Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #17915 > unrolled thread

Re: Need porting of German AI into Java

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2012-12-07 11:25 -0800
    Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-12-07 14:21 -0600
      Re: Need porting of German AI into Java markspace <-@.> - 2012-12-07 16:25 -0800
        Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-07 16:42 -0800
          Re: Need porting of German AI into Java "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-07 14:53 -1000
            Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-07 19:59 -0500
              Re: Need porting of German AI into Java "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-07 15:26 -1000
            Re: Need porting of German AI into Java "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-12-08 22:06 +1100
        Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2012-12-08 14:08 +0000
          Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-13 14:02 -0800
            Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2012-12-13 15:59 -0800
            Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2012-12-14 00:41 +0000
          Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-13 20:26 -0800
            Re: Need porting of German AI into Java "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-12-16 12:25 +1100
              Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-15 17:55 -0800
              Re: Need porting of German AI into Java albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-12-16 01:53 +0000
              Re: Need porting of German AI into Java George Hubert <georgeahubert@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-17 16:10 -0800
          Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2012-12-14 05:28 +0000
            Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-14 03:20 -0800
              Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2012-12-16 02:03 +0000
          Re: Need porting of German AI into Java "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-12-15 11:19 +0000
          Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2012-12-15 11:56 +0000
            Re: Need porting of German AI into Java "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-12-15 12:23 +0000
            Re: Need porting of German AI into Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-17 20:50 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#17915 — Re: Need porting of German AI into Java

On Dec 7, 1:34 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> Mentifex wrote:
>> The Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) at
>
>> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt
>
>> has been re-recreated in the German language at
>
>> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/DeKi.txt
>
> > and needs porting into the Java language.
>
> If it exists, presumably in the language
> of the designer choice, why does it need
> porting?
>
>   BugBear

Wotan Supercomputer Strong AI in 64-bit Linux iForth
needs porting into Java and other mainstream languages
for the sake of AI evolution and The Singularity.

Mentifex (Arthur)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17916

Mentifex wrote:
>[massive *SNIP*]
>
> Wotan Supercomputer Strong AI in 64-bit Linux iForth
> needs porting into Java and other mainstream languages
> for the sake of AI evolution and The Singularity.
>
> Mentifex (Arthur)
>

The information content of that sentence is extremely close 
to 0.

My I suggest that you run it by 10 of your friends who are 
not involved with your AI project.
Ask them to paraphrase it.
Take that group of ten sentences and give them to a 
different set of ten friends.
Ask each of those friends to convey the information they 
received in a SINGLE sentence.

Do any of those sentences convey the same information as 
what you wrote?

P.S. - before retirement I often found myself as a 
"translator" between "disciplines". Interesting - as in old 
curse "may you live in interesting times" ;/

Signed: Professional Nitpicker {AKA QA/QC/Acceptance 
Inspector ;}

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17921

On 12/7/2012 12:21 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:

> Mentifex wrote:
>>
>> Wotan Supercomputer Strong AI in 64-bit Linux iForth
>> needs porting into Java and other mainstream languages
>> for the sake of AI evolution and The Singularity.
>>

>
> The information content of that sentence is extremely close to 0.

Huh.  I wonder if someone is testing out an AI on *us*?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17922

On 12/7/2012 4:25 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 12/7/2012 12:21 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>
>> Mentifex wrote:
>>>
>>> Wotan Supercomputer Strong AI in 64-bit Linux iForth
>>> needs porting into Java and other mainstream languages
>>> for the sake of AI evolution and The Singularity.
>>>
>
>>
>> The information content of that sentence is extremely close to 0.
>
> Huh.  I wonder if someone is testing out an AI on *us*?

It does seem strange. I would have thought Forth would be a good choice
of language for some types of AI, and any porting would be to other
versions of Forth, not to such a very different language as Java.

Patricia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17923

On 12/7/12 2:42 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 12/7/2012 4:25 PM, markspace wrote:
>> On 12/7/2012 12:21 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>
>>> Mentifex wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wotan Supercomputer Strong AI in 64-bit Linux iForth
>>>> needs porting into Java and other mainstream languages
>>>> for the sake of AI evolution and The Singularity.
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> The information content of that sentence is extremely close to 0.
>>
>> Huh.  I wonder if someone is testing out an AI on *us*?
>
> It does seem strange. I would have thought Forth would be a good choice
> of language for some types of AI, and any porting would be to other
> versions of Forth, not to such a very different language as Java.

Folks, this is Mentifex. We're used to low information content.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17925

On 12/7/2012 7:53 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 12/7/12 2:42 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> On 12/7/2012 4:25 PM, markspace wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2012 12:21 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mentifex wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Wotan Supercomputer Strong AI in 64-bit Linux iForth
>>>>> needs porting into Java and other mainstream languages
>>>>> for the sake of AI evolution and The Singularity.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The information content of that sentence is extremely close to 0.
>>>
>>> Huh.  I wonder if someone is testing out an AI on *us*?
>>
>> It does seem strange. I would have thought Forth would be a good choice
>> of language for some types of AI, and any porting would be to other
>> versions of Forth, not to such a very different language as Java.
>
> Folks, this is Mentifex. We're used to low information content.

This:
   http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html
?

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17926

On 12/7/12 2:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/7/2012 7:53 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>> On 12/7/12 2:42 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2012 4:25 PM, markspace wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2012 12:21 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mentifex wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wotan Supercomputer Strong AI in 64-bit Linux iForth
>>>>>> needs porting into Java and other mainstream languages
>>>>>> for the sake of AI evolution and The Singularity.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The information content of that sentence is extremely close to 0.
>>>>
>>>> Huh.  I wonder if someone is testing out an AI on *us*?
>>>
>>> It does seem strange. I would have thought Forth would be a good choice
>>> of language for some types of AI, and any porting would be to other
>>> versions of Forth, not to such a very different language as Java.
>>
>> Folks, this is Mentifex. We're used to low information content.
>
> This:
>    http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html
> ?
>
> Arne

Yes.


-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17933

Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 12/7/12 2:42 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> > On 12/7/2012 4:25 PM, markspace wrote:
> >> On 12/7/2012 12:21 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mentifex wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Wotan Supercomputer Strong AI in 64-bit Linux iForth
> >>>> needs porting into Java and other mainstream languages
> >>>> for the sake of AI evolution and The Singularity.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The information content of that sentence is extremely close to 0.
> >>
> >> Huh.  I wonder if someone is testing out an AI on *us*?
> >
> > It does seem strange. I would have thought Forth would be a good choice
> > of language for some types of AI, and any porting would be to other
> > versions of Forth, not to such a very different language as Java.
>
> Folks, this is Mentifex. We're used to low information content.

Precisely why he posts here :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17940

Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> writes:
> It does seem strange. I would have thought Forth would be a good choice
> of language for some types of AI, and any porting would be to other
> versions of Forth, not to such a very different language as Java.

I tried to use Forth in my own AI development.  I tried really,
really hard.  But it just leaves too much "cockpit workload" when
the actual application of itself requires more brain cells than I have.
What strengths Forth still posesses WRT the rest of the world are
down near embedded apps, not up in high level ones.  IMHO.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18000

On Dec 8, 7:08 am, Andy Valencia <van...@vsta.org> wrote:
> What strengths Forth still posesses WRT the rest of the world are
> down near embedded apps, not up in high level ones.  IMHO.

I agree.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18001

On Dec 13, 2:02 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 7:08 am, Andy Valencia <van...@vsta.org> wrote:
>
> > What strengths Forth still posesses WRT the rest of the world are
> > down near embedded apps, not up in high level ones.  IMHO.
>
> I agree.

Yes, but those "embedded apps" could be part of the
robotic embodiment of the MindForth AI in English or
of the Wotan 64-bit Linux Supercomputer AI in German.

Mentifex (Arthur)
--
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/DeKi.txt
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt
http://cyborg.blogspot.com/2009/11/linux.html
http://store.kagi.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?storeID=AMP_Live

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18002

Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> writes:
> > > What strengths Forth still posesses WRT the rest of the world are
> > > down near embedded apps, not up in high level ones. =A0IMHO.
> Yes, but those "embedded apps" could be part of the
> robotic embodiment of the MindForth AI in English or
> of the Wotan 64-bit Linux Supercomputer AI in German.

You know, I'd have killfile'ed you a long time ago, but you actually write
code as a part of your project.  I really value people who get their hands
dirty in the pursuit of their ideas.

Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18006

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 3:08:49 PM UTC+1, Andy Valencia wrote:
> Patricia Shanahan <pxxx@acm.org> writes:
> 
> > It does seem strange. I would have thought Forth would be a good choice
> 
> > of language for some types of AI, and any porting would be to other
> 
> > versions of Forth, not to such a very different language as Java.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to use Forth in my own AI development.  I tried really,
> 
> really hard.  But it just leaves too much "cockpit workload" when
> 
> the actual application of itself requires more brain cells than I have.
> 
> What strengths Forth still posesses WRT the rest of the world are
> 
> down near embedded apps, not up in high level ones.  IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> Andy

Hi Andy,

> What strengths Forth still posesses WRT the rest of the world are
> down near embedded apps, not up in high level ones. 
This is a popular misconception here on clf - I have no problem writing high level applications in Forth.

Fortunately the good folks at Forth, Inc and MPE, together with the grass roots supporters of Win32Forth have not taken this idea on board, and still make products for Windows.

> I tried really, really hard.
I'm curious to know what you found difficult.
Maybe you were trying to solve the wrong problem ;-)

Best regards,
Howerd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18034

Howerd wrote:
> ...
> Hi Andy,
>
> > What strengths Forth still posesses WRT the rest of the world are
> > down near embedded apps, not up in high level ones.
> This is a popular misconception here on clf - I have no problem writing high level
> applications in Forth.
>
> Fortunately the good folks at Forth, Inc and MPE, together with the grass roots supporters
> of Win32Forth have not taken this idea on board, and still make products for Windows.

Only because Forth Inc and MPE needed a desktop forth to host their
embedded compilers :)

I'm sure Forth Inc and MPE have some serious (and diehard) customers
who are using Forth to write Windows apps but I'm guessing most of their
business is selling embedded compilers and contract work.

As for Win32Forth, it appears to have run out steam.  The last stable
version is listed as 6.12.00 (July 2007) and the "current" version almost
three years old is 6.14.00 (Feb 2010).  And that's just the developers.

It's not that one can't write high level applications in Forth - it's that they
likely have already been written in other languages - some of which may
be better suited to the task.  GreenArrays is targetting the embedded
market and even there I think it will be tough going.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18035

On Dec 15, 5:25 pm, "Ed" <inva...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Howerd wrote:
> > ...
> > Hi Andy,
>
> > > What strengths Forth still posesses WRT the rest of the world are
> > > down near embedded apps, not up in high level ones.
> > This is a popular misconception here on clf - I have no problem writing high level
> > applications in Forth.
>
> > Fortunately the good folks at Forth, Inc and MPE, together with the grass roots supporters
> > of Win32Forth have not taken this idea on board, and still make products for Windows.
>
> Only because Forth Inc and MPE needed a desktop forth to host their
> embedded compilers :)
>
> I'm sure Forth Inc and MPE have some serious (and diehard) customers
> who are using Forth to write Windows apps but I'm guessing most of their
> business is selling embedded compilers and contract work.
>
> As for Win32Forth, it appears to have run out steam.  The last stable
> version is listed as 6.12.00 (July 2007) and the "current" version almost
> three years old is 6.14.00 (Feb 2010).  And that's just the developers.

It periodically stops breathing. It will no doubt draw breath again
and surprise us all.

Win32Forth promiscuously uses any and all Windows libraries. What may
be required is the ability to supply a Windows Forth DLL that other
tools can use in their turn. Then, when Forth is appropriate, Forth
developers can be deploy their code in the manner that most developers
on Windows platforms expect; no source, download a pre-compiled binary
and a header file or two, and call away. All the while blissfully
unaware of the restrictions that a single return value imposes and the
elegance of the language used to write the DLL they're calling.

>
> It's not that one can't write high level applications in Forth - it's that they
> likely have already been written in other languages - some of which may
> be better suited to the task.  GreenArrays is targetting the embedded
> market and even there I think it will be tough going.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18037

In article <kaj827$ifo$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Ed <invalid@nospam.com> wrote:
>Howerd wrote:
>> ...
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> > What strengths Forth still posesses WRT the rest of the world are
>> > down near embedded apps, not up in high level ones.
>> This is a popular misconception here on clf - I have no problem
>writing high level
>> applications in Forth.
>>
>> Fortunately the good folks at Forth, Inc and MPE, together with the
>grass roots supporters
>> of Win32Forth have not taken this idea on board, and still make
>products for Windows.
>
>Only because Forth Inc and MPE needed a desktop forth to host their
>embedded compilers :)
>
>I'm sure Forth Inc and MPE have some serious (and diehard) customers
>who are using Forth to write Windows apps but I'm guessing most of their
>business is selling embedded compilers and contract work.
>
>As for Win32Forth, it appears to have run out steam.  The last stable
>version is listed as 6.12.00 (July 2007) and the "current" version almost
>three years old is 6.14.00 (Feb 2010).  And that's just the developers.

It is a terrible misconception that a program is no good if three years
pass without a bug found.

>
>It's not that one can't write high level applications in Forth - it's that they
>likely have already been written in other languages - some of which may
>be better suited to the task.  GreenArrays is targetting the embedded
>market and even there I think it will be tough going.
>

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18057

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 1:25:09 AM UTC, Ed wrote:


> As for Win32Forth, it appears to have run out steam.  The last stable
> 
> version is listed as 6.12.00 (July 2007) and the "current" version almost
> 
> three years old is 6.14.00 (Feb 2010).  And that's just the developers.
> 
> 

Actually the last releases were in September 2010. They are at
www.schneider-busch.de/dirk/forth/download/w32f61401.exe
for the stable release (even numbered subversions are stable)
and www.schneider-busch.de/dirk/forth/download/w32f61500.exe
for the developement release. There are newer versions in our
CVS but for various reasons no snapshots have been done lately
( I think Dirk Busch, who does the snapshots has been too busy
to issue newer versions). Generally we release a new stable
release about every 2-3 yrs., so one should be coming soon.

George Hubert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18009

Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> This is a popular misconception here on clf -
> I have no problem writing high level applications in Forth.

URL's to code you have written?

Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18011

On Friday, December 14, 2012 6:28:41 AM UTC+1, Andy Valencia wrote:
> Howerd <howxxxx@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > This is a popular misconception here on clf -
> 
> > I have no problem writing high level applications in Forth.
> 
> 
> 
> URL's to code you have written?
> 
> 
> 
> Andy Valencia
> 
> Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
> 
> To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

Hi Andy,

http://www.inventio.co.uk/USBboot.htm is the latest public release
somewhat older is 
http://www.inventio.co.uk/Cweedexe.htm

These are not embedded programs, but do they qualify as "high level" ?
They are desktop applications though, written in Forth.

Best regards,
Howerd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18036

> These are not embedded programs, but do they qualify as "high level" ?
> They are desktop applications though, written in Forth.

When I talk about "high level", I mean dealing with very high levels of
abstraction.  Imagine applications where things like SymPy (sympy.org)
and PyLog (cdsoft.fr/pylog/index.html) make up your lower level
supporting libraries.  If I was hammering bits on a filesystem I would
definitely not use Python; Forth would be OK, although C usually has
a more convenient suite of already-available header files and libraries.

Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web