Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!tartarus.uchicago.edu!converse
From: converse@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Tim Converse)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Minsky's Record
Keywords: Publication, Knowledge Diffusion
Message-ID: <1658@tank.uchicago.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 89 18:20:22 GMT
References: <1576@tank.uchicago.edu> <44074@linus.UUCP>
Sender: news@tank.uchicago.edu
Reply-To: converse@tartarus.uchicago.edu.UUCP (Tim Converse)
Organization: U. Chicago Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 20


	The comments I've seen in this thread have mainly addressed the
question of to what extent research contribution is necessarily reflected in
publication record.   Those on the pro-Minsky side have argued that there are
many ways that a person can influence a field other than through publication.
I agree, and Minsky is a great example of this sort of impact.

	The running assumption, though, has been that Minsky's publication
record *is* sparse.  Is this even true?  I was surprised to find four 
references to Minsky in Hopcroft and Ullman's text on automata and formal
language theory, including attribution of the proof that a two-counter
machine can simulate an arbitrary Turing machine.  I suppose I shouldn't
be surprised, in that Theory and AI were probably closer and friendlier in
those days.   :-)


====================================================================
    -- Tim Converse--    1606 E. Hyde Park #4E,  Chicago, IL  60615       
   converse@gargoyle.uchicago.edu      ..!ihpn4!gargoyle!converse         
 "If it wasn't for disappointments / I wouldn't have any appointments"