Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!murdoch!watt2.acc.Virginia.EDU!jlb3b
From: jlb3b@watt2.acc.Virginia.EDU (James Lewis Bander)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What Has Traditional AI Accomplished?
Summary: Neural nets are almost 50 years old
Message-ID: <1990Oct17.215200.5445@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 17 Oct 90 21:52:00 GMT
References: <69609@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1990Oct15.143325.26044@unislc.uucp>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Reply-To: bander@Virginia.EDU (Jim Bander)
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 19
Ireallyam: jlb3b

In article <1990Oct15.143325.26044@unislc.uucp> klb@unislc.uucp (Keith L. Breinholt) writes:
>From article <69609@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, by loren@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich):
>
>> 	And Neural Nets, what I am working on now, are a field that is
>> only recently reviving.
>
>Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I though Neural Nets as an area of
>study was only 5 or so years old.  In terms of research, 5 years is
>baby technology.  If Neural Nets are consistent with other research it
>won't make it into general public acceptance for another 5 to 10
>years.
>

Okay.  I think you're wrong.  See, for example, McCullough and Pitts
"A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in neural nets." in
_Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics_ volume 5, 1943.

Jim Bander
bander@virginia.edu