perm filename TRANS.EQ1[DIS,DBL] blob
sn#205058 filedate 1976-03-07 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00007 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002 INTERLISP-10 4-JAN-75 ...
C00015 00003 The top 3 Cands are:
C00025 00004 Creating new Being, similar to COMPOSE, named INT-COMPOSE, but
C00038 00005 187 Cands, 155 Concepts, Gcnt is 24.
C00047 00006 Filled in specializations of INT-BAG-STRUC.
C00067 00007 I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
C00083 ENDMK
C⊗;
INTERLISP-10 4-JAN-75 ...
Please type in your last name ( then carriage-return): LENAT
Almost ready to enter AM's main loop, Doug.
More details can be obtained when you interrupt with ↑I.
Verbosity Level (1 - 10, or ?) .... 10
User-control Level ( 0 - 10, or ? ) ....3
Before deciding which new Cand to work on, I'll print my top choices.
How many Candidates would you like to see each time? 3
Should I tell you my reasons for each Cand I am considering selecting
each time? No
Should I tell you my reasons for the Cand I actually select each time? Y
Entering AM's main loop now.
No Cand on CANDS is good enuf.
Do-thresh reduced from 150 to 100
Must find new candidates and merge them into CANDS.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Bag-of-lists
2: Fill in some examples of Bag-of-strucs
3: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 2 reasons are:
(We have no examples for BAG-OF-LISTS yet)
(Anyb-exs specifically asked for some examples of BAG-OF-LISTS)
Beginning 1st cycle.
Failed. Tried to fill in new examples of BAG-OF-LISTS.
This Cand used 14.498 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-delete
2: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-diff
3: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-insert
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 2 reasons are:
(We have no examples for BAG-STRUC-DELETE yet)
(Anyb-exs specifically asked for some examples of BAG-STRUC-DELETE)
Beginning 2nd cycle.
Failed. Tried to fill in new examples of BAG-STRUC-DELETE.
This Cand used 4.976 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-diff
2: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-insert
3: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-intersect
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 2 reasons are:
(We have no examples for BAG-STRUC-DIFF yet)
(Anyb-exs specifically asked for some examples of BAG-STRUC-DIFF)
Beginning 3rd cycle.
Failed. Tried to fill in new examples of BAG-STRUC-DIFF.
This Cand used 1.662 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc
2: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-insert
3: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-intersect
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 6 reasons are:
(Active-exs specifically asked for some examples of BAG-STRUC,
while trying to Fill in some Bag-struc-diff examples)
(Active-exs specifically asked for some examples of BAG-STRUC,
while trying to Fill in some Bag-struc-delete examples)
(Structure-insert specifically asked for some examples of BAG-STRUC,
while trying to Fill in some Bag-of-lists examples)
(If Bag-struc-insert had some existing examples of Bags, then he
could produce some new ones)
(We have no examples for BAG-STRUC yet)
(Anyb-exs specifically asked for some examples of BAG-STRUC)
Beginning 4th cycle.
Creating new Being, similar to BAG-STRUC, named INT-BAG-STRUC, but
restricted so as to make it more interesting.
An INT-BAG-STRUC is any BAG-STRUC for which (Each pair of
elements satisfies the same interesting predicate P (for some P)).
Filled in examples of BAG-STRUC.
0 examples existed originally on BAG-STRUC.
35 potential new entries were just proposed.
7 found on Pass 1, then 28 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, the newly constructed examples are:
(BAG C I U S O Y J Y C U L G X H P)
(BAG SET-STRUC STRUCTURE-MEMB)
(BAG)
(BAG BAG-STRUC-DELETE SET-STRUC STRUCTURE-MEMB)
(BAG DOUG ED BRUCE)
(BAG DOUG ED BRUCE DON)
(BAG DON DOUG ED)
(BAG A B)
(BAG F F G H I L N V)
(BAG A A A)
(BAG A B C)
(BAG B B)
(BAG B E E F G J J L L M N N P Q R R T W Z Z)
(BAG B B B)
(BAG A B B)
(BAG C E F H H M M N O O R V X Y Y Y)
(BAG B)
(BAG L N S U)
(BAG F H M N O O Q R R T X)
(BAG A)
(BAG B D D E F I K L S S T U W W)
(BAG C C G H I J L O P S U U X Y Y)
(BAG A B C D E G L M M O P P Q S V V V Y)
(BAG E G H M V)
(BAG B I J Q R T W W W)
(BAG A A)
(BAG A C C G J K M O R R S S S U U V Y Y Y)
(BAG A D D G H M Q R R T)
(BAG A D H O P P R)
(BAG B D E F G G I J K M U V)
(BAG A A B)
(BAG A A B B C G G L L O O P Q S T U W)
(BAG C D E E F F K K O O R V X)
(BAG J L O Q S T)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
only 34 new, distinct examples of BAG-STRUC had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 97 to 151.
This Cand used 16.895 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Int-bag-struc
2: Check all examples of Bag-struc
3: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-insert
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (Any example of INT-BAG-STRUC is automatically
an interesting example of BAG-STRUC)
Beginning 5th cycle.
Won't try to create a restricted interesting version of INT-BAG-STRUC.
Filled in examples of INT-BAG-STRUC.
0 examples existed originally on INT-BAG-STRUC.
27 potential new entries were just proposed.
14 found on Pass 1, then 13 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, the newly constructed examples are:
(BAG)
(BAG A A A)
(BAG B B)
(BAG B B B)
(BAG B)
(BAG A)
(BAG A A)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
only 7 new, distinct examples of INT-BAG-STRUC had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 151 to 195.
This Cand used 16.067 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Check all examples of Int-bag-struc
2: Check all examples of Bag-struc
3: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-insert
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (Some new , unchecked examples of INT-BAG-STRUC
have recently been added)
Beginning 6th cycle.
Checked examples of INT-BAG-STRUC and all entries were confirmed
This Cand used 5.831 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Check all examples of Bag-struc
2: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-insert
3: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-intersect
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (Some new , unchecked examples of BAG-STRUC
have recently been added)
Beginning 7th cycle.
Checked examples of BAG-STRUC.
27 entries were there initially.
3 small modifications had to be made.
1 had to be completely discarded.
Do-thresh raised from 194 to 219.
This Cand used 11.091 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-insert
2: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-intersect
3: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-join
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 2 reasons are:
(We have no examples for BAG-STRUC-INSERT yet)
(Anyb-exs specifically asked for some examples of BAG-STRUC-INSERT)
Beginning 8th cycle.
Record of attempts to find examples: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Found 26 examples ( and 0 non-exs), in 2.084 secs.
A nice ratio of exs/non-exs was encountered for BAG-STRUC-INSERT
Won't try to create a restricted interesting version of
BAG-STRUC-INSERT.
Filled in examples of BAG-STRUC-INSERT.
0 examples existed originally on BAG-STRUC-INSERT.
26 potential new entries were just proposed.
26 found on Pass 1, then 0 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, some newly constructed examples are:
(STRUCTURE-EXS-BDY (BAG C C G H I J L O P S U U X Y Y)
(BAG C C G H I J L O P S STRUCTURE-EXS-BDY U U X Y Y))
((BAG A A A) (BAG SET-STRUC STRUCTURE-MEMB)
(BAG SET-STRUC STRUCTURE-MEMB (BAG A A A)))
((BAG A) (BAG A B) (BAG A B (BAG A)))
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
all 26 new, distinct examples of BAG-STRUC-INSERT had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 219 to 224.
This Cand used 24.493 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-intersect
2: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-join
3: Fill in some examples of Canonize
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 2 reasons are:
(We have no examples for BAG-STRUC-INTERSECT yet)
(Anyb-exs specifically asked for some examples of
BAG-STRUC-INTERSECT)
Beginning 9th cycle.
Failed. Tried to fill in new examples of BAG-STRUC-INTERSECT.
This Cand used 1.258 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Bag-struc-join
2: Fill in some examples of Canonize
3: Fill in some examples of Coalesce
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 2 reasons are:
(We have no examples for BAG-STRUC-JOIN yet)
(Anyb-exs specifically asked for some examples of BAG-STRUC-JOIN)
Beginning 10th cycle.
Record of attempts to find examples: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Found 26 examples ( and 0 non-exs), in 1.904 secs.
A nice ratio of exs/non-exs was encountered for BAG-STRUC-JOIN
Won't try to create a restricted interesting version of BAG-STRUC-JOIN.
Filled in examples of BAG-STRUC-JOIN.
0 examples existed originally on BAG-STRUC-JOIN.
26 potential new entries were just proposed.
26 found on Pass 1, then 0 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, some newly constructed examples are:
((BAG B B B) (BAG SET-STRUC STRUCTURE-MEMB)
(BAG B B B SET-STRUC STRUCTURE-MEMB))
((BAG B D D E F I K L S S T U W W) (BAG A A B)
(BAG B D D EF I K L S S T U W W A A B))
((BAG C D E E F F K K O O R V X) (BAG F H M N O O Q R R T X)
(BAG C D E E F F K K O O R V X F H M N O O Q R R T X))
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
only 25 new, distinct examples of BAG-STRUC-JOIN had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 223 to 227.
This Cand used 7.732 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Canonize
2: Fill in some examples of Coalesce
3: Fill in some examples of Compose
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 2 reasons are:
(We have no examples for CANONIZE yet)
(Anyb-exs specifically asked for some examples of CANONIZE)
Beginning 11st cycle.
Record of attempts to find examples:-----------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Found 0 examples ( and 151 non-exs), in 9.051 secs.
Ratio of exs to non-exs is too low ( 0 / 151); Exs are too sparse.
AM will sometime try to generalize CANONIZE.
Failed. Tried to fill in new examples of CANONIZE.
This Cand used 12.388 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some generalizations of Canonize
2: Fill in some examples of Coalesce
3: Fill in some examples of Compose
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (The ratio of examples to non-examples of CANONIZE
is too low ; CANONIZE is too specialized , too narrow)
Beginning 12nd cycle.
Failed. Tried to fill in new generalizations of CANONIZE.
This Cand used 1.506 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Coalesce
2: Fill in some examples of Compose
3: Fill in some examples of Conjec
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 2 reasons are:
(We have no examples for COALESCE yet)
(Anyb-exs specifically asked for some examples of COALESCE)
Beginning 13rd cycle.
Record of attempts to find examples:
AM will merge the 1 st and the 2 nd arguments of LIST-STRUC-DELETE;
that is, ANYTHING and LIST-STRUC.
+----
AM will merge the 1 st and the 2 nd arguments of MAP-REPLACE2.
AM will merge the 2 nd and the 1 st arguments of COMPOSE.
AM will merge the 1 st and the 2 nd arguments of BAG-STRUC-DIFF.
AM will merge the 2 nd and the 1 st arguments of LIST-STRUC-DELETE;
that is, LIST-STRUC and ANYTHING.
Hmmm, it seems that COA-LIST-STRUC-DELETE-1 turned out to be
equivalent to COA-LIST-STRUC-DELETE.
AM will merge the 2 nd and the 1 st arguments of SET-STRUC-INTERSECT.
AM will merge the 1 st and the 2 nd arguments of OSET-STRUC-INTERSECT.
AM will merge the 2 nd and the 1 st arguments of CANONIZE.
AM will merge the 2 nd and the 1 st arguments of STRUCTURE-MEMB; that
is, STRUCTURE and ANYTHING.
Found 26 examples ( and 10 non-exs), in 11.262 secs.
A nice ratio of exs/non-exs was encountered for COALESCE
Won't try to create a restricted interesting version of COALESCE.
Filled in examples of COALESCE.
0 examples existed originally on COALESCE.
26 potential new entries were just proposed.
26 found on Pass 1, then 0 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, the newly constructed examples are:
(LIST-STRUC-INTERSECT COA-LIST-STRUC-INTERSECT)
(LIST-STRUC-DELETE COA-LIST-STRUC-DELETE)
(MAP-REPLACE2 COA-MAP-REPLACE2)
(COMPOSE COA-COMPOSE)
(BAG-STRUC-DIFF COA-BAG-STRUC-DIFF)
(SET-STRUC-DELETE COA-SET-STRUC-DELETE)
(SET-STRUC-INTERSECT COA-SET-STRUC-INTERSECT)
(OSET-STRUC-INTERSECT COA-OSET-STRUC-INTERSECT)
(CANONIZE COA-CANONIZE)
(OSET-STRUC-DELETE COA-OSET-STRUC-DELETE)
(STRUCTURE-MEMB COA-STRUCTURE-MEMB)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
only 11 new, distinct examples of COALESCE had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 225 to 229.
This Cand used 16.627 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Compose
2: Fill in some examples of Conjec
3: Fill in some examples of Constructive-op
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 2 reasons are:
(We have no examples for COMPOSE yet)
(Anyb-exs specifically asked for some examples of COMPOSE)
Beginning 14th cycle.
Record of attempts to find examples:
AM can later coalesce the D-R of COMPOSE-COA-MAP-REPLACE2&COA-MAP-REPLACE2.
-+--+-
AM can later coalesce the D-R of COMPOSE-IDENTITY&COMPOSE.
++++-++-+-+-
Found 10 examples ( and 8 non-exs), in 25.144 secs.
A nice ratio of exs/non-exs was encountered for COMPOSE
Creating new Being, similar to COMPOSE, named INT-COMPOSE, but
restricted so as to make it more interesting.
An INT-COMPOSE is any COMPOSE for which
1) In canonical interpretation, Range-of-op2 is a component
of Domain of op1 ; And, also:
2) In canonical interpretation, Range-of-op1 is one component
of Domain-of-op2.
Filled in examples of COMPOSE.
0 examples existed originally on COMPOSE.
10 potential new entries were just proposed.
10 found on Pass 1, then 0 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, some newly constructed examples are:
(COA-MAP-REPLACE2 COA-MAP-REPLACE2
COMPOSE-COA-MAP-REPLACE2&COA-MAP-REPLACE2)
(BAG-STRUC-JOIN REAR COMPOSE-BAG-STRUC-JOIN&REAR)
(IDENTITY COMPOSE COMPOSE-IDENTITY&COMPOSE)
(COA-STRUCTURE-MEMB BAG-STRUC-INTERSECT
COMPOSE-COA-STRUCTURE-MEMB&BAG-STRUC-INTERSECT)
(INV-OP COALESCE COMPOSE-INV-OP&COALESCE)
(RESTRICT FINAL COMPOSE-RESTRICT&FINAL)
(SET-STRUC-DELETE MAP-JOIN COMPOSE-SET-STRUC-DELETE&MAP-JOIN)
(COA-MAP-REPLACE2 COMPOSE COMPOSE-COA-MAP-REPLACE2&COMPOSE)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
only 8 new, distinct examples of COMPOSE had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 229 to 232.
This Cand used 31.703 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Coalesce Compose-identity&compose
2: Coalesce Compose-coa-map-replace2&compose
3: Coalesce Compose-coa-structure-memb&bag-struc-intersect
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (There is an overlap in the new combined domain
of the operation COMPOSE-IDENTITY&COMPOSE)
Beginning 15th cycle.
AM will merge the 2 nd and the 1 st arguments of
COMPOSE-IDENTITY&COMPOSE; that is, OPERATION and OPERATION.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 232 to 237.
This Cand used .486 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Coalesce Compose-coa-map-replace2&compose
2: Coalesce Compose-coa-structure-memb&bag-struc-intersect
3: Coalesce Compose-coa-map-replace2&coa-map-replace2
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (There is an overlap in the new combined domain
of the operation COMPOSE-COA-MAP-REPLACE2&COMPOSE)
Beginning 16th cycle.
AM will merge the 1 st and the 2 nd arguments of
COMPOSE-COA-MAP-REPLACE2&COMPOSE; that is, OPERATION and OPERATION.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 237 to 240.
This Cand used .565 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Coalesce Compose-coa-structure-memb&bag-struc-intersect
2: Coalesce Compose-coa-map-replace2&coa-map-replace2
3: Fill in some examples of Int-compose
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (There is an overlap in the new combined domain
of the operation COMPOSE-COA-STRUCTURE-MEMB&BAG-STRUC-INTERSECT)
Beginning 17th cycle.
AM will merge the 1 st and the 2 nd arguments of
COMPOSE-COA-STRUCTURE-MEMB&BAG-STRUC-INTERSECT; that is, BAG-STRUC and
BAG-STRUC. Done.
Do-thresh raised from 240 to 243.
This Cand used .516 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Coalesce Compose-coa-map-replace2&coa-map-replace2
2: Fill in some examples of Int-compose
3: Fill in some examples of Conjec
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (There is an overlap in the new combined domain
of the operation COMPOSE-COA-MAP-REPLACE2&COA-MAP-REPLACE2)
Beginning 18th cycle.
AM will merge the 3 rd and the 1 st arguments of
COMPOSE-COA-MAP-REPLACE2&COA-MAP-REPLACE2; that is, ANY-STRUC and
ANY-STRUC. Done.
Do-thresh raised from 243 to 245.
This Cand used .643 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Int-compose
2: Fill in some examples of Conjec
3: Fill in some examples of Constructive-op
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (Any example of INT-COMPOSE is automatically
an interesting example of COMPOSE)
Beginning 19th cycle.
In instantiating the definition of INT-COMPOSE,
which actually is just that of COMPOSE, plus 2 new
constraints, AM has in fact found an example by symbolic reasoning.
Record of attempts to find examples:
----------------
AM can later coalesce the D-R of
COMPOSE-COMPOSE-COA-MAP-REPLACE2&COMPOSE&INT-COMPOSE.
AM can later coalesce the D-R of
COMPOSE-COMPOSE-INV-OP&COALESCE&COMPOSE-COA-MAP-REPLACE2&COMPOSE.
+-+-------------+----+-------+
AM can later coalesce the D-R of
COMPOSE-BAG-STRUC-INSERT&BAG-STRUC-INSERT.
++-----------
AM can later coalesce the D-R of COMPOSE-PROJ1&PROJ2.
+--+-+---------+-
Name of new Being is too long:
COM- COA-COMPOSE-COA-MAP-REPLACE2&COA-MAP-REPLACE2 &
COMPOSE-COA-MAP-REPLACE2&COMPOSE
+-------------------------++--+---+
Found 17 examples ( and 99 non-exs), in 25.765 secs.
A nice ratio of exs/non-exs was encountered for INT-COMPOSE
Won't try to create a restricted interesting version of INT-COMPOSE.
Filled in examples of INT-COMPOSE.
0 examples existed originally on INT-COMPOSE.
21 potential new entries were just proposed.
21 found on Pass 1, then 0 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, some newly constructed examples are:
(INV-OP COALESCE COMPOSE-INV-OP&COALESCE)
(PROJ2 STRUCTURE-DIFF COMPOSE-PROJ2&STRUCTURE-DIFF)
(PROJ1 STRUCTURE-INSERT COMPOSE-PROJ1&STRUCTURE-INSERT)
(BAG-STRUC-INSERT BAG-STRUC-INSERT
COMPOSE-BAG-STRUC-INSERT&BAG-STRUC-INSERT)
(PROJ1 PROJ2 COMPOSE-PROJ1&PROJ2)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
only 17 new, distinct examples of INT-COMPOSE had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 245 to 245.
This Cand used 56.894 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Coalesce Compose-proj1&proj2
2: Coalesce Compose-bag-struc-insert&bag-struc-insert
3: Coalesce Compose-proj1&structure-insert
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (There is an overlap in the new combined domain
of the operation COMPOSE-PROJ1&PROJ2)
Beginning 20th cycle.
AM will merge the 3 rd and the 1 st arguments of COMPOSE-PROJ1&PROJ2;
that is, ANYTHING and ANYTHING.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 245 to 248.
This Cand used .559 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Coalesce Compose-bag-struc-insert&bag-struc-insert
2: Coalesce Compose-proj1&structure-insert
3: Coalesce Compose-proj2&structure-diff
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (There is an overlap in the new combined domain
of the operation COMPOSE-BAG-STRUC-INSERT&BAG-STRUC-INSERT)
Beginning 21st cycle.
AM will merge the 1 st and the 3 rd arguments of
COMPOSE-BAG-STRUC-INSERT&BAG-STRUC-INSERT; that is, ANYTHING and
ANYTHING.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 248 to 250.
This Cand used .536 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Coalesce Compose-proj1&structure-insert
2: Coalesce Compose-proj2&structure-diff
3: Fill in some examples of Conjec
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (There is an overlap in the new combined domain
of the operation COMPOSE-PROJ1&STRUCTURE-INSERT)
Beginning 22nd cycle.
AM will merge the 2 nd and the 1 st arguments of
COMPOSE-PROJ1&STRUCTURE-INSERT; that is, STRUCTURE and ANYTHING.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 250 to 252.
This Cand used .651 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Coalesce Compose-proj2&structure-diff
2: Fill in some examples of Conjec
3: Fill in some examples of Constructive-op
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (There is an overlap in the new combined domain
of the operation COMPOSE-PROJ2&STRUCTURE-DIFF)
Beginning 23rd cycle.
AM will merge the 1 st and the 3 rd arguments of
COMPOSE-PROJ2&STRUCTURE-DIFF; that is, STRUCTURE and ANYTHING.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 252 to 253.
This Cand used .573 cpu seconds.
No Cand on CANDS is good enuf.
Do-thresh reduced from 253 to 168
Must find new candidates and merge them into CANDS.
187 Cands, 155 Concepts, Gcnt is 24.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Obj-equal
2: Fill in some specializations of Int-bag-struc
3: Fill in some specializations of Bag-struc
I choose first Cand. OK? yes
The reason is: (We have no examples for OBJ-EQUAL yet)
Beginning 24th cycle.
Record of attempts to find examples:----------------------
An ex ( sought) is: ((VECTOR A A A) (VECTOR A A A))+-------------
---------------------+--------------------------------------------------
-----------------+-----------+-----------+------
Found 5 examples ( and 151 non-exs), in 6.737 secs.
Ratio of exs to non-exs is too low ( 5 / 151); Exs are too sparse.
AM will sometime try to generalize OBJ-EQUAL.
Won't try to create a restricted interesting version of OBJ-EQUAL.
Filled in examples of OBJ-EQUAL.
0 examples existed originally on OBJ-EQUAL.
6 potential new entries were just proposed.
6 found on Pass 1, then 0 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, some newly constructed examples are:
((VECTOR Q T R F H R N M O O X)
(VECTOR Q T R F H R N M O O X) T)
((VECTOR A A A) (VECTOR A A A) T)
((VECTOR BAG) (VECTOR BAG) T)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
only 5 new, distinct examples of OBJ-EQUAL had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 168 to 211.
This Cand used 10.976 cpu seconds.
AM is forgetting the entire SUGG facet of the INT-COMPOSE concept.
Because: (No sense using this suggestion more than once).
AM is forgetting the entire SUGG facet of the INT-BAG-STRUC concept.
Because: (No sense using this suggestion more than once).
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Check all examples of Obj-equal
2: Fill in some generalizations of Obj-equal
3: Fill in some specializations of Int-bag-struc
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (Some new , unchecked examples of OBJ-EQUAL
have recently been added)
Beginning 25th cycle.
Checked examples of OBJ-EQUAL and all entries were confirmed
This Cand used 1.625 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some generalizations of Obj-equal
2: Fill in some specializations of Int-bag-struc
3: Fill in some specializations of Bag-struc
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (The ratio of examples to non-examples of
OBJ-EQUAL is too low ; OBJ-EQUAL is too specialized , too narrow)
Beginning 26th cycle.
Considering genlizing a recursive defn of OBJ-EQUAL
Will try to remove a conjunct.
2 possible conjuncts to choose from.
AM generaliz␈{)w-
Vε1εK;S=π##∃βv+]β∂}s∂↔C"α≡⊗:bj>
)l*FVεba↓β Hh(%βv{QβK.≠WKONs≥β?rβS#∃∧~εIβ}1β↔π≡AβπK:p4(%εI;∃9b↓α≡⊗ta6>
Rj⊗FV aβ←'faβ;?"β#π[*β¬βK.≠WKOO3∃β∂F+∂,4PIβ3'↑)βS#O→β?;*a↓β←FK∂!βO→βCK/≠↔;QεK9α>∀Q6⊗F,
1h4PH%↓↓α↓↓αε¬α2fλhP$%↓α↓↓↓↓E
V>R*α>
)l*FVεbH4($J↓↓↓↓α↓"FV⎇"∃α∩,29$4PH%↓↓α↓↓↓"≤
Iα
$4(HI↓↓↓α↓↓"∞
⊃α
¬∩H4(4R↓↓↓↓α↓αε5ε;↔;↔⊗ 3'k/→α>
Rj⊗FV aβ';&yβS#*β;↔]ε≠?;∂/βQα≡,r16>∀Q6⊗F,
15Eb↓4(N∪eβ;␈!βK↔∨+KO'v9β?9π##∃α≤"Iβ?2β↔π∂BβπK≥ph(%βJs∃91αα≡⊗:bj>
)l*FVεbiEβ←Nc1β;␈!β#π6)β¬β⊗+∂WK≡K[∃β≡C↔∂,hP%β3N[∃βSFKMβ?v)1↓β>C'∂!εKMβC⊗+O↔;"β'9α|∩)6⊗
*ε1hhP$%↓α↓↓↓α
αB2f⊂h($%α↓↓↓↓αBFV>$)α>
Rj⊗FV a$4(HI↓↓↓α↓↓"F,zR∃α$*~9$hP$%↓α↓↓↓↓D~∩Iα∀ E$4PH%↓↓α↓↓↓"≤"Iα
⊃$4(hP%α'2βπ;eε{→↓"<*:16|∩)6⊗
*ε1α<*:16|∩)6⊗
*ε15
Iβ↔[/⊃βO↔.kMβSzβ ∃β&{=4PH'OC.≠'π3OS↔⊃1ααε5β>K31β≡{;O'&+Iβ∂}s+?'vK;≥βO!β←'&Aβ?SF+I4PH'7↔n∪↔KMε{→βSF QβO/!84(hQαε5εKMβ;␈9β3?}[';≥ε QβSF)βO↔≡{;⊃β&+≠';O#'?9ε[;?←rβ≠?I∧z
)6-
Vε1ph)α∂}sO'∪/∪';≥ε;↔;3OS';≥ε βK↔∨+KO'6)β∪↔6qβ?→∧z
)6-
Vε0hQ↓↓↓α↓α←'faβSKJβS=β⊗+7?[*β¬β∂}s+W;∨!84)α↓↓↓↓β⊃βC?∨≠' 3*β∂?;W+;∂S~βS=β≡C??O*β≠K?jp4)↓α↓↓↓↓∧
5β∨.s↔KπfKk↔M∧z
)6-
Vε1εK;S=π##∃βv+]β∂}s∂↔C"α≡⊗:bj>
)l*FVεbiI1↓h(' Jβ;?Qπ∪↔∂W↔≠';≥ε{9βSF)α~&∃~Qβ?2β↔π∂BβπK≥ph(4)α↓↓↓↓ααε5β>+;↔K∞c'k↔~α>
)l*FVεbβ';SzβS#∃εs↔]β≡{;∂↔π!α≡⊗ta6>
Rj⊗FV a5M1α4('↔Iβ;?"βK↔∂/∪O';:β?9β&C∃αJ,
Iβ?2β↔π∂BβπK≥ph(4)∧K→βπwIβ?→αB≡⊗:bj>
)l*FVεbiIα≡,r16>∀Q6⊗F,
15MJβ↔[↔∩βO↔↔o→βS=ε∪∃βS}y4+∨β↔∂'∞c'k↔"a↓αεjβ←'3bβ∂?;≡K∪↔Iε≠?;+}K;';:β'Qβ>KS!β␈##↔Iεk↔7 /∪Mβ?2βS#π"4+O/!84(hQα≠'fc↔⊃βNqβ∨↔v+Kπ3OSπS'}sMβ?2α>
)l*FVεbp4)↓α↓↓↓↓β↓β∨↔v+Kπ3OSπS'}sMβ↔FKOS↔"β?K'>K;π3gIβ?9∧z
)6-
Vε1ph)↓↓α↓↓↓↓"βC?S.sS'πbβ;↔]ε+;SKN+Mβ←/∪∃β+/≠QβC⊗{C?O.!84)α↓↓↓↓α↓Qβ≠␈+;⊃β}qαCπ∨→↓E1αβS#↔r↓Aβ7␈∪∃β∪/∪'[↔"p4(4Rα↔3'nK;πSNs≥β∪/β3'∂∂#↔M1αβS#∃εs↔←3Jβ∂?;∨#KW∂&+⊃β∨.s↔KπfKkπSN{;Mβ∂∪∃h4R↓↓↓↓αα≡⊗:bj>
)l*FVε`h)↓↓α↓↓α≡,r16>∀Q6⊗F,
15DhQ↓↓↓α↓α≡⊗ta6>
Rj⊗FV a5H4R↓↓↓↓αα≡⊗:bj>
)l*FVεbiL4)∧ ≠S↔∩β↔3'nK;πSNs≥β∪/β3'∂∂#∃βπv!βπ3⊗+π∪en[;?←rβ↔;S⊗K↔M1ααε5β6K;∪Mπ##πQph)βπfa↓Qβv+]1↓ε#'OSNs∂Qβ>+;↔K∞c'kπ&K?;Mε{→α>∀Q6⊗F,
1β#∞!βS=ε∪∃βπ&#↔⊃8hP4)α&y7S#⊗+O!β⊗ 'O↔"β≠K?j↓IEAπ#=↓I≠→84)¬##'M∧≠π;⊃π+O↔⊃β)9Ya:β∂CUπ≠↔∂?v#M84Ph)⎇iα↓"]1∧I1α∃bα51αra↓⎇1¬ %α8hP4)α⊗+;π7*β←#'≡Aβ↔cO≠S';:β∂?;≡+CQ⎇∧:⊗:1lz
)6-
Vε0hP4)α>CπQβO→β'S~β;↔]εsπ7∃zαNε6*jN&j(h(4)∧#?;∃ph(4(hQαS#*βS?Aβ→α∂πv#Mβπ⊗)h4)α↓↓↓ERα≠'3bβ'9β≡{7∃β∨β↔∂'∞c'kπ&K?;Mε{→α'w!7 π:kOSK._4)↓α↓↓Ii∧3'31εK9βO}k∃βOε+∂'πfKkπSN{;Mβ}1α';"k π≥o≠SKW_h)↓↓α↓Miα6K31βNqβO?n)βOC.≠'π3OSπS'}sMβ?2α π≥o≠SKW_h(4)∧Iβ∂#}{O∃β6KKOQ∧≠π;⊃r↓↓↓↓α↓α>-z↓↓βg/→84(hQ↓↓↓α↓↓αSF)βK↔∂≠?9βO→i↓"&C↔K∃ε K∃β↑s?←9ε+cπ7εc↔Mβ}1βS#O→β';&+K↔O&K;≤4W≠C↔∂N 3'k∂#'?9ε{→α
96NR∃*
↓1αβO=βf+Q↓∨~β∨=β}qβπ;"βSKeπ#=βOε+∂'πfKk∀4TJ:Q6∀
≥6N%∩V
$hP4)↓α↓↓↓α⊗+∨';vK;≥↓∪;S!β∨K∂3∃ph(4)∧
5βOε+∂'πfKk↔Mπ##∃α'∪π;O6{K5β&+≠9β}1α&:"j
ε≥m~RJV~β eβ⊗+C3π≡K;≤4R↓"N>l)↓"&u!6BJ,"M%↓D2V:∞$J>9↓Dbε6
$ ↓"AJ↓55$hP4)β↔Ha∞i
(APPLY* (FUNCTION (LAMBDA (P) --)) (QUOTE OBJ-EQUAL))
Filled in specializations of INT-BAG-STRUC.
0 specializations existed originally on INT-BAG-STRUC.
1 potential new entries were just proposed.
1 found on Pass 1, then 0 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, the newly constructed specializations are:
SPEC-INT-BAG-STRUC
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
all 1 new, distinct specializations of INT-BAG-STRUC had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 233 to 251.
This Cand used 4.261 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Same-size
2: Fill in some specializations of Bag-struc
3: Fill in some examples of Genl-obj-equal-3
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 2 reasons are:
(Interestingness of SAME-SIZE has changed recently)
(The generalization SAME-SIZE of OBJ-EQUAL is relatively new
and has no exs of its own yet , excepting those of OBJ-EQUAL)
Beginning 28th cycle.
Record of attempts to find examples:
An ex ( sought) is: ((VECTOR B A B) (BAG A B C))--+--------------------
----------------+----------------+-----------+-----------------+--------
--+--------+------------------------+--+--------+--------------+-+--
Found 12 examples ( and 151 non-exs), in 10.317 secs.
A nice ratio of exs/non-exs was encountered for SAME-SIZE
Won't try to create a restricted interesting version of SAME-SIZE.
Filled in examples of SAME-SIZE.
0 examples existed originally on SAME-SIZE.
12 potential new entries were just proposed.
12 found on Pass 1, then 0 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, some newly constructed examples are:
((VECTOR B A B) (BAG A B C) T)
((VECTOR B B B) (VECTOR A A A) T)
((BAG A A) (BAG B B) T)
((VECTOR A A A) (BAG B B B) T)
((BAG A A) (VECTOR B B) T)
((BAG F F G H I L N V) (VECTOR L G V I F H N F) T)
((BAG A A) (BAG A A) T)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
all 12 new, distinct examples of SAME-SIZE had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 251 to 287.
This Cand used 13.918 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Check all examples of Same-size
2: Fill in some specializations of Bag-struc
3: Fill in some examples of Genl-obj-equal-3
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (Some new , unchecked examples of SAME-SIZE
have recently been added)
Beginning 29th cycle.
Checked examples of SAME-SIZE.
12 entries were there initially.
4 had to be transferred elsewhere.
Do-thresh raised from 287 to 304.
This Cand used 2.363 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some specializations of Bag-struc
2: Fill in some examples of Genl-obj-equal-3
3: Fill in some examples of Genl-obj-equal-2
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (Since there are even some examples of
INT-BAG-STRUC , an interesting specialization of BAG-STRUC ; so it
is worth looking at other specializations of BAG-STRUC)
Beginning 30th cycle.
Considering speclizing a recursive defn of BAG-STRUC
Can't go on: can only handle AND and OR types of recursive defns
This recursive defn is: (APPLYB (QUOTE BAG-STRUC) (QUOTE DEFN) --).
Failed. Tried to fill in new specializations of BAG-STRUC.
This Cand used .677 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Genl-obj-equal-3
2: Fill in some examples of Genl-obj-equal-2
3: Fill in some examples of Genl-obj-equal-1
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (The generalization GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3 of OBJ-EQUAL
is relatively new and has no exs of its own yet , excepting those
of OBJ-EQUAL)
Beginning 31st cycle.
Record of attempts to find examples:
---------------
An ex ( sought) is: ((BAG A A) (CLASS A C B))+-------+-+--------+-----+
---------+--+----+----+---+--------+------------------------------+-----
-------+----+----------+--+---------------+-------++-----
Found 19 examples ( and 151 non-exs), in 12.324 secs.
A nice ratio of exs/non-exs was encountered for GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3
Won't try to create a restricted interesting version of
GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3.
Filled in examples of GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3.
0 examples existed originally on GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3.
19 potential new entries were just proposed.
19 found on Pass 1, then 0 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, the newly constructed examples are:
((BAG A A) (CLASS A C B) T)
((BAG A) (BAG A A A) T)
((VECTOR B G P A O Q A T U G C O B L W L S) (VECTOR B B B) T)
((CLASS A C B) (BAG A B) T)
((CLASS A C B) (BAG A D H O P P R) T)
((VECTOR E G H V M) (VECTOR E G H V M) T)
((BAG A C C G J K M O R R S S S U U V Y Y Y) (BAG A B C) T)
((VECTOR B B B) (VECTOR B B) T)
((BAG B I J Q R T W W W) (BAG B D D E F I K L S S T U W W) T)
((BAG B) (BAG B B) T)
((VECTOR B A B) (BAG B E E F G J J L L M N N P Q R R T W Z Z) T)
((BAG A B) (BAG A A B) T)
((VECTOR A B) (CLASS A C B) T)
((BAG B I J Q R T W W W) (BAG B I J Q R T W W W) T)
((BAG B B) (VECTOR B A B) T)
((CLASS A C B) (BAG A) T)
((BAG A A B) (VECTOR A B A) T)
((BAG A A B B C G G L L O O P Q S T U W) (VECTOR A) T)
((BAG B B) (VECTOR B B) T)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
all 19 new, distinct examples of GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3 had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 303 to 307.
This Cand used 19.781 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Genl-obj-equal-2
2: Fill in some examples of Genl-obj-equal-1
3: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Compose
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (The generalization GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2 of OBJ-EQUAL
is relatively new and has no exs of its own yet , excepting those
of OBJ-EQUAL)
Beginning 32nd cycle.
Record of attempts to find examples:
---------------------------------------------------------
An ex ( sought) is: ((BAG A) (BAG A))+---------------------------------
----------------------------------------------+---------------
Found 2 examples ( and 151 non-exs), in 25.213 secs.
Ratio of exs to non-exs is too low ( 2 / 151); Exs are too sparse.
AM will sometime try to generalize GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2.
Won't try to create a restricted interesting version of
GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2.
Filled in examples of GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2.
0 examples existed originally on GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2.
7 potential new entries were just proposed.
7 found on Pass 1, then 0 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, the newly constructed examples are:
((VECTOR B B B) (VECTOR A A A) T)
((BAG A A) (BAG B B) T)
((VECTOR A B A) (VECTOR B B B) T)
((VECTOR E G H V M) (VECTOR E G H V M) T)
((BAG B I J Q R T W W W) (BAG B I J Q R T W W W) T)
((BAG A) (BAG A) T)
((BAG C E F H H M M N O O R V X Y Y Y) (BAG C E F H H M M N
O O R V X Y Y Y) T)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
all 7 new, distinct examples of GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2 had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 307 to 310.
This Cand used 34.456 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Genl-obj-equal-1
2: Fill in some generalizations of Genl-obj-equal-2
3: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Compose
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (The generalization GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-1 of OBJ-EQUAL
is relatively new and has no exs of its own yet , excepting those
of OBJ-EQUAL)
Beginning 33rd cycle.
Record of attempts to find examples:
An ex ( sought) is: ((VECTOR B A B) (VECTOR B))+-+-+---++--++-+-++-++--
-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-------+--+-+----+--+-+
Found 26 examples ( and 36 non-exs), in 4.095 secs.
A nice ratio of exs/non-exs was encountered for GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-1
Filled in examples of GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-1.
0 examples existed originally on GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-1.
40 potential new entries were just proposed.
40 found on Pass 1, then 0 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, some newly constructed examples are:
((VECTOR B B B) (VECTOR A A A) T)
((BAG A) (BAG A A A) T)
((BAG B I J Q R T W W W) (BAG B D D E F I K L S S T U W W) T)
((BAG C C G H I J L O P S U U X Y Y) (BAG B) T)
((BAG B I J Q R T W W W) (BAG F H M N O O Q R R T X) T)
((BAG J L O Q S T) (BAG A B C) T)
((VECTOR R D H D T Q G A M R) (VECTOR A B A) T)
((VECTOR B) (VECTOR A A) T)
((VECTOR B A) (VECTOR A A A) T)
((BAG B B B) (BAG B B B) T)
((VECTOR E G H V M) (VECTOR B A B) T)
((BAG A A B) (BAG C C G H I J L O P S U U X Y Y) T)
((VECTOR A) (VECTOR L P E V Y V O Q B V G D P M C A M S) T)
((VECTOR A) (VECTOR L G V I F H N F) T)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
all 40 new, distinct examples of GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-1 had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 310 to 313.
This Cand used 14.152 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some generalizations of Genl-obj-equal-2
2: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Compose
3: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Coalesce
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (The ratio of examples to non-examples of
GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2 is too low ; GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2 is too specialized
, too narrow)
Beginning 34th cycle.
Considering genlizing a recursive defn of GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2
Will try to remove a conjunct.
Failed. Only one simple recursive call on itself. No easy genlz.
Failed. Tried to fill in new generalizations of GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2.
This Cand used .568 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Compose
2: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Coalesce
3: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Bag-struc-join
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (COMPOSE is interesting , an Operation , 8
known examples , and I have never tried to invert it)
Beginning 35th cycle.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 312 to 313.
This Cand used 1.789 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Coalesce
2: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Bag-struc-join
3: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Bag-struc-insert
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (COALESCE is interesting , an Operation ,
19 known examples , and I have never tried to invert it)
Beginning 36th cycle.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 313 to 314.
This Cand used .596 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Bag-struc-join
2: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Bag-struc-insert
3: Coalesce Bag-struc-join
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (BAG-STRUC-JOIN is interesting , an Operation
, 25 known examples , and I have never tried to invert it)
Beginning 37th cycle.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 314 to 315.
This Cand used .55 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Bag-struc-insert
2: Coalesce Bag-struc-join
3: Coalesce Bag-struc-insert
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (BAG-STRUC-INSERT is interesting , an Operation
, 26 known examples , and I have never tried to invert it)
Beginning 38th cycle.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 315 to 316.
This Cand used .573 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Coalesce Bag-struc-join
2: Coalesce Bag-struc-insert
3: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Int-compose
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (BAG-STRUC-JOIN is interesting , an Operation
with at least two arguments , 25 known examples , and either I have
never tried to coalesce it or else I am desparate)
Beginning 39th cycle.
AM will merge the 2 nd and the 1 st arguments of BAG-STRUC-JOIN; that
is, BAG-STRUC and BAG-STRUC.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 316 to 316.
This Cand used .631 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Coalesce Bag-struc-insert
2: Construct an operation which is the inverse of: Int-compose
3: Coalesce Int-compose
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (BAG-STRUC-INSERT is interesting , an Operation
with at least two arguments , 26 known examples , and either I have
never tried to coalesce it or else I am desparate)
Beginning 40th cycle.
AM will merge the 1 st and the 2 nd arguments of BAG-STRUC-INSERT; that
is, ANYTHING and BAG-STRUC.
Done.
Do-thresh raised from 316 to 316.
This Cand used .749 cpu seconds.
No Cand on CANDS is good enuf.
Do-thresh reduced from 316 to 210
Must find new candidates and merge them into CANDS.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Canonize these 2 arguments: Genl-obj-equal-3 and Obj-equal
2: Canonize these 2 arguments: Genl-obj-equal-2 and Obj-equal
3: Canonize these 2 arguments: Genl-obj-equal-1 and Obj-equal
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (It would be nice to find a canonical ( with
respect to Genl-obj-equal-3 and Obj-equal ) representation C for any
Object X ; that is ,
( GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3 x y ) iff
( OBJ-EQUAL ( C x ) ( C y ) ) .
)
Beginning 41st cycle.
Experiments indicate that GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3 is not affected by varying
the type of structure of its arguments.
Experiments indicate that GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3 is affected by reordering
elements of its arguments.
So any canonical arguments must be Lists and Ordered-sets.
Experiments indicate that GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3 is not affected by the
presence of multiple elements in its structural arguments.
So any canonical arguments must be Ordered-sets and Sets.
GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3 doesn't look at any elements of OBJECT except possibly
the first element, so AM replaces the tail of OBJECT by a canonical
distinguished tail, say NIL.
Succeeded!
Some conjectures that AM considers believable:
OBJ-EQUAL, restricted to canonical OSET-STRUC's, is indistinguishable
from GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3.
There is a powerful analogy between
GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-3.................OBJ-EQUAL
OSET-STRUC.......................CANONICAL-OSET-STRUC
operators on and into............those operators restricted to
OSET-STRUC................. CANONICAL-OSET-STRUC
statements involving these.......statements involving these
Do-thresh raised from 210 to 368.
This Cand used 17.728 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Oset-struc
2: Canonize these 2 arguments: Genl-obj-equal-2 and Obj-equal
3: Canonize these 2 arguments: Genl-obj-equal-1 and Obj-equal
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The 3 reasons are:
(CANONICAL-OSET-STRUC exists , so it is worth our time to explore
examples of plain old OSET-STRUC 's)
(Canonize specifically asked for some examples of OSET-STRUC,
while trying to Execute Canonize algorithms to compute
Genl-obj-equal-3 Obj-equal)
(We have no examples for OSET-STRUC yet)
Beginning 42nd cycle.
Creating new Being, similar to OSET-STRUC, named INT-OSET-STRUC, but
restricted so as to make it more interesting.
An INT-OSET-STRUC is any OSET-STRUC for which (Each pair of
elements satisfies the same interesting predicate P (for some P)).
Filled in examples of OSET-STRUC.
0 examples existed originally on OSET-STRUC.
66 potential new entries were just proposed.
5 found on Pass 1, then 61 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, some newly constructed examples are:
(OSET ANYB-EXS-NOT ANYB-ANYP)
(OSET)
(OSET ACTIVE-EXS-NOT-BDY ANYB-EXS-NOT ANYB-ANYP)
(OSET DOUG ED CORDELL DON)
(OSET CORDELL DOUG DON)
(OSET A B)
(OSET A)
(OSET A C B)
(OSET B)
(OSET B E F G J L M N P Q R T W Z)
(OSET J L O Q S T)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
only 49 new, distinct examples of OSET-STRUC had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 368 to 494.
This Cand used 23.441 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Int-oset-struc
2: Canonize these 2 arguments: Genl-obj-equal-2 and Obj-equal
3: Canonize these 2 arguments: Genl-obj-equal-1 and Obj-equal
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (Any example of INT-OSET-STRUC is automatically
an interesting example of OSET-STRUC)
Beginning 43rd cycle.
Filled in examples of INT-OSET-STRUC.
0 examples existed originally on INT-OSET-STRUC.
22 potential new entries were just proposed.
6 found on Pass 1, then 16 more derived.
Eliminating duplicates, the newly constructed examples are:
(OSET)
(OSET A)
(OSET B)
After eliminating duplicate and already-known entries, AM finds that.
only 3 new, distinct examples of INT-OSET-STRUC had to be added.
Do-thresh raised from 494 to 595.
This Cand used 19.644 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Canonize these 2 arguments: Genl-obj-equal-2 and Obj-equal
2: Canonize these 2 arguments: Genl-obj-equal-1 and Obj-equal
3: Canonize these 2 arguments: Same-size and Obj-equal
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (It would be nice to find a canonical ( with
respect to Genl-obj-equal-2 and Obj-equal ) representation C for any
Object X ; that is ,
( GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2 x y ) iff
( OBJ-EQUAL ( C x ) ( C y ) ) .
)
Beginning 44th cycle.
Experiments indicate that GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2 is affected by the varying
the type of structure of its arguments.
GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2 doesn't look at the specific elements in OBJECT, like
OBJ-EQUAL does, so AM can replace them all by a single distinguished
element, say T.
Succeeded!
Some conjectures that AM considers believable:
OBJ-EQUAL, restricted to canonical OBJECT's, is indistinguishable
from GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2.
There is a powerful analogy between
GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-2.................OBJ-EQUAL
OBJECT...........................CANONICAL-OBJECT
operators on and into............those operators restricted to
OBJECT..................... CANONICAL-OBJECT
statements involving these.......statements involving these
Do-thresh raised from 595 to 676.
This Cand used 5.28 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Canonize these 2 arguments: Genl-obj-equal-1 and Obj-equal
2: Canonize these 2 arguments: Same-size and Obj-equal
3: Fill in some examples of Coa-compose-identity&compose
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (It would be nice to find a canonical ( with
respect to Genl-obj-equal-1 and Obj-equal ) representation C for any
Object X ; that is ,
( GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-1 x y ) iff
( OBJ-EQUAL ( C x ) ( C y ) ) .
)
Beginning 45th cycle.
Experiments indicate that GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-1 is affected by the varying
the type of structure of its arguments.
GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-1 doesn't look at any elements of OBJECT except possibly
the car of the structure which denotes its type, so AM replaces the
tail of OBJECT by a canonical distinguished tail, say NIL.
Succeeded!
Some conjectures that AM considers believable:
OBJ-EQUAL, restricted to canonical OBJECT's, is indistinguishable
from GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-1.
There is a powerful analogy between
GENL-OBJ-EQUAL-1.................OBJ-EQUAL
OBJECT...........................CANONICAL-OBJECT-1
operators on and into............those operators restricted to
OBJECT..................... CANONICAL-OBJECT-1
statements involving these.......statements involving these
Do-thresh raised from 676 to 740.
This Cand used 3.318 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Canonize these 2 arguments: Same-size and Obj-equal
2: Fill in some examples of Coa-compose-identity&compose
3: Fill in some examples of Compose-identity&compose
I choose first Cand. OK? yes.
The reason is: (It would be nice to find a canonical ( with
respect to Same-size and Obj-equal ) representation C for any Object
X ; that is ,
( SAME-SIZE x y ) iff
( OBJ-EQUAL ( C x ) ( C y ) ) .
)
Beginning 46th cycle.
Experiments indicate that SAME-SIZE is not affected by varying the type
of structure of its arguments.
Experiments indicate that SAME-SIZE is affected by the presence of
multiple elements in its structural arguments.
So any canonical arguments can be Bags and Lists.
SAME-SIZE doesn't look at the specific elements in OBJECT, like
OBJ-EQUAL does, so AM can replace them all by a single distinguished
element, say T.
Succeeded!
Some conjectures that AM considers believable:
OBJ-EQUAL, restricted to canonical BAG-STRUC's, is indistinguishable
from SAME-SIZE.
There is a powerful analogy between
SAME-SIZE........................OBJ-EQUAL
BAG-STRUC........................CANONICAL-BAG-STRUC
operators on and into............those operators restricted to
OBJECT..................... CANONICAL-BAG-STRUC
statements involving these.......statements involving these
Do-thresh raised from 740 to 792.
This Cand used 8.207 cpu seconds.
The top 3 Cands are:
1: Fill in some examples of Coa-compose-identity&compose
2: Fill in some examples of Compose-identity&compose
3: Fill in some examples of Canonical-bag-struc
The reason is: (The range of COA-COMPOSE-IDENTITY&COMPOSE might
turn out to be the same as its domain , but there are no examples
around to test this hypothesis on)
Beginning 47th cycle.