I remember skimming that paper before. The interesting question is the strictness (or "looseness") of the hierarchy. Figure 2 implies (eg "Verify") the ability to hop over entire levels. So the question boils down to whether or not it's really a hierarchy or something else, something like the subset of a power set of the primitives. I'm loosely analogizing with Koza's automatically defined functions (ADFs) where the operators can work over both the primitives and the "macros".
On 5/2/19 6:36 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
I tried to copy this mail that had the file attached: We used the Hearsay-II extensively as a model for how to do parallel, distributed applications in the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon. It makes use of levels and communication among them, up, down and within a level. Applications included factory automation, job shop scheduling, and others. As a speech-understanding system it was replaced by Harpy which was faster. Some will remember several other times that I have promoted this. I'm just trying to help.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
