel our Bostonian reservations, you'll
be happy to know -- and we decided, instead to practice in our home turf.
Can you make it next Thursday? (Nov 5th I think.)  It'll be at your
house, in case you're interested.

Did you read my Analogy.Bbd message yet?  Do you agree with its contends,
especially those ideas attributed to you?

Next, after I sent that Cuteness to you, I realize the connective within
the existential quantifier should, of course, be an AND, not the IF I used.

Finally, I've got a grumble with you, which I've found myself unable to 
express verbally over the last few months.  Hence this written communique:
I felt rather slighted back at IJCAI.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but 
I really believe that I have made significant contributions to your thinking 
about modifiability in general, and with respect to representations 
in particular.  In addition, I have clearly spent a non-trivial amount
of time and energy I on MRS -- both on its early design and on publicity.
I feel I was entitled to some recognition for these efforts, which you failed
to provide.

While I did mention this, in passing, at that dinner, I don't think I 
adequately expressed my deep disappointment and betrayal.
Comments?

Isn't it amazing what I pack into these little notes?  Never a dull moment...

Russ

∂ 6 Nov 1981 1352-PST	<CSD.GREINER>	"Mycin" and Mycin (NOT Mycin↑ or ...)
To: CSD.GENESERETH
cc: CSD.GREINER

I'd a quick, obvious comment I wanted to convey, regarding your comment
on sociological/legal aspects of Mycin.

1. I couldn't find Mycin in that book of pre-/suf-fixes (...ixen?).  Next
time I see Ted I'll ask him.

2. Your 95% to 80% accuracy, with different areas of discrepancies, does NOT
seem to be a problem.  There are two subcases, depending on how well known
Mycin's limitations are:

(i) If it is well-known (in which areas Mycin is limited), the physician should
not consult Mycin for these cases... and if he does, Mycin should defer to
the judgement of some human expert.   (Take a limiting case: what if someone
asked Mycin about Cancer?  It should know enough NOT to office any advice,
or, if it does, to clearly preface these suggestions with a
"I don't know as much about this as X, Y or Z, but if you're desperate.."
How is this situation different?)

(ii) No one knows, a priori, what Mycin's weak areas are.  I, for one, would
much rather have a 95% chance of cure than an 80% chance.  If there is no
reason for the doctor to think anyone/thing is superior to Mycin, I can't
imagine why he should not consult it, and follow any reasonable advice it
gives.
----

This was too easy -- I must not have understood your point.  What was it?

Russ
-------
∂27 Dec 1981 1621-PST	<CSD.GREINER at SU-SCORE>	MRS = ...
To: CSD.GENESERETH
cc: CSD.GREINER

I finally realized what MRS "really" stands for:
MisNamed Representation System.
(or possibly Mis-Abbreviated R.S. ?)
There's only one obvious problem:
If we name it that, that name will no longer apply!

Where are Betrand and Wilhelm when we need them?
	Russ

PS. If you'll forgive this minor trivia:  
When can we meet to discuss my thesis ideas?  
It's been a full month; and I really am waiting on you...  
Could you, perhaps, devote, say, one hour to perform a quick and 
obviously superficial reading?  (Note this would still represent the largest
time commitment of any of the readers thus far.)
After this we could meet briefly
-- or even electronically if that would be less (time) expensive.

There is another option:  I've been assuming you wanted to be on my reading
committee.  Let me know if this is a faulty belief...
Russ
-------
-------

∂21 Feb 1982 2001-PST	<CSD.GREINER at SU-SCORE>	Records (note absense of "er")
To: CSD.GENESERETH
cc: CSD.GREINER

Can I borrow some of your records for a recording session, at my house,
tomorrow (22/Feb/82)?  In particular, some of the Clannad stuff, and
who knows what else?
	If so, how can I procure (sp) them?  Perhaps I could simply pilfer(sp)
one of your keys, and meander over there in your absense, and
take the desired records... Other ideas?

	Thanks,
Russ
-------

∂22 Feb 1982 0949-PST	<CSD.GENESERETH at SU-SCORE>	Re: Records (note absense of "er")
To: CSD.GREINER

no.  You can record them at my house, but I have a long standing
policy of not  loaning records to be played on other people's 
equipment.

mrg
-------

∂TO csd.genesereth@score 18:54 26-Feb
Times when even MRS can't help...
Q: Where, of where, is your briefcase?  
A: You left it by the ascending unenclosed staircase on the 2nd floor.
   I stuck it in your office.

Remember this next Gray Tuesday/Black Friday, ...,
	Russ

∂27-Feb-82  1150	Mike Genesereth <CSD.GENESERETH at SU-SCORE> 	Re: Times when even MRS can't help...  

While I was lying in bed this morning, it occurred to me that I hadn't 
brought it home with me.  I spent 15 minutes trying to decide whether
o not I knew its whereabouts.  Now you've spoiled all the fun.

mrg
-------

∂TO csd.genesereth@score 15:19 10-Mar
Noteworthy events, and others
Mike -
	First, circle 18/March/82 on your calendar.  On that date you
will have the honor of our presence at your humble abode, en-instrumented.
	Second, I know of a bike which will be available, to the highest
bidder, from 21-March thru 26-March.
Over this interval its owner, having taken leave of his senses,
will be in the bowels of the east coast, visiting relatives in NY and Boston.
Poor fellow.  Any recommendations to proffer to this poor misguided wanderer --
things an un-bicycled person can do or see in that area?
	Finally, I'm curious about (on?) your thoughts/reflections wrt
that retreat.  (I.e. should we just have surrendered?)
(I have to have something to report back to the JGF on the activities
of his missonary.)

Russ
∂TO csd.genesereth@score, ars, tom@kestrel 18a9:50 6-Apr
The Taxman Cometh
To whom it may concern:
There will be a recorder rehearsal this Thursday WEEK -- that is,
the 15th of April -- at Mike's house.  All are welcome.
(By the way, we met yesterday evening -- apparently no one "leaked" this
information.)
	Russ
∂18-Jun-82  1830	<CSD.GREINER at SU-SCORE> 	Quote from MRG

"I don't care about people; you can quote me on that"
(17/VI/82)
-------

∂13 Jul 1982 2126-PDT	<CSD.GREINER at SU-SCORE>	Theory Parts
To: CSD.GENESERETH at SU-SCORE
cc: CSD.GREINER at SU-SCORE

Mike -
	This is an excerpt from a message I sent to Dave the other day.

...
6) A half-baked request:
(This is a more formal version of the request I issued verbally a while back.
This doubles as a justification for the "veracity" of Gordon's "fire only
certain rules" method, and proposes a different mechanism for achieving
this result.)

I would like to add additional structure to the internals of a theory.
For my applications, it is often useful to divide the contents of a theory
into several parts, perhaps annotated as
	MATH:FACTS	MATH:RULE.
These two would partition the set of assertions associated with the MATH
theory.  The advantage is that each of these could themselves be considered
a theory; and as such could be readily activated or de-activated.
(This could lead to a considerably faster searching time --
the various FI and BC processes would need to only scan rules, and would
not be slowed down by the presence of additional facts.)

The next step is to subdivide this MATH:RULE theory-part into
MATH:RULE:ForwardOnly, MATH:RULE:BackwardOnly, and MATH:RULE:BothWays.
Now when we are forward chaining, we would de-activate 
MATH:RULE:BackwardOnly, and consider only the other rules.

As I'm using already accepted operators for theories, all of these processes
are "legal".  The only issues are (1) proliferation of names, and
(2) actual organization.
The first seems strictly an implementation issue -- there is no reason
a theory could not have, for its name, an arbitrary list -- e.g.
	(MATH RULE ForwardOnly).
It would be easy to state the part-whole dependencies -- that the
($A $*B $*C) theory-part is contained within the ($A $*B).
This notation also simplifies our (well, my) wish to de-activate all
theories whose name matches ($*A ForwaredOnly).

Amused?  Realize this gives a fairly well-founded justification to GSN's work.

There still are some problems (why, otherwise would I be writing this)?
We know that (INCLUDES SET-THEORY MATH).  Should this mean that
(MATH RULE) includes (SET-THEORY RULE)?  That is, what is the relation
of INCLUDES to this containment/partitioning?

There are some subtle problems associated with asserting a new fact --
if the current theory is MATH, should (IF ....) be stored in MATH,
or the more relevant (MATH RULE)?  How much of this type of inferences
should go on before making the assertion?

There are, of course, other problems with this approach.

Thanks for your comments, hints, corrections, etc.

Russ
----

∂TO csd.genesereth@score 15:09 26-Aug-82
Grrrr
...umble.  I was here at 2:30PM, et tu?  Anyway, I've
1) a few quick questions, and
2) a comprehensive outline of that paper.

When can we meet?

Russ

-----
Q1: Do you have Bill Mark's Master Thesis?  (It has words like
"Reformulation" and "Expertise" in the title.)

Q2: What do you know about deBono? (Someone suggested his articles
might be relevant.)

Q3: What do you know about Byron Davies?  (he's that aforementioned
"someone".)

Q4: Where is a description of that EXPERS system(s)?