Einstein's Riddle
Steve Graham
the following?
Steve Graham
===
Einstein's Riddle
Albert Einstein wrote this riddle this century [ed. 20th century]. He said
98% of the world could not solve it.
There are 5 houses in 5 different colors. In each house lives a person with
a different nationality. The 5
owners drink a certain type of beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigar, and
keep a certain pet. No owners
have the same pet, smoke the same brand of cigar or drink the same beverage.
The question is: "Who owns the fish?"
Hints:
The Brit lives in the red house.
The Sweed keeps dogs as pets.
The Dane drinks tea.
The green house is on the left of the white house.
The green house's owner drinks coffee.
The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill.
The man living in the center house drinks milk.
The Norwegian lives in the first house.
The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
The man who keeps the horse lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
The owner who smokes Bluemasters drinks beer.
The German smokes Prince.
The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
The man who smokes Blends has a neighbor who drinks water.
David Ness
>
> Who would be interested in using his/her brain (and his computer) to solve
> the following?
>
> Steve Graham
>
> ===
>
> Einstein's Riddle
>
> Albert Einstein wrote this riddle this century [ed. 20th century]. He said
> 98% of the world could not solve it.
>
I can't speak for others, but this isn't much of a puzzle, and belongs to a
category of puzzles that appear in low quality monthly puzzle magazines. The
highest quality puzzles of this type used to appear regularly in Games Magazine,
but I gave up reading that when Will Shortz departed for the Times Crosswords
about a decade ago.
I have nothing against puzzles, but it does strike me as being _very_ important
to draw the line at only those of particular interest or of the highest quality.
Mediochre puzzles are of _no_ interest to me, and do not accomplish what the last
round associated with the `New Scientist' did, namely expose lots of different and
contrasted technique.
Steve Graham
I'm surprised at the remark. This puzzle strikes me as much more complex,
and it will utilize some of the same techniques as the other one:
Backtracking, constraints.
Steve
===
"David Ness" <DN...@Home.Com> wrote in message
news:3AABD82E...@Home.Com...
David Ness
>
> David,
>
> I'm surprised at the remark. This puzzle strikes me as much more complex,
> and it will utilize some of the same techniques as the other one:
> Backtracking, constraints.
>
> Steve
>
We all differ. I find this category of puzzle _very_ simple. I have done hundreds
(perhaps thousands) of them over the years and in general the significant
problems are always involved in the `interpretation' of the English used in
specifying the conditions. In general once that is exposed and modeled there isn't
anything very challenging left in the puzzle. A clue that this is the case is
found in the fact that the item mentioned in the final question is never mentioned
elsewhere---thus indicating a kind of `word-cleverness' is at the core.
Added to this, the search space of the puzzles is often 5^5 or 6^6, and therefore
wouldn't represent much of of a challenge, or much room for particular algorithms
to distinguish themselves were one to treat the problem computationally.
Of course, YMMV. It isn't my job to discourage or encourage others. All I can
say is:
(a) I don't find the category interesting; and
(b) will be surprised if anything interesting results should others tackle it.
Kees Nuyt
<js.g...@home.com> wrote in comp.lang.awk:
>Who would be interested in using his/her brain (and his computer) to solve
>the following?
[...]
>Einstein's Riddle
[...]
That problem probably can be solved using Prolog, or any other
declarative language, certainly not that easy using awk.
In other words: 'somewhat' off-topic in comp.lang.awk
--
( Kees Nuyt; Rotterdam; Netherlands
) mailto:k.n...@zonnet.nl
c[_] Disclaimer: Any opinions etc. are mine, not necessarily my employer's.
Doc O'Leary
Graham <js.g...@home.com> wrote:
> Albert Einstein wrote this riddle this century [ed. 20th century]. He said
> 98% of the world could not solve it.
Given that the heart of this is a simple logic problem, I have doubts
that 90% of the world could not figure it out. Einstein, if he really
was the one posing the riddle, clearly had something else in mind than
the solution to a simple logic problem.
Question: Who owns the fish?
Answer: Houses are property, and thus owned by the men, but no man has
the right of ownership over another animal.
Note that the language of the puzzle never used ownership in referring
to pets, only in the final question.
Of course, the history of Germany has been one of attempted conquest,
so what's the big deal of owning a fish or two when you think the world
belongs to you? :-) <-- flamer's please note
Richard Plinston
>
> , and keep a certain pet. No owners have the same pet,
While the clues mention 4 pets: dog, cat, bird, horse, there is nothing
to indicate that the 5th 'pet' is actually fish. Thus the answer may be
'noone', the 5th may be a goat.
Other than that the problem is either unsolvable (if in fact there is
insufficient information) or mechanistic (if there is). I suspect that
98% can't be bothered with it. I also don't believe that Einstein wrote
it.
Jim Lucas
> Steve Graham wrote:
> >
> > Who would be interested in using his/her brain
> > (and his computer) to solve the following?
> ...this isn't much of a puzzle,...
>
> ...it does strike me as being _very_ important
> to draw the line at only those [puzzles] of
> particular interest or of the highest quality.
> Mediochre puzzles are of _no_ interest to me,
> and do not accomplish what the last round
> associated with the `New Scientist' did, namely
> expose lots of different and contrasted
> technique.
You appear to be making an interesting claim, i.e., that the range of
techniques for solving this puzzle computationally is limited (and also too
simple to be interesting?), regardless of the language. Certainly, simple
enumeration of all the combinations followed by selection of the (presumably)
only one that satisfies all the constraints seems easy enough to program,
though I'd still be curious to see how the constraints are specified
programmatically in different languages.
But I would hope that other, more clever solutions are also possible, and
perhaps there might be variation among languages as to which are the simplest
or most efficient. Personally, I thought the New Scientist puzzle was
ridiculously simple, at least in APL and after one realized that it was nothing
more than simple pattern matching. As I see it, the constraint matching in
this "Einstein" puzzle is much more complex than the New Scientist problem,
*especially* if one wants to aim for efficiency instead of brute force.
By the way, for you the problem may seem simple because it's one you're
familiar with and because you have honed your skills in solving that particular
type of puzzle, but 1) *most* people *do* have difficulty with that kind of
problem (although the quoted 98% figure may be a bit high) and 2) problems that
are "simple" for the human mind to solve are not always simple to program.
Consider, e.g., parsing English sentences, or identifying the "brown" regions
in a painting.
I, for one, would like to see people submit solutions to this one, and see
how -- or if -- they vary. And if it's really as simple as you imply, perhaps
you could prove it by whipping off a program and being the first to submit. Or
if you're claiming -- as I think you are -- that this particular puzzle is an
unnecessarily simple example of it's genre, pose us a more difficult version,
then give us a program that will solve both... or preferably *any* problem of
the same type.
/Jim Lucas
David Ness
>
> You appear to be making an interesting claim, i.e., that the range of
> techniques for solving this puzzle computationally is limited (and also too
> simple to be interesting?), regardless of the language. Certainly, simple
No. I wasn't making any claim, other than to say that I've done enough of the
kind of puzzle suggested to lead me to believe that answers were likely to
be boring, and would mostly involve discussion about modelling the (human)
language that was used to present the problem. So far almost all of the
responses that have appeared have suggested that this particular point is true.
There is argument about `owning fish'. We have the possible answer `none'.There
can be argument about whether `first house' means left-most or right-most. Stuff
like that.
Since I believe my own point, I'm not interested in playing with the problem,
so I demur from worrying about a solution.
Virulent
and a pen & paper to solve this. It was actually kinda fun =)
)=( )=( )=( )=( )=(
Norwgn. Dane Brit German Sweed
Yellow Blue Red Green White
Water Tea Milk Coffee Beer
Dunhill Blends Pall Mall Prince Blue Masters
Cats Horse Birds FISH Dogs
The german keeps the Fish
---
I don't chack newsgroups too often, please reply to my email as well
Viru...@bigwig.net
Jim Lucas
"David Ness" <DN...@Home.Com> wrote in message
> Jim Lucas wrote:
> >
> > You appear to be making an interesting claim, i.e., that the range of
> > techniques for solving this puzzle computationally is limited (and also too
> > simple to be interesting?), regardless of the language. Certainly, simple
> ...
>
I disagree. By praising the New Scientist puzzle for "exposing lots of
different and
contrasted technique" and characterizing the "Einstein" puzzle as "mediochre"
[sic] and unable to "accomplish" the same variety of technique, you have indeed
made a claim, even if it was by implication.
> ...to say that I've done enough of the kind
> of puzzle suggested to lead me to believe
> that answers were likely to be boring,...
Answers to the puzzle as stated, or answers in the sense of programming
solutions? I'm not expert at such logic problems, but I found it easy enough
with pencil and paper to determine that the German owns the fish (assuming that
the problem is intended to be one of logic, and not one of linguistic
quibbles). I'm not convinced that it will be as easy to write a computer
program to do it for me, though I would hope that such a program would also be
able to handle more "difficult" versions of the same type of problem.
But in all your experience with solving this type of problem, you haven't said
whether you've ever written a program to do it. It's the programs that I'm
curious about.
> ...and would mostly involve discussion about
> modelling the (human) language that was used
> to present the problem.
Yes, that *is* the interesting part: how to specify and process such
conditions as "next to"; how to apply the different sorts of conditions; how to
select which conditions to apply first in order to maximize efficiency. Maybe
it's simple, but maybe not to someone who hasn't tried it before. And is there
really only one way to do it? At least in APL, there are certainly multiple
ways to eliminate duplicate rows from a matrix, which I think is logically a
much simpler "puzzle".
> So far almost all of the responses that have
> appeared have suggested that this particular
> point is true. There is argument about `owning
> fish'. We have the possible answer `none'.
> There can be argument about whether `first
> house' means left-most or right-most. Stuff
> like that.
So far, most of the responses have *not* been about *modelling* the language,
but about quibbling with the semantic interpretation, where the *intended*
semantics are quite clear. They have been attempts to avoid the real, intended
puzzle. I can only wonder if that's because it's *not* so easy to write a
program to solve that sort of puzzle. I find it interesting that John R. Clark
indicates that *his* solution "would be too long to post here."
> Since I believe my own point, I'm not
> interested in playing with the problem,
> so I demur from worrying about a solution.
Fair enough, but *I* hope that others *will* submit solutions. I even hope
that I'll find some time to try it, since I haven't previously tried
programming this kind of problem.
/Jim
Jerry Avins
There is insufficient accurate information to solve this. While each
individual smokes a different brand of cigar, Pall Mall (at least) is a
cigarette. For all we know, they may all smoke that.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Summerhayes
news:VIPq6.396633$ge4.13...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
You can find prolog solutions to this problem on the net,
just do a search on `prolog zebra problem'. With some name
changes they appear to be identical, but I didn't go through
every fact to check.
Geoff
Jim Lucas
> Richard Plinston wrote:
> >
> > Steve Graham wrote:
> > >
> > > , and keep a certain pet. No owners have the same pet,
> > > The question is: "Who owns the fish?"
> >
> > While the clues mention 4 pets: dog, cat, bird, horse, there is nothing
> > to indicate that the 5th 'pet' is actually fish. Thus the answer may be
> > 'noone', the 5th may be a goat.
> >
> > Other than that the problem is either unsolvable (if in fact there is
> > insufficient information) or mechanistic (if there is). I suspect that
> > 98% can't be bothered with it. I also don't believe that Einstein wrote
> > it.
>
> There is insufficient accurate information to solve this.
Absolutely true, but also completely false. In one sense, there's not enough
information in *any* text -- including yours and mine -- to make any sense of
it, whatsoever. Communication and understanding are based on assumptions of
shared meaning, perception, and even reasoning processes. E.g., I assume that
your message was written in English, and that our individual understandings of
the words and phrases (and the abbreviation "e.g.") are sufficiently similar
that I have understood your content (though perhaps not your intent), and you
will understand mine. I'm inclined to think that your English is more precise
than that used in stating the puzzle (could the cigar-cigaret confusion be due
to inexpert translation from the German?), and using that assumption I am
reasonably confident that I have understood the intended logic of the puzzle
sufficiently to agree with the others who have actually solved it as to the
intended meaning of all the constraints, as well as the final, unique solution.
> While each individual smokes a different brand of cigar,
> Pall Mall (at least) is a cigarette.
So is Prince, but that doesn't require that they're not also cigar brands. I
believe that Dunhill makes both cigarettes and cut tobacco, but as a
non-smoker, I haven't bothered to become an expert.
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
You must be an engineer. You got a logic puzzle, and from it you made a
semantic-philosophical nit pick.
I'm tempted to ask you if you can write a program to do such nit picking for
you, but I'm sure that would be a *much* more difficult problem than the one
attributed to Einstein (Andrew Einstein, perhaps?).
:-) /Jim Lucas
Jerry Avins
>
...
> > There is insufficient accurate information to solve this.
>
> Absolutely true, but also completely false. In one sense, there's not enough
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?
> information in *any* text -- including yours and mine -- to make any sense of
> it, whatsoever. Communication and understanding are based on assumptions of
> shared meaning, perception, and even reasoning processes. E.g., I assume that
> your message was written in English, and that our individual understandings of
> the words and phrases (and the abbreviation "e.g.") are sufficiently similar
> that I have understood your content (though perhaps not your intent), and you
> will understand mine. I'm inclined to think that your English is more precise
> than that used in stating the puzzle (could the cigar-cigaret confusion be due
> to inexpert translation from the German?), and using that assumption I am
> reasonably confident that I have understood the intended logic of the puzzle
> sufficiently to agree with the others who have actually solved it as to the
> intended meaning of all the constraints, as well as the final, unique solution.
>
> > While each individual smokes a different brand of cigar,
> > Pall Mall (at least) is a cigarette.
Pall Mall is known not to be a cigar. It is not logically required, but
it is a fact.
>
> So is Prince, but that doesn't require that they're not also cigar brands. I
> believe that Dunhill makes both cigarettes and cut tobacco, but as a
> non-smoker, I haven't bothered to become an expert.
>
> > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
> You must be an engineer. You got a logic puzzle, and from it you made a
> semantic-philosophical nit pick.
My altogether too subtle way to say that when -- indeed if -- Einstein
claimed that most of the world's population couldn't solve this trivial
logic puzzle, that was not a reference to the level on intelligence
required.
>
> I'm tempted to ask you if you can write a program to do such nit picking for
> you, but I'm sure that would be a *much* more difficult problem than the one
> attributed to Einstein (Andrew Einstein, perhaps?).
That would require bringing to bear a great deal of artificial
intelligence. Ninety-nine percent of the world, me included, doesn't
know how to do that. Indeed, the first programmer (who will likely also
be an engineer) who creates a sound embodiment of artificial stupidity
will probably be awarded a Nobel Prize. öżö
>
> :-) /Jim Lucas
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
m_l...@my-deja.com
>
> Question: Who owns the fish?
>
> Answer: Houses are property, and thus owned by the men, but no man has
> the right of ownership over another animal.
Among them (the guys from the riddle), only one has the right
to take the fish with him to the city, or make money using it,
or sell it, of eat it fried. If other guys do that without a
legal reason, this would be a crime. So that guy owns the fist.
And you are playing words.
BTW, in Russian the question would sound as "u kogo ryba?"
(lit. "with whom fish?") where the verb is implied.
A translation underlining legal issues would be inadequate
in the context of a puzzle.
Steve Graham
the following?
Steve Graham
===
Einstein's Riddle
Albert Einstein wrote this riddle this century [ed. 20th century]. He said
98% of the world could not solve it.
There are 5 houses in 5 different colors. In each house lives a person with
a different nationality. The 5 owners drink a certain type of beverage,
smoke a certain brand of cigar, and keep a certain pet. No owners
have the same pet, smoke the same brand of cigar or drink the same beverage.
The question is: "Who owns the fish?"
Hints:
Janis Dzerins
> Einstein's Riddle
>
> Albert Einstein wrote this riddle this century [ed. 20th century]. He said
> 98% of the world could not solve it.
>
> There are 5 houses in 5 different colors. In each house lives a person with
> a different nationality. The 5 owners drink a certain type of beverage,
> smoke a certain brand of cigar, and keep a certain pet. No owners
> have the same pet, smoke the same brand of cigar or drink the same beverage.
>
> The question is: "Who owns the fish?"
In Peter Norvig's "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming:
Case Studies in Common Lisp" he calls this a "Zebra puzzle" (because
the questions was "who owns the zebra?" not fish). Along with the
solution in Prolog written in Common Lisp.
--
Janis Dzerins
If million people say a stupid thing it's still a stupid thing.
Howard Brazee
> That would require bringing to bear a great deal of artificial
> intelligence. Ninety-nine percent of the world, me included, doesn't
> know how to do that. Indeed, the first programmer (who will likely also
> be an engineer) who creates a sound embodiment of artificial stupidity
> will probably be awarded a Nobel Prize. öżö
I've seen plenty of artificial stupidity already.
But the trouble with defining whether or not we have AI is that there is no solid
arrival point. We can judge whether a computer appears to act like a person, but
intelligence can be many different things without that. It is basically problem
solving. Lots of problems can be solved via computers, lots cannot. At what level
do we say we have the first AI? I suppose we have had it for a long time. And we
are gradually incrementing the intelligence level to new levels.
Some people were upset when a computer beat the World Chess champion. But computers
could long beat 99% of the population. And bicycles could long beat 100% of the
population. Just because intelligence is specialized doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Ben Bishop
>"Steve Graham" <js.g...@home.com> writes:
It also doesn't sound anything like the type of puzzle Albert Einstein
would have written or cared about, so I question the provenance to begin
with, but this seems like a normal negative-clue multi-dimensional puzzle
I remember being afflicted with in 8th grade.
From what I remember of Prolog (almost 15+ years ago at college) it
certainly would be my first choice for making an engine to solve this type
of puzzle.
Ben
William Tanksley
>Albert Einstein wrote this riddle this century [ed. 20th century]. He said
>98% of the world could not solve it.
I know Lewis Carrol wrote a riddle or two like this. I don't recall him
saying anything about 98%.
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
Jerry Avins
>
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> > That would require bringing to bear a great deal of artificial
> > intelligence. Ninety-nine percent of the world, me included, doesn't
> > know how to do that. Indeed, the first programmer (who will likely also
> > be an engineer) who creates a sound embodiment of artificial stupidity
>
> I've seen plenty of artificial stupidity already.
You have better vision and better sources than I. All I've seen is
programmer stupidity, much of it my own, and all of it real. When we can
program a machine to be as stupid and as effective in the real world as
a housefly or an earthworm, that will be the artificial-stupidity
precursor to AI. Expert systems and fuzzy logic may be useful tools for
the purpose, but so is assembly language. None of those embody
intelligence. (Or so it says here!)
>
> But the trouble with defining whether or not we have AI is that there is no solid
> arrival point. We can judge whether a computer appears to act like a person, but
> intelligence can be many different things without that. It is basically problem
> solving. Lots of problems can be solved via computers, lots cannot. At what level
> do we say we have the first AI? I suppose we have had it for a long time. And we
> are gradually incrementing the intelligence level to new levels.
>
> Some people were upset when a computer beat the World Chess champion. But computers
> could long beat 99% of the population. And bicycles could long beat 100% of the
> population. Just because intelligence is specialized doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It's the same way with animal intelligence. People have long maintained
that what sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is ____.
(Pick one or insert your own: tool making; verbal communication; self
consciousness; tool use; altruism; symbolic reasoning.) As soon as an
instance of _____ is demonstrated in animals, it is removed from the
list, sometimes replaced by another. I have a second-hand report of an
encounter with a large bear that stood 7 feet tall on his hind legs. He
had been hanging around watching my friend's friend build a log cabin,
but didn't give the impression of becoming a threat. On coming to watch
one day, the bear picked up a log that would have been too heavy for one
man, stood, and walked into the woods with it balanced on his shoulder.
It seemed a case of "See! I can do it too!" I can't imagine what the
bear was actually thinking, but he was surely thinking something.
Howard Brazee
> It's the same way with animal intelligence. People have long maintained
> that what sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is ____.
> (Pick one or insert your own: tool making; verbal communication; self
> consciousness; tool use; altruism; symbolic reasoning.) As soon as an
> instance of _____ is demonstrated in animals, it is removed from the
> list, sometimes replaced by another.
What's funny is when we pick "man kills his own kind". Even if we are unique by being
bad, it is preferable to not being unique. But this is just as false as "man is the only
animal which dreams".
Same things happen with AI. As soon as one criterion is met, it is discarded.
I have read that the hardest things to do are from early in the evolutionary ladder.
Making a chess playing robot is easier than making one run or swim well.
About a year ago, I read an article in the Smithsonian. This guy was making very dumb
robots without the type of programming we think of. They worked. He would break off a
leg and they would still crawl ahead like a bug. The first thing I did was turn the
magazine over to make sure it wasn't the April issue, but it appeared to be serious. If
this has a future, it is a fascinating one which I haven't seen in any SF. (although
Hogan had a novel with evolutionary robots which this could fit in).
Leo Wong and Mary Murphy
: pair ( a n1 n2 -- a1 a2 ) chars >r over chars + swap r> + ;
: trade ( a1 a2 -- ) 2dup 2>r c@ swap c@ r> c! r> c! ;
0 value temp
: ,columns ( a -- ) temp 0 ?do count [char] 0 - c, loop drop ;
: permute ( a n -- )
1- ?dup if
2dup recurse
dup 0 do
2dup i pair trade
2dup recurse
2dup i pair trade
loop 2drop
else ,columns then ;
: parray
create ( a n -- ) dup c, dup to temp permute
does> ( n -- a ) count rot * chars + ;
s" 01234" parray perm
s" 023" parray cperm \ colors
s" 1234" parray nperm \ nationalities
s" 0134" parray dperm \ drinks
: string, ( a u -- ) dup c, 0 do count c, loop drop ;
: spells ( a u -- a' ) create here >r 0 c, string, r> ;
: ,s ( x1 ... xn n -- ) begin ?dup while dup roll , 1- repeat ;
: collect ( x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 -- ) create 5 ,s ;
\ colors
s" yellow" spells yellow
s" blue" spells blue
s" red" spells red
s" green" spells green
s" white" spells white collect colors
\ nationalities
s" Brit" spells brit
s" Dane" spells dane
s" Norwegian" spells norwegian
s" German" spells german
s" Swede" spells swede collect nationalities
\ drinks
s" beer" spells beer
s" milk" spells milk
s" tea" spells tea
s" coffee" spells coffee
s" water" spells water collect drinks
\ smokes
s" Blaumeister" spells blaumeister
s" blends" spells blends
s" Dunhill" spells dunhill
s" Prince" spells prince
s" Pall Mall" spells pallmall collect smokes
\ pets
s" birds" spells birds
s" cats" spells cats
s" dogs" spells dogs
s" fish" spells fish
s" horse" spells horse collect pets
0 norwegian c! \ hint 9
norwegian c@ 1+ blue c! \ hint 14
2 milk c! \ hint 8
\ The following is ordered for the impatient
: colors! ( a -- )
count red c! count yellow c! c@ dup green c!
1+ white c! \ hint 4
;
: nationalities! ( a -- )
count dane c! count german c! c@ swede c!
red c@ brit c! \ hint 1
;
: drinks! ( a -- )
count beer c! c@ water c!
dane c@ tea c! \ hint 3
green c@ coffee c! \ hint 4
;
: smokes! ( a -- )
count blends c! c@ pallmall c!
yellow c@ dunhill c! \ hint 7
beer c@ blaumeister c! \ hint 12
german c@ prince c! \ hint 13
;
: pets! ( a -- )
count cats c! count fish c! c@ horse c!
swede c@ dogs c! \ hint 2
pallmall c@ birds c! \ hint 6
;
create board 5 chars allot
: cut ( c ca u -- n ) rot scan nip ; \ n=remaining chars including c
: missing ( row -- n )
board 5 0 fill
5 0 do 1 over i cells + @ c@ chars board + +! loop drop
0 board 5 cut ;
: ?no ( a1 a2 -- ) s" - if false exit then" evaluate ; immediate
: constraints ( -- ? )
\ ( 1 ) brit c@ red c@ ?no
\ ( 2 ) swede c@ dogs c@ ?no
\ ( 3 ) dane c@ tea c@ ?no
\ ( 4 ) green c@ white c@ 1- ?no
\ ( 5 ) green c@ coffee c@ ?no
\ ( 6 ) pallmall c@ birds c@ ?no
\ ( 7 ) yellow c@ dunhill c@ ?no
\ ( 8 ) milk c@ 2 ?no
\ ( 9 ) norwegian c@ 0 ?no
( 10 ) blends c@ cats c@ - abs 1 ?no
( 11 ) horse c@ dunhill c@ - abs 1 ?no
\ ( 12 ) blaumeister c@ beer c@ ?no
\ ( 13 ) german c@ prince c@ ?no
\ ( 14 ) norwegian c@ blue c@ - abs 1 ?no
( 15 ) blends c@ water c@ - abs 1 ?no
0 pets missing ?no
true ;
: .spell ( a -- ) count type space ;
: .nth ( n collection -- a )
5 0 do
2dup i cells + @ count rot = if .spell leave else drop then
loop 2drop ;
: .solution ( -- )
CR ." The " fish c@ nationalities .nth ." owns the fish." ;
variable ntries
: er ( -- ) \ Einstein's riddle
0 ntries !
6 0 do i cperm colors! colors missing 0= if
24 0 do i nperm nationalities! nationalities missing 0= if
24 0 do i dperm drinks! drinks missing 0= if
120 0 do i perm smokes! smokes missing 0= if
120 0 do i perm pets! 1 ntries +!
constraints if .solution cr ." ntries=" ntries ?
unloop unloop unloop unloop unloop exit then
loop then
loop then
loop then
loop then
loop ;
er
a...@redhat.invalid
: Jerry Avins wrote:
:> That would require bringing to bear a great deal of artificial
:> intelligence. Ninety-nine percent of the world, me included, doesn't
:> know how to do that. Indeed, the first programmer (who will likely also
:> be an engineer) who creates a sound embodiment of artificial stupidity
:> will probably be awarded a Nobel Prize. öżö
: I've seen plenty of artificial stupidity already.
: But the trouble with defining whether or not we have AI is that
: there is no solid arrival point.
Sure there is: the Turing Test [1]. That's why it was invented.
This has been a solved problem since 1950.
Andrew.
[1] Turing, A.M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind,
59, 433-560.
Howard Brazee
m_l...@my-deja.com
>
> In comp.lang.forth Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> : Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> : I've seen plenty of artificial stupidity already.
>
> : But the trouble with defining whether or not we have AI is that
> : there is no solid arrival point.
>
> Sure there is: the Turing Test [1]. That's why it was invented.
But any modern computer passes that test when connected to the net.
m_l...@my-deja.com
>
> This is cross-posted. What language are you using?
Forth
>
> Leo Wong and Mary Murphy wrote:
>
> > \ er.f "Einstein's Riddle" - Leo Wong 12 March 2001 +
^ 'f' for Forth
> >
> > : pair ( a n1 n2 -- a1 a2 ) chars >r over chars + swap r> + ;
[snip all]
> > --
> > he...@albany.net
> > http://www.albany.net/~hello/
John Murray
Assuming
a) the houses are in a row in front of me, with the left-most one being
denoted the first (where the Norwegian lives)
b) "on the left of" means immediately adjacent on the left side
then I deduce that the German owns the fish.
John Murray
"Steve Graham" <js.g...@home.com> wrote in message
news:2bor6.407527$ge4.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
J Thomas
> : But the trouble with defining whether or not we have AI is that
> : there is no solid arrival point.
> Sure there is: the Turing Test [1]. That's why it was invented.
> This has been a solved problem since 1950.
But the Turing Test only checks whether the program can imitate the
particular forms of stupidity common to human beings. It doesn't work
as an intelligence test.
Andrew Makinson
> then I deduce that the German owns the fish.
>
> John Murray
And now John it's time to tell all us mere mortals how you deduced that ...
Philip Preston
It works as a positive test but not a negative one.
Turing wrote "I believe that in about fifty years time it will be possible
to programme computers with a storage capacity of about 10^9 to make them
play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have
more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five
minutes of questioning". The fifty years is up. How close do you think we've
come?
Regards,
Philip.
Leo Wong and Mary Murphy
Note to readers of Forth: there is a small bug in my program that
shouldn't affect 98% of Forths.
James McCartney
<Viru...@bigwig.net> wrote:
> It took me under 20 minutes, notepad (that's the extent of computer
> usage!)
> and a pen & paper to solve this. It was actually kinda fun =)
>
> )=( )=( )=( )=( )=(
> Norwgn. Dane Brit German Sweed
> Yellow Blue Red Green White
> Water Tea Milk Coffee Beer
> Dunhill Blends Pall Mall Prince Blue Masters
> Cats Horse Birds FISH Dogs
>
> The german keeps the Fish
>
yes I solved this by hand as well.
I applied the hints in this order. All hints except for the one
combination noted had only one possible result.
The Norwegian lives in the first house.
The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
The man living in the center house drinks milk.
The green house is on the left of the white house.
The green house's owner drinks coffee.
The Brit lives in the red house.
The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill.
The man who keeps the horse lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
[ (this is the only set requiring a simultaneous resolution, but there
were only two possibilities to test.)
The Dane drinks tea.
The owner who smokes Bluemasters drinks beer.
The man who smokes Blends has a neighbor who drinks water.
]
The German smokes Prince.
The Swede keeps dogs as pets.
The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
(this leaves the only empty spot for fish in the German's column)
James McCartney
<asynthREMOVE-561A...@news-server.austin.rr.com>, James
McCartney <asynth...@THISio.com> wrote:
> The green house is on the left of the white house.
>
> The green house's owner drinks coffee.
Oh actually these required simultaneous application as well to be
unambiguous.
J Thomas
> J Thomas wrote in message <3AAEAD1A...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >But the Turing Test only checks whether the program can imitate the
> >particular forms of stupidity common to human beings. It doesn't
> >work as an intelligence test.
> It works as a positive test but not a negative one.
Not particularly for intelligence, though.
> Turing wrote "I believe that in about fifty years time it will be
> possible to programme computers with a storage capacity of about 10^9
> to make them play the imitation game so well that an average
> interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the
> right identification after five minutes of questioning". The fifty
> years is up. How close do you think we've come?
I think we could do very well for those circumstances where people have
best learned to behave like computers.
"You don't mind if I pur you on hold briefly, do you?"
<wait 45 seconds> "Thank you, I had to answer a question from my
supervisor. Could I get your name?" <give name> "How do you spell
that?" <spell name> "Let me make sure I have that, is it P as in
pickle, H as in heat, I as in icecycle, L as in lantern, I as in
icecycle, and P as in pickle?" <confirm> "Thank you! Now I need your
social security number."
Five minutes could go by very quickly, unless you broke out of the
loop. "Excuse me, the police have my house surrounded and they're
demanding I surrender. Please! Call the media and tell them I didn't
do it! Tell them I swore I've never programmed in Forth in my life!"
donald tees
"J Thomas" <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3AAEAD1A...@ix.netcom.com...
Sure it does. If you take that line, then the only logical endpoint is that
there is no such thing as intelligence (which may be true).
J Thomas
> > > In comp.lang.forth Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > : But the trouble with defining whether or not we have AI is that
> > > : there is no solid arrival point.
> > > Sure there is: the Turing Test [1]. That's why it was invented.
> > But the Turing Test only checks whether the program can imitate the
> > particular forms of stupidity common to human beings. It doesn't
> > work as an intelligence test.
> Sure it does.
If you're doing the Turing Test, and you ask what is
1355693147 * 25190678237
and you get a quick correct answer, you can conclude that it probably
isn't human.
One thing needed to pass the Turing Test is to make the kind of logic
mistakes that humans make.
The Turing Test isn't about a program that's good at finding solutions
to problems, or a program that's good at redefining problems to make
them easier to solve. The Turing Test is about a program that's good at
imitating stupid humans.
> If you take that line, then the only logical endpoint
> is that there is no such thing as intelligence (which may be true).
I doubt that there's a unitary intelligence. Different brains are good
at solving different problems. We won't be ready to understand the
intelligence of oak trees until we get a feel for what problems they
have to solve. If understanding the problems of oak trees and their
solutions turns out not to be in our repertoire then we may never notice
their intelligence.
The point of AI shouldn't be to imitate humans. We already have a lot
of humans who're good at doing that. My thought is that since at
present computers have as their sole ecological niche to serve humans,
useful AI would involve predicting what humans will want well enough to
be ready to give it to them when they first need it, before they think
to ask for it.
guy....@sdp.be
Should I be proud now ?
Guy Thoon
a...@redhat.invalid
: a...@redhat.invalid wrote:
:>
:> In comp.lang.forth Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
:> : Jerry Avins wrote:
:> : there is no solid arrival point.
:>
:> Sure there is: the Turing Test [1]. That's why it was invented.
: But any modern computer passes that test when connected to the net.
Pardon?
Andrew.
a...@redhat.invalid
: J Thomas wrote in message <3AAEAD1A...@ix.netcom.com>...
:>
:>But the Turing Test only checks whether the program can imitate the
:>particular forms of stupidity common to human beings. It doesn't work
:>as an intelligence test.
Why not? It can only fail to work if we agree that we are not
intelligent, in which case there doesn't seem to be any intelligence
at all.
: Turing wrote "I believe that in about fifty years time it will be possible
: to programme computers with a storage capacity of about 10^9 to make them
: play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have
: more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five
: minutes of questioning". The fifty years is up. How close do you think we've
: come?
That depends on the average interrogator; if they knew nothing about
computers and pattern matching it would be pretty easy.
Five minutes isn't long.
Andrew.
a...@redhat.invalid
: If you're doing the Turing Test, and you ask what is
: 1355693147 * 25190678237
: and you get a quick correct answer, you can conclude that it probably
: isn't human.
Why? "It" might have a calculator.
: One thing needed to pass the Turing Test is to make the kind of logic
: mistakes that humans make.
Perhaps, but it's no use as a test: a computer can easily be programmed
to make mistakes, and a computer programmed using heuristics will
definitely make "mistakes".
: The Turing Test isn't about a program that's good at finding solutions
: to problems, or a program that's good at redefining problems to make
: them easier to solve. The Turing Test is about a program that's good at
: imitating stupid humans.
It's about a program that is indistinguishable from someone already
known to be intelligent, that's all.
Turing's point is simply that it is absurd to credit a person with
intelligence if you refuse, given equal evidence, to credit a computer.
Unless you don't credit people with intelligence either, which I don't
believe.
:> If you take that line, then the only logical endpoint
:> is that there is no such thing as intelligence (which may be true).
: I doubt that there's a unitary intelligence. Different brains are good
: at solving different problems. We won't be ready to understand the
: intelligence of oak trees
There is no evidence that oak trees do anything related to cognitive
processing.
Andrew.
Christian Lynbech
Everybody knows that it is Sweedes that lives in red houses, Danes
that drink coffee and brits that drinks tea.
:-)
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | Ericsson Telebit, Skanderborgvej 232, DK-8260 Viby J
Phone: +45 8938 5244 | email: christia...@ted.ericsson.dk
Fax: +45 8938 5101 | web: www.ericsson.com
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- pet...@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
donald tees
mistakes, or about speed of calculations ... that is you deciding how you
would try to implement a Turing test.
The Turing test states that if you cannot tell the difference after an
extended conversation, then there is no difference. There is a lot more
subtly to that than speed of speech.
"J Thomas" <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3AAF13CA...@ix.netcom.com...
Eugene Zaikonnikov
>> then I deduce that the German owns the fish.
>>
>> John Murray
Andrew> And now John it's time to tell all us mere mortals how you
Andrew> deduced that ...
Take a sheet of paper, split it in five columns (each one
corresponding to a house), and then for each house write terms that
you know to be true, and terms that are known to be false. Use them
along with 'rules' to deduce missing facts.
Note that it doesn't have to be solved *this* way: it's just a
convenient domain representation, since many of the rules operate with
relative positions of items.
And John is right in that the ruleset is meaningful only for
'traditional' cultures who mostly enumerate objects from left to
right. It is very unlikely that Einstein was such a brain chauvinist.
--
Eugene
Howard Brazee
> : But the trouble with defining whether or not we have AI is that
> : there is no solid arrival point.
>
> Sure there is: the Turing Test [1]. That's why it was invented.
>
> This has been a solved problem since 1950.
>
> Andrew.
The Turing Test varies from person to person, and isn't about intelligence so
much as about emulating a person. We really want AI to do things which
people can't do (or at least what most people don't do). To me, a prime
condition of intelligence is the ability to learn to do things better the next
time. The Turing Test doesn't test this.
But there is intelligence at levels different from human intelligence. My
bird can figure things out, but she would fail the Turing test. She still has
intelligence.
Howard Brazee
"m_l...@my-deja.com" wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> >
> > This is cross-posted. What language are you using?
>
> Forth
That's what it looked like. I have a forth interpreter, but haven't
pulled out the Atari 800 it runs on in a decade. The person who
started this thread used a Spam tool - there are actually multiple
multi-forum threads. I have seen two examples of coding so far and
asked the same question both times. I wonder how many separate
cross-posted threads are out there for this topic. It would be neat to
compare all of the coding problems.
Further steps could make the programs more generic - Games Magazine
often has a few of these problems graded by difficulty. A program which
could plug in the data and come up with answers would be quite
interesting.
Howard Brazee
> > But the Turing Test only checks whether the program can imitate the
> > particular forms of stupidity common to human beings. It doesn't work
> > as an intelligence test.
>
> Sure it does. If you take that line, then the only logical endpoint is that
> there is no such thing as intelligence (which may be true).
Only if you define "intelligence" as "human like". It may take some AI to
emulate a person, but there are much better tests.
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal
with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the
skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply
knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to
think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as
tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality
of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b :
intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
4 a : INFORMATION, NEWS b : information
concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area;
also : an agency engaged in obtaining such
information
5 : the ability to perform computer functions
Well, #5 is easy. Most computers can do this. #1 requires that a program learn
from its mistakes. Programs have been written to do this. The intelligence
level can be very low - but it is still there.
So AI exists. And as computing gets better, there will be some things which
the computer's AI does better than human NI. (I just made up "NI", I don't know
if it has been used elsewhere). There is no measurable goal which says we have
arrived.
Howard Brazee
Howard Brazee wrote:
> "m_l...@my-deja.com" wrote:
>
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> > >
> > > This is cross-posted. What language are you using?
> >
> > Forth
>
> That's what it looked like. I have a forth interpreter, but haven't
> pulled out the Atari 800 it runs on in a decade. The person who
> started this thread used a Spam tool - there are actually multiple
> multi-forum threads. I have seen two examples of coding so far and
> asked the same question both times. I wonder how many separate
> cross-posted threads are out there for this topic. It would be neat to
> compare all of the coding problems.
The other example I have seen was in Prolog. It was cross-posted to a Rexx
newsgroup.
a...@redhat.invalid
:> : But the trouble with defining whether or not we have AI is that
:> : there is no solid arrival point.
:>
:> Sure there is: the Turing Test [1]. That's why it was invented.
:>
:> This has been a solved problem since 1950.
: The Turing Test varies from person to person, and isn't about
: intelligence so much as about emulating a person.
Exactly. The Turing Test is an attempt to *define* intelligence in
such a way that it's possible to conduct an experiment to determine
whether something is intelligent or not.
Now, you might not like that definition, but at least it's a workable
and useful one.
Andrew.
J Thomas
> I think you have a weird idea of the Turing test. It says nothing
> about mistakes, or about speed of calculations ... that is you
> deciding how you would try to implement a Turing test.
About how I would tell the difference. If extended conversation reveals
inhuman capability, then chances are the other isn't human.
So if you ask them to name three mass murderers and they can't think of
three, that looks like they're uninformed about human history. But if
you ask them for fifty names and they give you fifty as fast as a human
could type them, with no duplicates, that doesn't look human either. I
say you aren't measuring intelligence if answering too well is failure.
> The Turing test states that if you cannot tell the difference after
> an extended conversation, then there is no difference. There is a lot
> more subtly to that than speed of speech.
Saying there is no difference unless you can tell the difference is a
fallacy. If you tell your wife that unless she finds out it didn't
happen, that what she doesn't know won't hurt her, she probably will
disagree.
Geoff Summerhayes
> donald tees wrote:
> > "J Thomas" <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > a...@redhat.invalid wrote:
> > > > In comp.lang.forth Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > > > : But the trouble with defining whether or not we have AI is that
> > > > : there is no solid arrival point.
>
> > > > Sure there is: the Turing Test [1]. That's why it was invented.
>
> > > But the Turing Test only checks whether the program can imitate the
> > > particular forms of stupidity common to human beings. It doesn't
> > > work as an intelligence test.
>
> > Sure it does.
>
> If you're doing the Turing Test, and you ask what is
>
> 1355693147 * 25190678237
>
> and you get a quick correct answer, you can conclude that it probably
> isn't human.
>
> One thing needed to pass the Turing Test is to make the kind of logic
> mistakes that humans make.
IIRC, Turing's example of a conversation in the original proposal
actually uses a math example and the computer gives the wrong answer.
The AI field seems to have changed over the years, instead of promising
the holy grail and failing to achieve it, now it seems to be more sedate,
figuring out what it can achieve in a short time, then altering the
definition of AI to match it.
Geoff
J Thomas
> In comp.lang.forth J Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> : If you're doing the Turing Test, and you ask what is
> : 1355693147 * 25190678237
> : and you get a quick correct answer, you can conclude that it
> : probably isn't human.
> Why? "It" might have a calculator.
True.
> : One thing needed to pass the Turing Test is to make the kind of
> : logic mistakes that humans make.
> Perhaps, but it's no use as a test: a computer can easily be
> programmed to make mistakes, and a computer programmed using
> heuristics will definitely make "mistakes".
It may not be easy to program it to make the kind of mistakes that are
recognisably human. But apart from that, how is it an intelligence test
if you have to go to extra lengths to make your program make mistakes?
> It's about a program that is indistinguishable from someone already
> known to be intelligent, that's all.
> Turing's point is simply that it is absurd to credit a person with
> intelligence if you refuse, given equal evidence, to credit a
> computer.
OK! Rhat's a good philosophical point. Turing tells us that we don't
have a clear concept of intelligence, that defining intelligence as
"what humans do" is silly.
Taking his reductio ad absurdum and actually doing the test is silly in
a different way, but it could have practical results.
> :> If you take that line, then the only logical endpoint
> :> is that there is no such thing as intelligence (which may be
> :> true).
> : I doubt that there's a unitary intelligence. Different brains are
> : good at solving different problems. We won't be ready to
> : understand the intelligence of oak trees
> There is no evidence that oak trees do anything related to cognitive
> processing.
We haven't found any evidence. We *won't* find any evidence unless we
get a feel for what problems they solve. I'm sure though that oak trees
will never pass the Turing Test, they will never pass azs human beings
in conversation. (Although one might possibly pass for someone's wife
right after he tells her that what she doesn't know won't hurt her.)
a...@redhat.invalid
:> Perhaps, but it's no use as a test: a computer can easily be
:> programmed to make mistakes, and a computer programmed using
:> heuristics will definitely make "mistakes".
: It may not be easy to program it to make the kind of mistakes that are
: recognisably human. But apart from that, how is it an intelligence test
: if you have to go to extra lengths to make your program make mistakes?
I don't think that's necessary. An AI sufficiently "advanced" to pass
a Turing Test might well make lots of mistakes too.
:> Turing's point is simply that it is absurd to credit a person with
:> intelligence if you refuse, given equal evidence, to credit a
:> computer.
: OK! Rhat's a good philosophical point. Turing tells us that we don't
: have a clear concept of intelligence,
Yes; the Turing Test is an attempt to refine our concept of
intelligence.
: that defining intelligence as "what humans do" is silly.
I don't think so. Or, how do you make this out?
:> : I doubt that there's a unitary intelligence. Different brains are
:> : good at solving different problems. We won't be ready to
:> : understand the intelligence of oak trees
:> There is no evidence that oak trees do anything related to cognitive
:> processing.
: We haven't found any evidence.
Right.
: We *won't* find any evidence unless we get a feel for what problems
: they solve.
So we'll probably never know. Never mind.
Andrew.
a...@redhat.invalid
: fallacy.
It's a valid philosophical position. It may not be one with which you
agree, but that doesn't make it fallacious.
Andrew.
Jerry Avins
>
...
>
> : But the trouble with defining whether or not we have AI is that
> : there is no solid arrival point.
>
> Sure there is: the Turing Test [1]. That's why it was invented.
>
>
>
> [1] Turing, A.M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind,
> 59, 433-560.
I submit that the Turing test asks for too much; it is sufficient, but
not necessary.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Avins
I suggest, for reasons that I can't clearly articulate, that in order
for an entity to act intelligently (rather than imitate intelligence),
it must *care* about an outcome, and it must exhibit consciousness.
There is good reason that consciousness in animals is a byproduct of the
need to move about in, and know one's position in an external
environment. Whether consciousness can be constructed without that basis
in machines is an open question.
Jerry Avins
I see: that's your new riddle!
Jerry Avins
It would be more defensible to claim that if there is no way for anyone
to discern a difference, then there is none. Otherwise, one must adopt
the uncomfortable position that some things that are -- not seem, but
_are_ -- identical for me are distinguishable by you. To put this
concretely, you would need to claim that two scarves of identical size
and texture but differing in pattern would be identical to a blind
person distinct to a sighted person. That position is, at least to me,
awkward at best.
I have twin sisters; when they were little, they had many sets of paired
clothes. Once, a visitor futilely tried to foment trouble between them.
"Suppose your sister says that the blouse is hers. How would you settle
that?"
"There's always some little mark or seam somewhere that we can use to
tell." (This at age 5!)
"But suppose there just isn't?"
"If we can't tell, it doesn't matter."
I was (and remain) proud of that mindset. Now, would you support the
statement "If we can't tell, there is no difference"? I hope not!
Jerry Avins
I suggest, for reasons that I can't clearly articulate, that in order
for an entity to act intelligently (rather than imitate intelligence),
it must *care* about an outcome, and it must exhibit consciousness.
There is good reason to believe that consciousness in animals is a
byproduct of the need to move about in, and know one's position in, an
external environment. Whether consciousness can be constructed without
that basis in machines is an open question.
Jerry
donald tees
is motivation, or rather self-motivation. I would consider any entity
without at least the illusion of free will as "not intelligent". That is
one of the reasons that dictionary definitions of intelligence are not very
useful ... they are always couched in terms of human actions.
However. It is quite undeniable that a cat or dog do exhibit all those
characteristics that we include in the word intelligence, regardless of the
fact that either may be not very intelligent by human standards. That is
why the Turing testis so valuable ... it does not even try to define the
word. It simply states that if a computer can fool a human for an
indefinite period of time, then the computer is exhibiting what Turing
called "artificial" intelligence.
The definitions you quote, I would not consider valuable to the discussion.
Replace the Turing test "communication device" with E-mail, or even Usenet,
and the test remains intact, and valuable.
I think man simply a bootstrap for silicon intelligence. After all,
software not only has the ability to travel at the speed of light, but also
the potential for immortality. I wonder if DNA is written in Cobol? ... Naw,
probably not that old.
"Jerry Avins" <j...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:3AAFC102...@ieee.org...
a...@redhat.invalid
: a...@redhat.invalid wrote:
:>
:> In comp.lang.forth J Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:> : Saying there is no difference unless you can tell the difference is a
:> : fallacy.
:>
:> It's a valid philosophical position. It may not be one with which you
:> agree, but that doesn't make it fallacious.
: It would be more defensible to claim that if there is no way for anyone
: to discern a difference, then there is none. Otherwise, one must adopt
: the uncomfortable position that some things that are -- not seem, but
: _are_ -- identical for me are distinguishable by you.
Um, no. If you could prove to me that you could tell the difference
in a blind test then I would have to admit that there really was one,
even if I couldn't see it myself. Having proof of a third party's
observation is just as good.
I realize that I may have misread your statement. In colloquial
English, I read your sentence as "saying there is no difference unless
*one* can tell the difference is a fallacy." Now I'm not sure you
meant that. In British English, people often say "you" when they mean
"one".
Andrew.
Leo Wong and Mary Murphy
\ er.f "Einstein's Riddle" - Leo Wong 14 March 2001 +
: factorial ( n -- n!) dup 2 < if drop 1 exit then dup 1- recurse * ;
: nperms ( n -- ) factorial constant ;
: pair ( a n1 n2 -- a1 a2 ) chars >r over chars + swap r> + ;
: trade ( a1 a2 -- ) 2dup 2>r c@ swap c@ r> c! r> c! ;
0 value temp
: ,columns ( a -- ) temp 0 ?do count [char] 0 - c, loop drop ;
: permute ( a n -- )
1- ?dup if
2dup recurse
dup 0 do
2dup i pair trade
2dup recurse
2dup i pair trade
loop 2drop
else ,columns then ;
: parray
create ( a n -- ) dup c, dup to temp permute
does> ( n -- a ) count rot * chars + ;
: permutations ( a n -- ) dup nperms parray ;
s" 01234" permutations perms perm
s" 023" permutations cperms cperm \ colors
s" 1234" permutations nperms nperm \ nationalities
s" 0134" permutations dperms dperm \ drinks
: string, ( a u -- ) dup c, 0 do count c, loop drop ;
: spells ( a u -- a' ) create here >r 0 c, string, r> ;
: ,s ( x1 ... xn n -- ) begin ?dup while dup roll , 1- repeat ;
: collect ( x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 -- ) create 5 ,s ;
\ colors
s" yellow" spells yellow
s" blue" spells blue
s" red" spells red
s" green" spells green
s" white" spells white collect colors
\ nationalities
s" Brit" spells brit
s" Dane" spells dane
s" Norwegian" spells norwegian
s" German" spells german
s" Swede" spells swede collect nationalities
\ drinks
s" beer" spells beer
s" milk" spells milk
s" tea" spells tea
s" coffee" spells coffee
s" water" spells water collect drinks
\ smokes
s" Blaumeister" spells blaumeister
s" blends" spells blends
s" Dunhill" spells dunhill
s" Prince" spells prince
s" Pall Mall" spells pallmall collect smokes
\ pets
s" birds" spells birds
s" cats" spells cats
s" dogs" spells dogs
s" fish" spells fish
s" horse" spells horse collect pets
2 milk c! \ hint 8
0 norwegian c! \ hint 9
norwegian c@ 1+ blue c! \ hint 14
: colors! ( a -- )
count red c! count yellow c! c@ dup green c!
1+ white c! \ hint 4
;
: nationalities! ( a -- )
count dane c! count german c! c@ swede c!
red c@ brit c! \ hint 1
;
: drinks! ( a -- )
count beer c! c@ water c!
dane c@ tea c! \ hint 3
green c@ coffee c! \ hint 4
;
: smokes! ( a -- )
count blends c! c@ pallmall c!
yellow c@ dunhill c! \ hint 7
beer c@ blaumeister c! \ hint 12
german c@ prince c! \ hint 13
;
: pets! ( a -- )
count cats c! count fish c! c@ horse c!
swede c@ dogs c! \ hint 2
pallmall c@ birds c! \ hint 6
;
create board 5 chars allot
: c++ ( a -- ) dup c@ 1+ swap c! ;
: cut ( c ca u -- n ) rot scan nip ; \ n=remaining chars including c
: placed ( row -- ? )
board 5 0 fill
5 0 do dup @ c@ chars board + c++ cell+ loop drop
0 board 5 cut 0= ;
: ?no ( a1 a2 -- ) s" - if false exit then" evaluate ; immediate
: constraints ( -- ? )
\ ( 1 ) brit c@ red c@ ?no
\ ( 2 ) swede c@ dogs c@ ?no
\ ( 3 ) dane c@ tea c@ ?no
\ ( 4 ) green c@ white c@ 1- ?no
\ ( 5 ) green c@ coffee c@ ?no
\ ( 6 ) pallmall c@ birds c@ ?no
\ ( 7 ) yellow c@ dunhill c@ ?no
\ ( 8 ) milk c@ 2 ?no
\ ( 9 ) norwegian c@ 0 ?no
( 10 ) blends c@ cats c@ - abs 1 ?no
( 11 ) horse c@ dunhill c@ - abs 1 ?no
\ ( 12 ) blaumeister c@ beer c@ ?no
\ ( 13 ) german c@ prince c@ ?no
\ ( 14 ) norwegian c@ blue c@ - abs 1 ?no
( 15 ) blends c@ water c@ - abs 1 ?no
true ;
: .spell ( a -- ) count type space ;
: .nth ( n collection -- a )
5 0 do
2dup @ count rot = if .spell leave else drop then cell+
loop 2drop ;
: .solution ( -- )
CR ." The " fish c@ nationalities .nth ." owns the fish." ;
variable ntries
: er ( -- ) \ Einstein's riddle
0 ntries !
cperms 0 do i cperm colors! colors placed if
nperms 0 do i nperm nationalities! nationalities placed if
dperms 0 do i dperm drinks! drinks placed if
perms 0 do i perm smokes! smokes placed if
perms 0 do i perm pets! pets placed if
1 ntries +! constraints if
.solution cr ." ntries=" ntries ?
unloop unloop unloop unloop unloop exit
then
then
loop then
loop then
loop then
loop then
loop ;
er
Tony Fitzgerald
Actually, there is evidence that certain trees (don't know offhand
whether oaks were included) are capable of communication. When some
trees are under stress due to insect attack, they produce natural
insecticides. Since it diverts energy from more productive pursuits
such as growing roots or cambrium to produce insecticide, the tree
prefers not to do so.
Trees in the vicinity of one under such stress can detect the
production of insecticide and begin producing it themselves even
though not currently under direct attack by insects but in
anticipation of attack in the near future.
Granted, this communication is purely chemical, however, the response
is in many ways indistinguishable from what we call intelligence, i.e.
finding useful strategies to cope with survival in a sometimes harsh
environment. Human intelligence is, at root, just the expression of
excitatory and inhibitory connections between neurons in an
electro-chemical system which bears many similarities to the purely
chemical one of plants. Over billions of years, our DNA has found
that it has a better chance of producing more DNA if it can fool its
host into thinking there is more to life than simple chemistry.
--
/"\ O- J. Anthony Fitzgerald -O
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign O- j...@UNB.ca -O
X Against HTML Mail O- http://people.unb.ca/~jaf -O
/ \ O- Fredericton, NB, Canada -O
Leonard Zettel
Jerry Avins wrote:
<snip>
>
> OK, then; lets raise the bar. Consider a machine that recognizes
> entities and locations that it has encountered before. This entity has
> "attachments" to certain others of its kind, and acts to promote their
> welfare. It anticipates certain "dangers" and acts to avoid them and to
> help "attached" entities to avoid them by communicating with them in
> some way. It is capable of acquiring new data, and can plan future
> action to maximize "good" and minimize "danger", despite random
> environmental variation. With my raised bar, no entity without this
> arbitrary set of behaviors will be considered intelligent. (I believe
> that you would find it acceptable to ascribe intelligence to an entity
> with such a set of behaviors.) A chimpanzee, while it fits that
> description, couldn't pass Turing's test. Where does that leave us?
>
Well, for one thing, Turing's test was proposed for *computers*, not
evrything. For another, the controversy over whether chimps can use
sign language to converse sounds eerily close to a Turing test, if you
think about it.
-LenZ-
Jerry Avins
>
> Jerry Avins wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > OK, then; lets raise the bar. Consider a machine that recognizes
> > entities and locations that it has encountered before. This entity has
> > "attachments" to certain others of its kind, and acts to promote their
> > welfare. It anticipates certain "dangers" and acts to avoid them and to
> > help "attached" entities to avoid them by communicating with them in
> > some way. It is capable of acquiring new data, and can plan future
> > action to maximize "good" and minimize "danger", despite random
> > environmental variation. With my raised bar, no entity without this
> > arbitrary set of behaviors will be considered intelligent. (I believe
> > that you would find it acceptable to ascribe intelligence to an entity
> > with such a set of behaviors.) A chimpanzee, while it fits that
> > description, couldn't pass Turing's test. Where does that leave us?
> >
> Well, for one thing, Turing's test was proposed for *computers*, not
> evrything. For another, the controversy over whether chimps can use
> sign language to converse sounds eerily close to a Turing test, if you
> think about it.
> -LenZ-
>
Granting that chimps exhibit intelligence, I would be happy to say that
the machine was intelligent too, even though it couldn't converse.
Jerry Avins
>
> : My point was that I would be ready to label "intelligent" something that
> : couldn't pass Turing's test.
>
> Sure, you could label a teapot intelligent if you wanted but no-one
> would have to agree. The magic of Turing's test is that they would
> agree.
>
> : As with most dichotomies, there are cases that make it easy to say
> : "This is one" or "This is not", but there are hard cases near the
> : border that are difficult to decide.
>
> But that is not an issue with the problem itself, but with your
> personal definition of intelligence. By lowering the bar you create
> the dichotomy.
>
> Andrew.
OK, then; lets raise the bar. Consider a machine that recognizes
entities and locations that it has encountered before. This entity has
"attachments" to certain others of its kind, and acts to promote their
welfare. It anticipates certain "dangers" and acts to avoid them and to
help "attached" entities to avoid them by communicating with them in
some way. It is capable of acquiring new data, and can plan future
action to maximize "good" and minimize "danger", despite random
environmental variation. With my raised bar, no entity without this
arbitrary set of behaviors will be considered intelligent. (I believe
that you would find it acceptable to ascribe intelligence to an entity
with such a set of behaviors.) A chimpanzee, while it fits that
description, couldn't pass Turing's test. Where does that leave us?
Jerry
Leo Wong and Mary Murphy
>
> Leo Wong and Mary Murphy <he...@albany.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > : SCAN ( c-addr u1 char -- c-addr2 u2 )
> > >R
> > BEGIN DUP WHILE OVER C@ R@ <> WHILE 1 /STRING REPEAT THEN
> > R> DROP ;
> >
> > See: http://www.albany.net/~hello/comus.htm
>
> Thanks. That makes your solution Standard, I believe. The Forth I use
> has a "scan" internal that is used to look for a specified delimitor in
> the input stream.
>
> With this redefinition, your solution becomes pretty slick.
My apologies for not defining scan. The Forths I tried my solution on
all had SCAN that acted in the way I intended.
William Tanksley
>In comp.lang.forth Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>: My point was that I would be ready to label "intelligent" something that
>: couldn't pass Turing's test.
>Sure, you could label a teapot intelligent if you wanted but no-one
>would have to agree. The magic of Turing's test is that they would
>agree.
Um... I'm not sure. It may be possible to fool someone for long enough;
much more importantly, though, Turing's test is terrificly limited to
something intelligent or not deliberately trying to act human. It doesn't
help for something not trying to act human.
Frankly, I'm not interested in a system that could pass the Turing test. I
already know how to produce such a system in fairly short order. I'm more
interested in systems which fail the Turing test yet are intelligent.
>: As with most dichotomies, there are cases that make it easy to say
>: "This is one" or "This is not", but there are hard cases near the
>: border that are difficult to decide.
>But that is not an issue with the problem itself, but with your
>personal definition of intelligence. By lowering the bar you create
>the dichotomy.
Okay, ambiguity alert: I like to make a distinction between the 'quality'
of intelligence and the 'quantity' of intelligence. Almost everything has
a quantity of intelligence; I would roughly define that as the ability to
create information (I'll have a completely different and contradictory
definition tomorrow). The interesting thing is, I suspect, the quality of
intelligence; I suspect, and some agree, that it's not possible to go from
crab-intelligence to human-intelligence just by adding quantity.
>Andrew.
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
Marcel Hendrix
Billy Tanksley wrote:
> intelligence; I suspect, and some agree, that it's not possible to go
> from crab-intelligence to human-intelligence just by adding quantity.
How about the amazing level difference we can observe with human beings? That
is surely just a matter of quantity, but the orders of magnitude approach
the crab - (average) human difference.
-marcel
ward mcfarland
> \ I'm posting this to clf only:
>
> \ er.f "Einstein's Riddle" - Leo Wong 14 March 2001 +
>
please supply your definition of "scan"
-- w
Boris Schaefer
| >
| > then I deduce that the German owns the fish.
| >
| > John Murray
|
| And now John it's time to tell all us mere mortals how you deduced that ...
It's also not correct, because at least the Dane and the German could
have the fish. Possibly others as well. (To be fair, John asked
whether there was some ambiguity in the puzzle and as far as I can
tell, there is.)
At first I tried to solve it by simply listing the facts about the
houses in 5 columns, but I found this unwieldy and so I made paper
cutouts that represented the hints. These cutouts could easily be
combined to construct the houses.
Here are two solutions:
1 2 3 4 5
Norwegian German Brit Dane Swede
Green Blue Red Yellow White
Coffee Water Milk Tea Beer
PallMall Prince Blends Dunhill BlueMaster
Birds Cats Horse Fish Dogs
or the last line could be:
Birds Fish Horse Cats Dogs
Below are the original hints so that you can easily see whether the
above is indeed correct. But, as I said, there could easily be other
solutions and I'm too tired to check (although cursory checking seems
to indicate that these are the only two solutions).
> The Brit lives in the red house.
> The Sweed keeps dogs as pets.
> The Dane drinks tea.
> The green house is on the left of the white house.
> The green house's owner drinks coffee.
> The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
> The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill.
> The man living in the center house drinks milk.
> The Norwegian lives in the first house.
> The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
> The man who keeps the horse lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
> The owner who smokes Bluemasters drinks beer.
> The German smokes Prince.
> The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
> The man who smokes Blends has a neighbor who drinks water.
Boris
--
bo...@uncommon-sense.net - <http://www.uncommon-sense.net/>
"Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed."
-- Robin, The Boy Wonder
Leo Wong and Mary Murphy
> please supply your definition of "scan"
: SCAN ( c-addr u1 char -- c-addr2 u2 )
>R
BEGIN DUP WHILE OVER C@ R@ <> WHILE 1 /STRING REPEAT THEN
R> DROP ;
See: http://www.albany.net/~hello/comus.htm
Markus B. Krüger
> "Andrew Makinson" <dome...@rahrahrandel.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
> | > then I deduce that the German owns the fish.
> | >
> | > John Murray
> |
> | And now John it's time to tell all us mere mortals how you deduced that ...
>
> It's also not correct, because at least the Dane and the German could
> have the fish. Possibly others as well. (To be fair, John asked
> whether there was some ambiguity in the puzzle and as far as I can
> tell, there is.)
This assumes that the hint 4, "The green house is on the left of the
white house", means that the green house is anywhere to left of the
white house. If so, the puzzle has seven possible solutions (given at
the bottom of the posting).
I believe the hint should be interpreted as saying that the green
house should be immediately to the left of the white house. If so,
there is one and only one solution, at least if I wrote my Prolog
program correctly:
norwegian, 1, yellow, cat, water, dunhill
danish, 2, blue, horse, tea, blend
british, 3, red, bird, milk, pallmall
german, 4, green, fish, coffee, prince
swedish, 5, white, dog, beer, bluemaster
The six other possible solutions with the other interpretation of hint 4:
norwegian, 1, green, bird, coffee, pallmall
german, 2, blue, cat, water, prince
british, 3, red, horse, milk, blend
danish, 4, yellow, fish, tea, dunhill
swedish, 5, white, dog, beer, bluemaster
norwegian, 1, green, bird, coffee, pallmall
german, 2, blue, fish, water, prince
british, 3, red, horse, milk, blend
danish, 4, yellow, cat, tea, dunhill
swedish, 5, white, dog, beer, bluemaster
norwegian, 1, green, bird, coffee, pallmall
german, 2, blue, cat, water, prince
swedish, 3, white, dog, milk, blend
british, 4, red, horse, beer, bluemaster
danish, 5, yellow, fish, tea, dunhill
norwegian, 1, green, fish, coffee, blend
german, 2, blue, cat, water, prince
swedish, 3, yellow, dog, milk, dunhill
british, 4, red, horse, beer, bluemaster
danish, 5, white, bird, tea, pallmall
norwegian, 1, green, bird, coffee, pallmall
german, 2, blue, cat, water, prince
swedish, 3, white, dog, milk, blend
danish, 4, yellow, fish, tea, dunhill
british, 5, red, horse, beer, bluemaster
norwegian, 1, green, bird, coffee, pallmall
german, 2, blue, fish, water, prince
swedish, 3, white, dog, milk, blend
danish, 4, yellow, cat, tea, dunhill
british, 5, red, horse, beer, bluemaster
--
,------------------- Markus Bjartveit Krüger ---------------------.
' `
` E-mail: mar...@pvv.org WWW: http://www.pvv.org/~markusk/ '
)-------------------------------------------------------------------(
ward mcfarland
>
> : SCAN ( c-addr u1 char -- c-addr2 u2 )
> >R
> BEGIN DUP WHILE OVER C@ R@ <> WHILE 1 /STRING REPEAT THEN
> R> DROP ;
>
> See: http://www.albany.net/~hello/comus.htm
Thanks. That makes your solution Standard, I believe. The Forth I use
has a "scan" internal that is used to look for a specified delimitor in
the input stream.
With this redefinition, your solution becomes pretty slick.
-- w
Erik Naggum
> Green Blue Red Yellow White
> > The green house is on the left of the white house.
I read this differently, that the green house would be next to the white
house, on the left.
> > The man who smokes Blends has a neighbor who drinks water.
I also read this to mean "lives next to".
Then there is only one solution.
#:Erik
--
"Hope is contagious" -- American Cancer Society
"Despair is more contagious" -- British Farmers Society
Gary Chanson
Marcel Hendrix <m...@iaehv.iae.nl> wrote in message
news:98ufre$j5q$1...@news.IAEhv.nl...
I'm not sure if that means that you know some VERY dumb people or know
some VERY smart crabs.
--
-GJC
-gcha...@shore.net
-Abolish Public Schools.
donald tees
"William Tanksley" <wtan...@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote in message
>
> Um... I'm not sure. It may be possible to fool someone for long enough;
> much more importantly, though, Turing's test is terrificly limited to
> something intelligent or not deliberately trying to act human. It doesn't
> help for something not trying to act human.
>
> Frankly, I'm not interested in a system that could pass the Turing test. I
> already know how to produce such a system in fairly short order. I'm more
> interested in systems which fail the Turing test yet are intelligent.
>
Where is your Nobel prize?
Marcel Hendrix
Gary wrote:
> I'm not sure if that means that you know some VERY dumb people or
> know some VERY smart crabs.
Combined with the fact that there is evidence that there are some _very_
smart people around (Try reading the proof of Fermat's last theorem).
-marcel
Chris Kirkwood-Watts
| Who would be interested in using his/her brain (and his computer) to solve
| the following?
Here's a one-liner, in elisp:
(gnus-group-fetch-faq "rec.puzzles")
=>
2.8
"This is a quiz written by Einstein in the last century. He said that
98% of the world's population could not solve it...." This is followed
by a series of fifteen clues about five European men who live in houses
of different houses, drink different beverages, smoke different
cigarettes, and keep different pets. Who keeps the fish?
The German keeps the fish. A detailed explanation is available at
http://www.frontiernet.net/~mwdaly/recpuzzles/einstein.html. For the
record, Einstein didn't write the puzzle and far more than 2% of the
world's population could solve it.
Chris.
mangogrower
In the Bible, (Old Testmament) the Lord (who OWNS ALL) GAVE mankind
DOMINION over ALL the Animals of the Air, land and Sea. if having Dominion
doesn't mean 'owning' what does? (Dominion: dominance thru legal authority)
So the real answer, which 98% of the world can't grasp because of the
general
lack of ability to follow the KISS principle, is
Who Cares, or there is not an answer that can be determined from the
facts.
Doc O'Leary <drol...@subsume.com> wrote in message
news:110320011440274719%drol...@subsume.com...
> In article <VIPq6.396633$ge4.13...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Steve
> Graham <js.g...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Albert Einstein wrote this riddle this century [ed. 20th century]. He
said
> > 98% of the world could not solve it.
>
> Given that the heart of this is a simple logic problem, I have doubts
> that 90% of the world could not figure it out. Einstein, if he really
> was the one posing the riddle, clearly had something else in mind than
> the solution to a simple logic problem.
>
> Question: Who owns the fish?
>
> Answer: Houses are property, and thus owned by the men, but no man has
> the right of ownership over another animal.
>
> Note that the language of the puzzle never used ownership in referring
> to pets, only in the final question.
>
> Of course, the history of Germany has been one of attempted conquest,
> so what's the big deal of owning a fish or two when you think the world
> belongs to you? :-) <-- flamer's please note
John Passaniti
mangogrower <mango...@telocity.co> wrote in message
news:YWbt6.2791$A2.8...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net...
> Who Cares, or there is not an answer that can be
> determined from the facts.
I'm amused by this thread. On the one hand we have the people who were
forgiving of a bit of imprecision in language and who worked out the
puzzle. Then we have the people who spend more time debating language and
semantics who in their quest for precision apparently couldn't see that
this was a pretty simple puzzle, demanding only a few minutes and some
logic.
At first I thought that the claim that only 2% of the people in the world
could solve the puzzle was stupid, but now I see that it probably is true.
That is, probably only 2% of the world would find it enjoyable to do a
simple logic puzzle, and the other 98% would rather waste their time locked
in seemingly endless debate over if animals can be owned and if a cigarette
qualifies as a cigar.
Steve Graham
http://members.home.net/js.graham/einstein/index.html.
Steve Graham
===
"Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by> wrote in message
news:6y1ys0k...@viking.cit...
> * "Andrew" == Andrew Makinson <dome...@rahrahrandel.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> then I deduce that the German owns the fish.
> >>
> >> John Murray
>
> Andrew> And now John it's time to tell all us mere mortals how you
> Andrew> deduced that ...
>
> Take a sheet of paper, split it in five columns (each one
> corresponding to a house), and then for each house write terms that
> you know to be true, and terms that are known to be false. Use them
> along with 'rules' to deduce missing facts.
> Note that it doesn't have to be solved *this* way: it's just a
> convenient domain representation, since many of the rules operate with
> relative positions of items.
> And John is right in that the ruleset is meaningful only for
> 'traditional' cultures who mostly enumerate objects from left to
> right. It is very unlikely that Einstein was such a brain chauvinist.
>
> --
> Eugene
Steve Graham
http://members.home.net/js.graham/einstein/index.html.
Steve Graham
---
"Steve Graham" <js.g...@home.com> wrote in message
news:VIPq6.396633$ge4.13...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> Who would be interested in using his/her brain (and his computer) to solve
> the following?
>
>
> Steve Graham
>
> ===
>
> Einstein's Riddle
>
> Albert Einstein wrote this riddle this century [ed. 20th century]. He
said
> 98% of the world could not solve it.
>
> There are 5 houses in 5 different colors. In each house lives a person
with
> a different nationality. The 5
> owners drink a certain type of beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigar,
and
> keep a certain pet. No owners
> have the same pet, smoke the same brand of cigar or drink the same
beverage.
>
> The question is: "Who owns the fish?"
>
> Hints:
>
> The Brit lives in the red house.
>
> The Sweed keeps dogs as pets.
>
> The Dane drinks tea.
>
> The green house is on the left of the white house.
>
> The green house's owner drinks coffee.
>
> The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
>
> The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill.
>
> The man living in the center house drinks milk.
>
> The Norwegian lives in the first house.
>
> The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
>
> The man who keeps the horse lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
>
> The owner who smokes Bluemasters drinks beer.
>
> The German smokes Prince.
>
> The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
>
Howard Brazee
> Sure, you could label a teapot intelligent if you wanted but no-one
> would have to agree. The magic of Turing's test is that they would
> agree.
But if you're writing an AI application, Turing's is probably not relevant.
We don't need a computer to act like people, we have plenty of people
available to do that. We need an AI program to do specific tasks with
intelligence tailored to those tasks.
Howard Brazee
mangogrower wrote:
> No that's not the answer, unless Einstein was an Atheist.
> In the Bible, (Old Testmament) the Lord (who OWNS ALL) GAVE mankind
> DOMINION over ALL the Animals of the Air, land and Sea. if having Dominion
> doesn't mean 'owning' what does? (Dominion: dominance thru legal authority)
Rulers have dominion over us peons. Do they own us? Do they have
responsibilities to us?
J Thomas
Yes. I can see the Turing test as a philosophical device. In Turing's
time england still had a lot of prejudice about ethnic groups whose
members looked just like the people who discriminated against them. And
so somebody might say "I don't like <ethnic group>, they're all <ethnic
stereotype>" and somebody else could say "Well, you know Joe, that
you've been casually friendly with all this time, he's <ethnic group>
and you've never complained about him being <ethnic stereotype>." And
of course Joe would be very thoroughly assimilated.
It doesn't work as well now that the <ethnic groups> are more likely to
be physically distinguishable. So anyway, I can easily see Turing
wanting to apply the same standards exactly. "You say human beings are
intelligent and computers can't be. But you didn't notice that the
person you just had that long conversation with was really a computer!"
Incidentally, I've seen some slight evidence that to pass the Turing
test it helps to have the program simulate some sort of raving bigot.
It can rave and ignore what people say and drag the conversation firmly
back to its stupid beliefs, and nobody will expect anthing different.
It doesn't have to actually say anything intelligent, just behave in the
particular unintelligent way people expect of whichever sort of bigot
it's pretending to be. It makes sense that the easiest person to
simulate would be a rude, stupid person that they didn't particularly
want to talk to anyway.
So apart from the philosophical pooint that it probably isn't workable
to say "intelligence is whatever humans do and not what anything else
does" I don't see much value there. Useful machines will do things
easily that people don't do easily, and if they include models of human
beings at all the models will probably be used to predict what the
humans will want, to be better ready to supply it.
Howard Brazee
groups.
If that person from that other group is indistinguishable from people from
my group - then he is a person and OK. But if he persists in his old
cultural habits we can look down at him. Sometimes these are language
styles - Stallion's accent sounds like he's dumb to many Americans, and if a
NBA player's speaking style sounds lazy, we call him lazy. We use the same
types of prejudice with Turing's test. We test to see if it is OUR type of
intelligence, rejecting different values.
Turing's point is more applicable to "sentient". This is a word without
any measurable meaning. We combine sentiency with intelligence to set our
morals (our kind is most important, and this is how we define our kind). So
how do we decide whether a being is sufficiently like us to be protected?
If we can't tell the difference!
a...@redhat.invalid
:> But if you're writing an AI application, Turing's is probably not
:> relevant.
Sure, that's true. Turing's test doesn't exist to help people who
write so-called AI applications.
<speculation about Turing deleted>
J Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Incidentally, I've seen some slight evidence that to pass the Turing
: test it helps to have the program simulate some sort of raving bigot.
It's easy for a computer realistically to mimic deranged people:
Parry, for example. But the examiner wouldn't believe the program was
intelligent. How would that be a pass?
: So apart from the philosophical pooint that it probably isn't workable
: to say "intelligence is whatever humans do and not what anything else
: does"
That would be an unintelligent point to make, which is presumably why
no-one has made it!
Andrew.
J Thomas
> So how do we decide whether a being is sufficiently like us to be
> protected? If we can't tell the difference!
That reminds me of an ethnic joke. I hesitate to tell it since I'm not
a Baptist.
A river was in flood, and a man saw somebody in the river, obviously in
trouble, and managed to rescue him. The half-drowned man thanked him.
"Oh, it's just what's expected of me, I'm a christian."
"A christian? So am I."
"I'm a Baptist."
"What a coincidence! So am I!"
"I'm a Free-will Baptist."
"Yes, same here."
"A Jesus Heart Free-will Baptist."
"Me too!"
"Are you a Purity Jesus Heart Free-will Baptist?"
"No, I'm Holiness."
So he pushed him back in.
The thing I find encouraging about the joke is the implication that if
the man hadn't been christian at all, there wouldn't have been any
problem.
J Thomas
> J Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> : Incidentally, I've seen some slight evidence that to pass the
> : Turing test it helps to have the program simulate some sort of
> : raving bigot.
> It's easy for a computer realistically to mimic deranged people:
> Parry, for example. But the examiner wouldn't believe the program
> was intelligent. How would that be a pass?
Did I misunderstand the test? I thought it was a pass if the examiner
couldn't tell the conversation was with a human. I didn't see asnything
there about rating how smart the human was.
> : So apart from the philosophical pooint that it probably isn't
> : workable to say "intelligence is whatever humans do and not what
> : anything else does"
> That would be an unintelligent point to make, which is presumably why
> no-one has made it!
Since I thought the test measured how well the program could pass for
human, naturally I thought the assumption was that human = intelligent.
Leonard Zettel
J Thomas wrote:
>
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > a...@redhat.invalid wrote:
>
> > > Sure, you could label a teapot intelligent if you wanted but no-one
> > > would have to agree. The magic of Turing's test is that they would
> > > agree.
>
> > But if you're writing an AI application, Turing's is probably not
> > relevant. We don't need a computer to act like people, we have
> > plenty of people available to do that. We need an AI program to do
> > specific tasks with intelligence tailored to those tasks.
>
> Yes. I can see the Turing test as a philosophical device.
<snip>
<sigh>
You have to remember context. And what artificial intelligence used to
mean.
To start with *you* know you are "there" in a very intimate manner.
"Cogito, ergo sum". -Descartes
Which leads to the question: How do you know the other guy is there?
After all, solipsism is a valid philosophical position.
The naturalist position is that you can only make inferences from
observed behavior (and other sensory data).
Artificial intelligence used to mean making a computer be somebody -
a self-conscious entity.
As James Crick reaffirmed in his latest (very good) work recently, we
still don't have an operational definition for consciousness, and that
lack makes it very hard to study scientifically.
So how do you know when you have created an artificial personality that
can claim some kind of equal footing with yourself? Turing proposed you do
it the same way you do it with Joe Schlunk - you converse and make a
judgment. Formally, this usually includes expert reports and a court
hearing.
That may not be a very good answer, but I have yet to see a better one.
The fur will fly when the evidence gets good enough to convince some and
not others. Remember, some Spaniards justified their treatment of native
Americans by claiming they were some kind of exotic animal, and not human beings.
To the credit of the church, most clergy who went along argued otherwise.
-LenZ-
Jerry Avins
There is subtle bigotry in the other direction, too. It has happened
several times when I went out of my way to help a stranger in trouble,
that the thanks included the phrase "You're a good Christian." There's a
deep-seated (and incorrect) assumption there that's not entirely pretty.
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
a...@redhat.invalid
: a...@redhat.invalid wrote:
:> It's easy for a computer realistically to mimic deranged people:
:> Parry, for example. But the examiner wouldn't believe the program
:> was intelligent. How would that be a pass?
: Did I misunderstand the test? I thought it was a pass if the examiner
: couldn't tell the conversation was with a human. I didn't see asnything
: there about rating how smart the human was.
In which case, reductio ad absurdum, a human who couldn't type and a
computer that was switched off would be indistinguishable, so the
computer would pass the Turing test. Clearly this wasn't Turing's
intent, and both the computer and the human being must appear to be
intelligent. Both failing isn't enough.
Andrew.
Jerry Avins
No one made it here, which is part of what I enjoy about this group.
Unfortunately, it is often the unstated axiom behind the changing
definition of intelligence that some philosophers adopt. No one claims
any longer that intelligence is exhibited when a good game of chess is
played.
Jerry
Dan Cross
>You have to remember context. And what artificial intelligence used to
>mean.
Well, I don't know too much about artificial intelligence, but I do
know that it has little to do with awk programming. ;-)
Folks, could you please trim out comp.lang.awk on any followups to
this thread? It's getting a little overwhelming. Some of the folks
in the various other language-specific groups might feel the same
way as well. Thanks!
- Dan C.
Howard Brazee
> In which case, reductio ad absurdum, a human who couldn't type and a
> computer that was switched off would be indistinguishable, so the
> computer would pass the Turing test. Clearly this wasn't Turing's
> intent, and both the computer and the human being must appear to be
> intelligent. Both failing isn't enough.
>
> Andrew.
Was that a program, my infant grandson emulating his dad, or a cat walking
across the keyboard?
Gary Chanson
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:3AB61B58...@brazee.net...
Unless the goal is to automate a task normally done by people with some
(possibly minimal) intelligence. For example, telephone operator. The goal
here would be very similar to a Turing test.
Gary Chanson
J Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3AB638AC...@ix.netcom.com...
Well, of course! As he progressed down the list, he saw his new
acquaintance as more and more of a potential threat because they had so much
in common. A pagan would have been no threat at all!
Gary Chanson
Or was it it an Elephant orchestra?