Call for Papers

                 The Eighth International Workshop on

       AGENT THEORIES, ARCHITECTURES, AND LANGUAGES (ATAL-2001)

                   Seattle, USA — August 1-3, 2001
                    (Immediately before IJCAI-2001)

                         http://www.atal.org/

The ATAL workshop series aims to bring together researchers interested
in the agent-level, micro aspects of agent technology.  Specifically,
ATAL-2000 will address issues such as theories of rational agency,
software architectures for intelligent agents, methodologies and
programming languages for realising agents, and software tools for
applying and evaluating agent systems. Papers that consider
macro-level, societal issues of agent-based systems are welcome if
they explicitly relate to the workshop themes.

ATAL-2001 will be held immediately before the IJCAI-2001
conference. The ATAL-2001 proceedings will be formally published as
volume eight of the "Intelligent Agents" series from Springer-Verlag.

                               WORKSHOP THEMES

As the title suggests, the workshop has three main themes:

 * AGENT THEORIES: What approaches (e.g., game theory, logic) are
   appropriate for agent theory? How do these approaches relate to one
   another?

 * AGENT ARCHITECTURES: What architectures are appropriate for
   autonomous agents? How can such architectures be given a formal
   semantics? How can different agent architectures be evaluated and
   compared? What methodologies can be used to build agent-based
   applications? How close are these methodologies to existing formal
   specification languages or object-oriented analysis and design
   methods?

 * AGENT LANGUAGES: What programming paradigms are most suitable for
   agents? How do agent-oriented languages differ from object-oriented and
   logic programming languages? What are efficient implementation
   mechanisms for these languages?

Papers that cross theme boundaries are of particular interest. An
example would be a paper that demonstrated how a particular agent
architecture embodied some theory of agency, or what benefits a
particular agent language can bring in a specific application domain.

Apart from these general themes we encourage papers on two SPECIAL
TRACKS, one on "FORMAL THEORIES (logical, game- or
decision-theoretical or otherwise) OF NEGOTIATION BETWEEN AGENTS" and
one on "AGENTS FOR HAND-HELD, MOBILE OR EMBEDDED DEVICES".

                             SUBMISSION DETAILS

Those wishing to participate in the workshop should submit an original
research paper of up to 5000 words (approximately 13 pages maximum) to one of
the co-chairs (John-Jules Meyer or Milind Tambe, at the addresses listed
below). If you wish your paper to be considered for one of the special tracks
then mark this clearly on the front page. Electronic submission in PostScript
or pdf formats is strongly encouraged, but four single-sided hard copies will
also suffice; if you send hardcopy, please ensure you use a reliable
delivery service to ensure your paper turns up before the deadline passes.

The first page of your submission should include the full name and
contact details (including email, full postal address, and telephone
number) of at least one author. Formatting instructions are available
from the workshop WWW site (see above). The preproceedings will be
distributed at the workshop; the formal proceedings will be published
shortly afterwards.

                                  TIMETABLE

 Submissions due               6   April  2001
 Notifications sent            18  May    2001
 Prefinal versions due         22  June   2001
 Workshop                      1-3 August 2001

                            ORGANISING COMMITTEE

 John-Jules Meyer  (Co-chair)
 Utrecht University
 Institute of Information and Computing Sciences
 Centrumgebouw Noord, office A123
 P.O. Box 80089
 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands

 email j…@cs.uu.nl

 Milind Tambe  (Co-chair)
 USC Information Sciences Institute
 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1001
 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695, USA

 email ta…@isi.edu

 David Pynadath (Associate chair)
 USC Information Sciences Institute
 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1001
 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695, USA

 email: pynad…@isi.edu

                           SPECIAL TRACK ORGANISERS

 "Formal Theories of Negotiation"

 Frank Dignum
 Utrecht University, The Netherlands
 email: dig…@cs.uu.nl

 "Agents for Hand-Held, Mobile, or Embedded Devices"

 Tim Finin
 University of Maryland Baltimore County
 email: fi…@cs.umbc.edu

                              PROGRAM COMMITTEE

Chitta Baral                    Arizona State U, USA.
Suzanne Barber                  U of Texas at Austin, USA.
Michael Beetz                   U of Bonn, Germany.
Cristiano Castelfranchi         CNR, Rome, Italy.
Lawrence Cavedon                RMIT, Australia.
Phil Cohen                      Oregon Graduate Inst, USA.
Rosaria Conte                   IP-CNR, Italy.
Giuseppe De Giacomo             U of Rome, Italy.
Keith Decker                    University of Delaware, USA.
Frank Dignum                    Utrecht U, Netherlands.
Mark d’Inverno                  U of Westminster, UK.
Alexis Drogoul                  U of Paris VI, France.
Ed Durfee                       U of Michigan, USA
Jacques Ferber                  U of Montpellier II, France.
Tim Finin                       U of Maryland Baltimore County
Klaus Fischer                   DFKI, Germany.
Michael Fisher                  U of Liverpool, UK.
Stan Franklin                   U of Memphis, USA.
Fausto Giunchiglia              U of Trento, Italy.
Piotr Gmytrasiewicz             U of Texas at Arlington, USA.
Barbara Grosz                   Harvard U, USA.
Henry Hexmoor                   U of North Dakota, USA.
Wiebe van der Hoek              Utrecht U, Netherlands.
Marc Huber                      Intelligent Reasoning Systems, USA.
Nick Jennings                   U of Southampton, UK.
Anupam Joshi                    U of Maryland, USA.
Hirofumi Katsuno                Tokyo Denki U, Japan.
David Kinny                     U of Melbourne, Australia.
Sarit Kraus                     Bar-Ilan U, Israel.
Ora Lassila                     Nokia Research Center, Boston, USA
Yves Lesperance                 York U, Toronto, Canada.
Alessio Lomuscio                Imperial College, London, UK
Michael Luck                    U of Southampton, UK.
John-Jules Meyer                Utrecht U, Netherlands (co-chair).
Joerg Mueller                   Siemens, Germany.
Hideyuki Nakashima              AIST, Japan.
Simon Parsons                   U of Liverpool, UK.
David Pynadath                  USC-ISI, USA.
Anand Rao                       Mitchell Madison Group, UK.
Luciano Serafini                U of Trento, Italy.
Onn Shehory                     IBM Haifa Res. Labs, Israel.
Carles Sierra                   CSIC, Spain.
Munindar Singh                  North Carolina State U, USA.
Liz Sonenberg                   U of Melbourne, Australia.
Peter Stone                     ATT Labs, USA
Katia Sycara                    Carnegie Mellon U, USA.
Milind Tambe                    USC-ISI, USA (co-chair).
Jan Treur                       Free Univ. Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tom Wagner                      U of Massachusetts at Amherst, USA.
Wayne Wobcke                    University of Melbourne, Australia.
Mike Wooldridge                 U of Liverpool, UK.
Peter Wurman                    North Carolina State U, USA.
Makoto Yokoo                    NTT Labs, Japan
Eric Yu                         U of Toronto, Canada.

–
Mike Wooldridge                      http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~mjw/
Department of Computer Science       tel    (+44 151) 794 3667
University of Liverpool              fax    (+44 151) 794 3715
Liverpool L69 7ZF, United Kingdom    mailto:M.J.Wooldri…@csc.liv.ac.uk

In article <91qluo$6k…@nnrp1.deja.com>,
 Mark K. <mark_k_sp…@my-deja.com> wrote:

> In article <3A40C973.CA42E…@guest.arnes.si>,
>   Jure Sah <jure….@guest.arnes.si> wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > > But the question is: Does S D Rodrian sense
> > > the presence of intelligence
> > > in his brain
> Very funny! The answer is yes,
> unfortunately he’s 100%wrong!

Sorry, Mark, but: Nothing is 100%
(Not even this truism–that’s how
true it is!)

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > > anymore than physics has
> > > something to do with AI?

> > S D Rodrian wrote:
> > > Translation: Does a computer sense
> > > the presence of the electrical intelligence
> > > in its memory banks any more than physics
> > > should have anything to do with the paranormal?

> > Ha! Logic:
> > "S D Rodrian" = "Computer"
> > "Intelligence" = "Electrical intelligence"
> > (Gotta tell this one to Cordi
> > "Brain" = "Memory banks"
> > "AI" = "Paranormal"

> > But if you are a computer, you just
> > passed the turing test by talking to
> > me. You are an AI. Are you paranormal?
> > You’re surely not normal, if you
> > cross post things to a physics and
> > an AI newsgroup. But yet you are
> > normal enough to claim that the brain
> > is the same thing as memory banks.

> > You’re a strange intellect S D Rodrian.
> > Are you going to change that?

> Leave out the intellect bit and
> you will find the answer is that and
> idiot is incapable of change.
> Mark

[This will probably be over Mark'sr head.]

But:  If "idiot is incapable of change" …
amaze me and prove yourself no idiot
by changing (yourself) and becoming more
civil and less obnoxious. Dare’ya.

Here’s a little extra incentive to sweeten my
challenge: If you change before me, you
will in fact prove me the bigger idiot of the
two of us! So, here’s your golden chance,
my boy!

S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
sdrodrian.com

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

In article <3A41A03E.E510A…@cnde.iastate.edu>,

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

sworm…@cnde.iastate.edu wrote:
> po…@my-deja.com wrote:

> > for me 3D is good enough

> A railroad crossing in my area can be described with three
> spatial dimensions.  If I think if the location and in time
> (four dimensions) there are definite combinations I try to
> avoid.  The three dimensions x, y, z, and t may be safe right
> now, but a different value for the dimension t may have the
> train hitting me!

> The x, y, z location is safe most of the time, but there are
> values of t that it is definitely not safe.  I like four
> dimensions better than three.

There ane only "three" dimensions:
That is all that’s required to permit
existence (and) motion in the universe:
Time is but the human habit of timing
(most/all) such motions (and so time
is a dimension, only a human dimension,
as  employed in relativity’s space-time
map–i.e. a description/measurement of
motions and NOT something which, like the
"three" dimensions of reality… permits
motions).

S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Can any one help me up how to design a pre-amp circuit that is able to
support both dynamic and electrek microphone? Or at least give me any guide
to this kind of design?

Thanks

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

if you took a mirror, and bent it so that it was a perfect sphere around
you, with no seems…
you would see dark, as no light would enter…
but what would happen and what would you see if you turned on a
flashlight???

In article <91j4eg$5s…@nnrp1.deja.com>,

ltl…@mindspring.com wrote:
> How about the idea of quantum vaccuum based inflation?

That is strictly an imagined solution
for a problem which does not really exist:
It is not unlike suggesting that babies
learn to talk by translating their parents’
language into the goo-goo language they are
born with… thereby understanding the new
language they will speak from then on…

Space as a state of minimum energy where
quantum fluctuations consistent with Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle leads to the temporary
formation of particle-antiparticle pairs which,
in your words (cause)…

> Such inflation
> could cause the universe to double in size
> within one hundred trillion-
> trillion-trillionth (1*10**-34) of a second.

… is a description of magic (uncaused effects).
It is either (and/or) a misinterpretation of quantum
theory (or, if you prefer, an error of quantum
theory itself if you insist "you" are infallible).

Try it this way: "There is no magic. So you do NOT
have to discover exactly how the magician’s trick
is a trick… before being certain it is indeed
a trick and NOT real magic.) Period.

If a "solution" sounds as if it may be a Rube
Goldberg put-on… chances are it IS (ironically
as when if it sounds too good to be true it is).
The universe is simple and elegant because it needs
to be that way: Were it not, it could never have
started out from the simplest possible condition
which must have existed at its very beginnings
(this is a truth which the quest for a unified
field theory embodies as an accepted principle).

Let this be your mantra: "Things are NEVER as
confusing as the confused MAKE them out to be."
And visit thou: http://web.sdrodrian.com

> In addition, if such high frequency
> inflation is possible, it may be
> meaningless to say the universe is expanding
> (traveling along positive
> space at the speed of light) or
> imploding (traveling along negative
> space in the speed of light).
> Rather than positive or negative space,
> may be there are complex space just like
> numbers can be positive,
> negative or complex.

Answer: It is not possible.

Reality does not always follow absolute
mathematical lines, but can even be better
understood (if perhaps not defined) using
ALL the input available to us rather than
just merely/only logic of one shade or other
… as in:

"What’s 1 and 1 ?"

Mathematics would suggest it’s 2
while a wiseguy might be thinking
it’s 11

and if the wiseguy has a gun to your head
and your life depends on your answering
his question the way he wants it answered:
You’re as extinct as… the guy under the
tombstone that reads: "I had the right-of-way."

S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com

re:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> In article <91j13k$3d…@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   S D Rodrian <SDRodr…@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > In article <8zi_5.133$SKV4.31850…@news.randori.com>,
> > "Janus" <Ja…@internetconnect.com> wrote:

> > > > 3) And, by the way, the universe is NOT
> > > > "expanding" but "imploding." Visit thou:

> > > > http://web.sdrodrian.com

> > > > And be enlightened.

> > > Interesting theory, but i’m not quite certain
> > > whether your theory implies
> > > the universe to be imploding to a point,
> > > or imploding in general.

> > Well, I’ve already answered this a thousand times
> > (so I guess one more time won’t hoit)…

> > There is no "bottom" beyond which the implosion
> > cannot continue–If there were, this would mean
> > that there is some sort of fundamental "particle"
> > of "matter," and that (i.e. a perfectly homogeneous
> > singularity) is something Nature seems to abhor.

> > Instead, what the implosion model implies is
> > that the universe’s "forms of matter" are just
> > that: "forms/shapes," and NOT fundamental. [This
> > means that the implosion does not result in a
> > "pile up" at its center, but instead --E=MC^2--
> > produces a "singularity of matter" (quite non-
> > homogeneous, as you can see by looking about you)
> > which will "forever" implode without (appreciably)
> > changing its form/shape... as it fuels the "work"
> > of imploding with the ONLY storehouse of energy
> > available to it: the energy IN matter itself.]

> > Curiously, this "eternal" (self-fueled) implosion
> > means that the "universe of matter" is given one
> > monstrously long life… considering that, as it
> > continues, the implosion of the universe of matter
> > always results in an unendingly diminishing sum of
> > its total remaining mass (as the implosion converts
> > matter to the energy it uses to implode)… and this
> > means that there is an ever-decreasing demand on its
> > necessarily finite remaining "pool of energy" reserves
> > [required--by the laws of physics--for fueling its own
> > implosion] AT THE SAME TIME that those same "reserves
> > of energy" (available for fueling the never-ending
> > "work" of imploding) are eternally diminishing…
> > PRECISELY BECAUSE there is & ever will be less and less
> > of the universe (that needs) to be imploded.

> > Think of it this way… you have a container of water
> > which is forever evaporating (water standing in for the
> > energy reserves of the universe). If you could determine
> > how much water there is and the rate of evaporation, you
> > would know ("the age of the universe") and how long it has
> > to "live." But the real-world problem we face in trying
> > to determine the age of our universe of matter is that the
> > "vessel" holding our eternally-evaporating "water" is not
> > only funnel-shaped but its tapering (ever-slimming down) body
> > goes on & on (not for a few inches but) for a whopping length
> > of trillions of light-years top to bottom! Add to that
> > the fact that we have no idea how fast the "water" is
> > "evaporating" [at any point along the body of said vessel]
> > and we can only theorize that the rate of evaporation is
> > forever diminishing. Throw in the very real probability that
> > there exist any number of unpredictable variables (along the
> > lines of whether the vessel’s ever-receding "mouth" [receding
> > in order to offer the surface of the water the ability to
> > continue evaporating even as the diameter of that "mouth"
> > slowly constricts top to bottom] may be "passing through"
> > a desert or a rain forest, destroying any possibility of
> > an ever-constant rate of evaporation over the entire length)
> > … and you can see why we might never know the true age of
> > our universe of matter. [Note that I am not saying it is
> > impossible to know the age of the universe but only why it
> > may be impossible--in other words: stating the problem that
> > needs to be solved.] However, this much we can know: Because
> > of its massiveness at its beginning and the fact that there
> > is no "bottom" against which its implosion will crash… our
> > universe is for all practical purposes quite, quite almost
> > "eternal" … as it shall "continue" in its present "form"
> > until there isn’t enough "energy" to sustain its "forms"
> > while giving few hints that much about it is changing at all.

> > > [I didn't
> > > have the patience to read all of it, considering
> > > the wierd analogies used,

> > Well, we can never know a thing for the first time except
> > by placing it in some context; and that means that analogies
> > are indispensable when we are trying to know things for the
> > first time ever (it is like learning a new language, whose
> > (more abstract?) terms may need to be put into some context
> > in the language one already knows, be it one's tongue or
> > mimicry and sign-language).

> > > so i skimed over large portions of it.]

> > > Also, if the universe didn’t start in a big bang,
> > > how did it start?  (i’m
> > > not defending good ole BB here, just
> > > wondering what your ideas are.)

> > Think of the mythical "primordial singularity" not
> > as a point that magically exploded… but as the full
> > breadth of an almost infinite stretch of (scalar) mass.

> > If we’re trying to understand its nature in terms of
> > the laws of thermodynamics, then you must NOT envision
> > it (that universe of energy) as absolutely/perfectly
> > homogeneous–but you must somehow learn to understand it
> > as the ONE single Motion in all existence. [All motions
> > are so because they are relativistic, of course, but
> > for us here on this side of "the universe of energy"
> > it is impossible to even imagine "relative to what" that
> > primordial Single Motion in all of existence may be; so
> > we can only think of it as... ONE Single Motion in OUR
> > existence.] The practical result of this is that it then
> > becomes possible for us to think of it in terms of it
> > being (at least for us, here in the universe of matter)
> > both Absolute Rest AND all the energy that ever was and
> > ever will be available to us: Therefore the advent of
> > gravity in/from that "universe of energy" gives birth to
> > motions relative to Absolute Rest (itself), from where it
> > (the universe of matter) gets its finite amount of energy
> > when it begins –the equivalent of the Big Bang– and to
> > which it then spends the entirely of its "life" returning
> > that energy to [you see why it's easier to understand this
> > in terms of Absolute Rest giving birth to the relativistic
> > motions of our universe of matter... which then gradually
> > but ever inexorably/inevitably return to Absolute Rest].

> > Those vector motions form into gravitational systems which
> > not only coalesce toward their centers but which also
> > establish gravitational interactions among themselves…
> > as their "combinations" over time create ever more complex
> > structures of their interactions. [In other words... natural
> > evolution any way you might put it.] But you can appreciate
> > from this why it is that there are no fundamental forms of
> > matter (particles) and why there can not be. And

…

read more »

  [Cross-posted to sci.math and sci.logic because this is about
   math & logic as well...]

Hello all,

For some time, I’ve been working on puzzles from books by Raymond
Smullyan (The Lady Or The Tiger, To Mock a Mockingbird, What Is The
Name Of This Book?).

I found that a lot of these puzzles suddenly become fairly easy when
you use logical notations and calculational proofs.  (I later found out
that others had the same experience; see
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/gries/Logic/Neatsolution.html).  This post is
just to share a little of that experience, by giving one example.

————

Chapter 5 of "The Lady or the Tiger" is about two groups of people:
those who can only ask questions that should be answered with "Yes"
(type A), and those who can only ask questions that should be answered
with "No" (type B).

Problem 10 from this chapter is as follows (as found somewhere on the
Internet– I only have the Dutch version of the book myself):

"I met three sisters: Alice, Betty and Cynthia.  Alice asked Betty:
‘Are you the type, who could ask Cynthia, if she is the type to ask
you, if you both belong to different groups?’  You can derive the type
of one of the sisters!  Who is what?"

————

For the problems from this chapter, we will use the following
notations.  x stands for an arbitrary person, and P.x for an arbitrary
statement involving (at least) x.

   A.x == "x is of type A"
   B.x == "x is of type B"
   x[P.x] == "x (is of the type that) can/could ask P.x"
   x<P.x> == "x asks P.x"

With these notations, we can put down the following axioms:

   (A1) A.x =/= B.x
   (A2) x[P.x] == A.x == P.x
   (A3) x<P.x> => x[P.x]

(Here I use several notations: == is logical equivalence, =/= is
logical inequivalence, and => is logical implication.  Note that == and
=/= are symmetric and (mutually) associative.)

————

We will call the three persons from Problem 10 a, b, and c.  Converting
the given fact into a formula, we are given that

   a< b[c[A.b =/= A.c]] >

Reasoning from our axioms, we get

   a< b[c[A.b =/= A.c]] >
=>  "(A3) with x:=a"
   a[ b[c[A.b =/= A.c]] ]
==  "(A2) with x:=a"
   A.a == b[c[A.b =/= A.c]]
==  "(A2) with x:=b"
   A.a == A.b == c[A.b =/= A.c]
==  "(A2) with x:=c"
   A.a == A.b == A.c == A.b =/= A.c
==  "logical manipulation on == and =/=; see subproof"

         A.b == A.c == A.b =/= A.c
      ==  "== and =/= are symmetric and associative"
         (A.b == A.b) == (A.c =/= A.c)
      ==  "logic: meaning of == and =/="
         true == false
      ==  "logic"
         false

   A.a == false
==  "(A1) with x:=a"
   B.a

So the only thing that we can derive from the given fact is that Alice
is of type B.

————

Personally, I think that this way of solving this kind of logical
properties is a very neat one.  Especially when comparing this with the
involved natural-language solution that is given in the book itself.

I’m even think of putting up a couple of web pages with this kind of
solutions to most of Smullyan’s logical puzzles.

What do y’all think?

Groetjes,
 <><
Marnix
—
Marnix Klooster
mkloos…@baan.nl

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

In the beginning was all truth. The truth was God. However, every truth has an
opposite.(or a thousand oposites) God had to sepperate himself from the
opposites (Light from darkness as King James translated) All truth became the
mind of God (A perfect program) All truth includes the laws of physics that we
know, pluss, all of the laws of physics that we don’t know. God established his
laws into the infinite emptiness of space that contained no laws. The reaction
was the big bang that happened throughout the universe (not from one spot). The
reaction was energy produce in a geometricial pattern seen by the Boomnerang
telescope. The energy was transformed into elementary particles. The elementary
particles were transformed into solid elements.The universe evolved from these
laws by the path of evolution. We are a product of these laws which are the
laws of creation. This is creation by the path of evolution.

http://sites.netscape.net/dusty55artrhodes/homepage

Hello,

    I have been rereading Chapter 22 of Smullyan’s "To Mock a
Mockingbird". In this chapter, he lays out a formal system for
combinatory logic:

Alphabet:
  (, ), S, K, =

Definition of a term:

- S

- K

- if X and Y are terms, then  (XY) is a term

Definition of a sentence:

- if X and Y are terms, then X=Y is a sentence

Axiom schemas:

- SXYZ = (XY)(XZ)

- KX = X

-  X = X (for every term X)

Rules of inference:

- if X=Y provable , then Y=X provable

- if X=Y & Y=Z are both provable, then X=Z is provable

- if X=Y is provable and Z any term, then XZ=YZ is provable

- if X=Y is provable and Z any term, then ZX=ZY is provable

Note: X, Y, and Z are metasymbols.

Thesis I: the set of provable sentences in the above formal system
      is equal to the congruence relation generated by the set of
      axioms, where congruence is defined by the implied application
      operator, e.g. XZ , i.e. X.Z.

Regards,

Bill Halchin

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

i saw this from a book but not sure if this is a valid
argument.

Can the God create a rock which is too heavy so that
He himself can’t even lift it up?

I want to know if this is a valid argument and also want to
discuess this topic a little bit.

ray