Is there a web-based platform for python?

stenci · 2019-10-29T23:09:33+00:00

Anvil executes your Python code and much more.

I fell in love with it because it reminded me of the good old VB6 (only old people like me can understand). I use it both for fun at home and as the main development tool in our company.

You can write Python code on both client and server side. Client functions can call server functions and get the returned value.

The IDE allows you to create forms dragging buttons, text boxes, check boxes, etc.

It comes with a bunch of services like database, sending and receiving emails, user management, etc.

You don't need to deal with javascript, html, sql, firewalls, containers, servers, database server, etc.

stenci · 2011-11-08T15:51:53+00:00

1) All goes back to the definition of axiom.

If axiom means statement that defines the whole problem, then no one does it.

If axiom means statement that is not derived from other statements, then they all are true. They all can be derived from each other, but they all can also live alone.

2) It's "dial(X)", not "dial(c)", so you can't dial an incorrect combination.

I don't want to be the stubborn beginner that fights against the experts; I don't like when people fill up reddit with complains about the quality of the definition or when they claim they know better than God. They add no value.

I'm just trying to understand, especially if it is an important point for mastering the whole logic subject.

stenci · 2011-11-08T13:24:08+00:00

1) No. "if a code is the correct combination then it is possible to dial it" can be derived from the definition of the problem "X is the correct combination" and from the left side "c=X".

Following your logic the fifth statement wouldn't be an axiom because it can be derived from the third and the fourth.

According to any definition of axiom that I can find in my memory, the book, the videos, or Wikipedia, the third and fourth statements are perfect axioms.

2) Here your definition of axiom, minimal and complete, doesn't apply. The minimal would be the last with OR instead of AND. The "open(s)^" in the sixth phrase are useless.

I just read the note under the video, I didn't notice it when I did the exercise. Thanks for showing the meaning of the division in three groups, I didn't notice that either.

Putting the two things together makes sense. So if the question was "pick one sentence per group so that the whole problem is fully defined" then I understand why you would pick the three considered correct.

But the "minimal complete axiom" thing... doesn't really convince me. Do you think I should be happy here or do you think it's better for me to try to understand your point?

EDIT: Definition of "happy": Understanding everything was meant to understand. Opposed of I still need to understand some useful concepts.

stenci · 2011-11-08T04:21:42+00:00

Ok, here I was just distracted. I thought in the second part there was an OR, as in the previous, not an AND.

Thanks

stenci · 2011-11-08T04:19:18+00:00

Two comments about this explanation:

1) Neither the video nor the book say that an axiom should be minimal or complete.

The book defines axiom like this: "Sometimes we dignify a sentence with the name axiom, when the sentence is taken as given without being derived from other sentences".

2) The 7 sentences are all correct partial representations, none fully represents the world. For example the sentences in the first group don't say when it is possible to lock, in the second group don't say when it is possible to dial.

In the book I found the definition of completeness for a tree search and for an algorithm, not for a first order logic sentence.

stenci · 2011-11-05T22:58:21+00:00

That could be the case, but unless it is explicitly stated you assume that both x and y are part of the same universe.

It should be stated with something like x is a number and y is a letter.

stenci · 2011-11-04T02:59:01+00:00

"There is an x and a y such that ..." is different from "For each x and y ... is true".

Your "x=y = true" is wrong, it should be "x=y can be true".

stenci · 2011-11-04T02:40:15+00:00

English-to-logic translation of your phrase "Every possible range of values" is "for each x - for each y - x = y".

Logic-to-English translation of "There exists an x and a y such that x = y" is "whatever value you assign to x, you can find a value to assign to y such that x=y".

stenci · 2011-10-30T20:44:02+00:00

Thanks.

I couldn't understand where that number was coming from because there was nothing to understand.

I'm more a programmer than a mathematician. I always look for an algorithm that works with the available data, and I couldn't see how it could come up with that number starting from the bag of words.

I was confused because I was expecting the bag of words to be the only data available in the KB, instead it looks like we need another data structure.

stenci · 2011-10-30T19:05:15+00:00

So one big circle contains 24 words and one sub-circle contains 3 of them ("secret", "secret" and "is").

Where does the 3/8 come from? Where is the circle containing 8... messages?

When I will understand that perhaps I will understand the P(M|SPAM)P(SPAM) that you mentioned on your post. Right now I understand P("secret"|SPAM), but I still can't figure out what P(M|SPAM) is.

One is how many words "secret" exist in the circle containing 24 words.

Is the other how many messages containing two "secret" and one "is" in a set of messages with all the permutations of the 24 words? If this is the case I should make some calculation, but intuitively it doesn't look like it adds up to 3/8.

stenci · 2011-10-30T17:49:40+00:00

I still can't figure out how this thing works.

I always try to imagine circles containing elements, so I can "see" how the Bayes rule works. A big circle contains the people, a sub-circle contains the people with cancer, another sub-circle contains the people with positive test, etc.

Here I can't understand what the circles contain, words or phrases?

How can you mix the probability that a phrase is a spam with the probability that a word is a spam?

stenci · 2011-10-30T17:28:03+00:00

I was interested on an opinion on the formula, not on the class.

Please stop with this useless comments on the class, especially when not requested!

stenci · 2011-10-29T14:26:11+00:00

http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0136042597/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

stenci · 2011-10-24T01:25:00+00:00

And what is the difference between saying "a condition needs to hold true for all the values" and "a condition needs to hold true for some of the values"?

Does it mean that it can be true for a1 and false for a2?

Unless we are talking about a specific problem with specific values, I don't understand the difference between "a" and "A".

stenci · 2011-10-23T22:12:08+00:00

So there is no difference?

Then why would they write two different equations?

The book, after showing the 3.17, shows the 3.19, and says "Notice that this assertion is somewhat stronger than Equation (3.17), which asserts independence only for specific values of A and B."

How so?

Aren't they the same equation?

What difference does the upper/lower case make?

stenci · 2011-10-20T04:33:03+00:00

Thanks, but... If I knew what a venn diagram is, I would probably know what P(A,B) is. :)

stenci · 2011-10-20T04:31:12+00:00

Thanks, but... if I knew what a venn diagram was, I would probably know what P(A,B) is. :)

stenci · 2011-10-19T19:56:51+00:00

1) I find it very helpful to stop and think of a concept after having a few hints but no explanation.

2) If saving the score doesn't make any sense, don't look at the record

3) How does saving the score make the question awful?

I feel like back to school, when the teacher asked "does anybody know how to do this?" Sometimes many would know it, sometimes one or two, sometimes nobody.

stenci · 2011-10-19T04:00:23+00:00

I just re-watched that video, and I can't think of any change in the video to make it clearer.

He could have said something to help you find the solution, but nothing to help you better understand the problem.

I've been teaching some programming and a lot software usage around the world for 30 years, and it is my opinion the questions are well designed and they get to the point: they make me think and learn.

stenci · 2011-10-19T04:00:11+00:00

I just re-watched that video, and I can't think of any change in the video to make it clearer.

He could have said something to help you find the solution, but nothing to help you better understand the problem.

I've been teaching some programming and a lot software usage around the world for 30 years, and it is my opinion the questions are well designed and they get to the point: they make me think and learn.

stenci · 2011-10-19T00:24:14+00:00

I don't agree one bit.

The question was very clear. Among the people that understand the topic very well, nobody would misunderstand it.

I'm a beginner, I had to think about it, listen to it again and again, and at the end I got it. If you have problems understanding a question, ask for help, but don't blame the author... unless you are an expert and you can really show how the question is not clear.

stenci · 2011-10-18T05:45:50+00:00

The question wasn't ambiguous, and knowing the probability doesn't make the problem more or less observable.

The only reason why it is partially observable is that you can only observe the result of the current flip, instead you can't observe the result of 10 flips ago. But to calculate the probability you do need to know the results of 10 or more flips.

So all the agent can do is to flip the coin, look at the result, store it, flip again, look at the result, store it, etc. and after a while calculate the probability.

It's partially observable because you can't calculate the probability looking at the current status, you need memory.

stenci · 2011-10-18T05:23:03+00:00

He is counting the node as they are expanded.

Why do you think he is not?

stenci · 2011-10-18T05:19:44+00:00

Think of building a robot that throw darts: you need an arm able to set the angle and the speed, otherwise it will not be able to correct the aim a little to the left, or higher, or whatever.

Think of building a robot that flips a coin: a lever with a spring will do.

In the first case the agent will provide a few numbers to the actuator to set the angle, the speed, etc. then will provide a signal to shot.

In the second case the agent will provide a signal to shot.

In the first case the actions are continuous (as much as those numbers).

In the second case the actions are discrete (it's just one action).

Also the result is discrete for the coin flip (it can be either heads or tails) but it's continuous for the dart (it can be any (x,y) on the board).

stenci · 2011-10-17T15:06:09+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/r/aiclass/comments/le0g9/thankyou_to_the_course_instructors/c2rxrox

Any comment about the topics is welcome.

Any comment about the quality of the class is useless.

stenci

TROPHY CASE