Re: Minsky still posting
examachine_at_gmail.com
Date: 03/14/05
- Previous message: alex goldman: "Is Prolog good for AI? (was: Minsky still posting)"
- In reply to: Matthew Huntbach: "Re: Minsky still posting"
- Next in thread: Albert van der Horst: "Re: Minsky still posting"
- Reply: Albert van der Horst: "Re: Minsky still posting"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 14 Mar 2005 14:33:08 -0800
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Torkel Franzen wrote:
> > Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >> If you want to do serious search, you don't want the crude
depth-first
> >> with backtracking that's built into Prolog.
>
> > It's too frivolous?
>
> The reasoning is sometimes made "AI involves search, Prolog involves
> search, therefore Prolog is good for AI". But anyone doing the sort
of
> AI that involves extensive search isn't going to be using depth-first
> with backtracking search, are they?
Agreeable. I'd think Prolog is good for AI not because of its
evaluation method, but because it is a symbolic prog. lang. So claiming
that Prolog is the ultimate AI prog.lang. could be misleading. Still,
one wonders, just what is better?
-- Eray
- Previous message: alex goldman: "Is Prolog good for AI? (was: Minsky still posting)"
- In reply to: Matthew Huntbach: "Re: Minsky still posting"
- Next in thread: Albert van der Horst: "Re: Minsky still posting"
- Reply: Albert van der Horst: "Re: Minsky still posting"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
