Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.dal.ca!vanadis
From: vanadis@cs.dal.ca (Jose Castejon-Amenedo)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What Has Traditional AI Accomplishe
Keywords: AI, symbolic integration
Message-ID: <1990Oct17.175202.12081@cs.dal.ca>
Date: 17 Oct 90 17:52:02 GMT
References: <69367@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <3200031@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: vanadis@cs.dal.ca
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Lines: 25


	In a previous posting, gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu says

> I believe symbolic intergration programs such as Mathematica are good
> examples of refined AI computation.  Chess programs such as the
> leading chess program from CMU (Deep Thought?) are bad examples since
> they demonstrate that brute force triumphs over sophisticated
> heuristics.

	I am not sure if these two problems are so different. After
the tour-de-force of Risch, integration is, in many instances, a
question of brute force, not so different from differentiation. Now,
I believe that the processes of analytic differentiation and the
alpha-beta family of procedures used in chess programs are both
examples of brute force techniques. But then again, perhaps AI and
natural intelligence are just hierarchies of brute force techniques,
Penrose permitting. Anyway, I see no difference between Deep Thought
and Mathematica, in this respect. Obviously, this is only my point of
view, with all its insignificance.




Jose Castejon-Amenedo
vanadis@cs.dal.ca