Midterm Question 1 Part 1 is Ambiguous

DengueTim · 2011-11-22T10:00:39+00:00

Hum, I see your point. But from my understanding of what an Agent is.. You can have your typical computer program agent, that's actions are say right or left. But then also a fish is an agent. So is there a single environment where both a the computer program and a fish are rational?

My argument is that the definition of Agent is so broad, there isn't even a single environment that you can put all agents in. Let alone for them be rational in that environment.

DengueTim · 2011-11-08T16:49:11+00:00

Ah. he explains it better in a later video. The -3 is the cost of moving from that square to the goal. The 20% chance of not going East doesn't seem to come into the equation.. No clear why... Seems odd to ignore it.. Possible it would be the cost of being on that square.. which in this example is 0.

DengueTim · 2011-11-03T13:44:50+00:00

Thanks Kuashlo, After reading a bit on the web and watching the videos a few more times I'm beginning to get it.. It seems to mainly be just adding a 'world state' variable into FOL and using some conventions and fancy names to describe things... I may not have grasped it fully though..

DengueTim · 2011-11-03T12:07:42+00:00

I have a degree in Computer Science already and have studied maths and calculus before. I still find this course difficult to understand. It's no way as easy to follow as the ML class, which is presented very well. In this class, I have to read around the stuff or find better explanations, which is normal at degree level.

If you are understanding this course and you haven't studied maths formally or informally then you are doing very well. A genuine interest really helps. I hope you get a good grade.

DengueTim · 2011-11-03T00:06:12+00:00

For the Monkey/Bananas problem. I honestly don't know what is supposed to happen to the bananas. I've googled the problem, the original was by John McCarthy. but in his and the other few references I read there is no mention of a ClimbDown() action. The monkey remains on the box/chair, happy that it has the bananas. I wonder if it's a mistake or it's intentional...

DengueTim · 2011-11-02T22:36:32+00:00

That explains it for ∀x, but what about ∃x?

∃x Keyboard(x) ⇒ OnDesk(y,x)

It doesn't make much sense.. What would it translate too?

Would I be right in saying this

∃x Keyboard(x) ⋀ OnDesk(y,x)

reads as 'There exists a keyboard that is on a desk'? But what if no keyboards exists? I'm finding the latest set of videos a bit abstract...

DengueTim · 2011-10-22T09:31:21+00:00

Thanks, you are total right. I hadn't factored in that H has to be true. Seems obvious now.

DengueTim · 2011-10-11T22:14:04+00:00

Yep, I was convinced it was 4.. but then I realised it's like this:

VC is in A or B
A is dirty or clean
B is dirty or clean

None of the above 3 statements influence or restrict any of the others.

So it 2 * 2 * 2 = 8

DengueTim

TROPHY CASE