From: Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 26 2001 - 11:12:19 MDT
> I think this is a valid approach. One word of caution is
> that they've been
> working on this for 28 years. Even with 20,000 formalized
> theorems, they still
> have a way to go.
> Mizar syntax is not sophisticated enough for codifying CS knowledge
> (admittedly, you can accomplish a hell of a lot with it)... and
> there isn't an
> Office of Naval Research funding the project. It's a great idea, but I'm
> interested in hearing more ideas on how to accomplish it.
Mizar syntax can be used for codifying CS knowledge, but, it's not specially
tuned for it.
Defining a Mizar dialect specialized for CS would be a valuable project.
Anyone care to undertake it?
I also have a half-finished, now-abandoned project at converting Mizar into
KNOW, Webmind's much simpler KR language. The completion of this would
allow the WM AI Engine to read Mizar...
> I think your concerns about Java's performance are based on
> two things.
> First, your were using it for a high performance application just
> before it
> was really ready for it - you saw a lot of blood. Second, you
> were trying to
> use it on cheap hardware.
We used a variety of hardware, including some decent Solaris boxes but no
> would buy or steal better hardware, namely 64 bit hardware such as alphas.
> They have had a functional JVM since, I think, 1996, running at
> 64 bits with
> 64 bit memory addressing.
Is there really a 64 bit JVM out there, available right now? Please give me
> I am also intrigued with C#. It tests nicely, though there
> are some problems
> and it will take a couple of years before all the kinks are
> worked out. And
> that's one problem you must consider: all the headache you got
> from going with
> Java early, you will get again with C#.
Yup. that's why for now we're using Java for most things, but experimenting
with ANSI C, which at least is well tested, for some ;>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT