RE: JESS: AspectJ and Rules

[James Owen]

Title: Message

I know that we've beaten this to death, so I'm going to send this and I will NOT reply to any more email on the subject..    Is it not true that a rules-based system (while even running the same rules and the same data) can have the facts (data) asserted in a different order ?? This could (possibly) lead to (the same) rules "triggering" in a different order. Is this not called "non-determinism"?   If the facts (data) are asserted in a different order THEN YOU HAVE CHANGED THE BEGINNING STATE OF THE PROBLEM.  I don't know how else to say that a state machine MUST produce the same result if the beginning state is the same.  Must.  No other answer.  Must.  By definition.  And a rulebased system and any other computer program is, by definition, a state machine.     SDG jco   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Halsey Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 5:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: JESS: AspectJ and Rules w/r/t the following, I think Dr. Friedman-Hill said all that needs to be said on the subject.   You said-- Is it not true that a rules-based system (while even running the same rules and the same data) can have the facts (data) asserted in a different order ?? This could (possibly) lead to (the same) rules "triggering" in a different order. Is this not called "non-determinism" ? I say-- NO.  Same data, same rules, same engine, same result.  State machine. Change the data, change the rules, change the engine and you might/probably will get a different result.  For example, LEX and MEA do NOT fire the same rules necessarily and, ergo, will not reach the same conclusion necessarily.  JRules is LEX while most others are MEA so you might or might not get the same result with a different engine.  But, back to the original supposition (Same data, same rules, same engine) if you don't get the same result then you have a real problem.