Republished as The Mathematical Foundations of Learning Machines, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1990McGraw-Hill. Republished in 1990.

Technical Report PRI 19A, Panoramic Research, Inc, Palo Alto, CA, 1965

PNAS, 53, 244–246

'might do even better to make people change to some mor- "intelligent" language. We thus define "understazding" in terms of statements in English The Should the computer store 2he information contained in these statements? SAD SAM program written'by Robert Lindsay at Carnegie Tech in 1960. Mary?" or "Who are Jack's grandchildren?" SAD SAH extracts the meaning "Mary, Tom's sister, went to the meéting," "The sum of two numbers is 96, ané one of the numbers is 16 "One of the numbers is 56" I chose this problem coaaext for a number of reasons"?irst

Reprinted in Marvin Minsky (ed), Semantic Information Processing, pp. 354-402, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968.

Reprinted in Marvin Minsky (ed), Semantic Information Processing, pp. 354-402, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968.

"Among the new languages for instructing computers is a remarkable one called LISP. The name comes from the first three letters of LIST and the first letter of PROCESSING. Not only is LISP a language for instructing computers but it is also a formal mathematical language, in the same way as elëmentary algebra when rigorously defined and used is a formal mathematical language.The LISP language and its implementation on the IBM 7090 computer were worked out by a group including John McCarthy, Stephen B. Russell , Daniel J. Edwards, Paul W. Abrahams, Timothy P. Hart, Michael I. Levin, Marvin L. Minsky, and others.LISP is designed primarily for processing data consisting of lists of symbols. It has been used for symbolic calculations in differential and integral calculus, electrical circuit theory, mathematical logic , game playing, and other fields of intelligent handling of symbols."Information International, Inc, Cambridge, Mass.

"It is well known to be impossible to tile with dominoes a checkerboard with two opposite corners deleted. This fact is readily stated in the first order predicate calculus, but the usual proof which involves a parity and counting argument does not readily translate into predicate calculus. We conjecture that this problem will be very difficult for programmed proof procedures."Stanford Artificial Intelligence Project Memo No. 16

Use the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues.

We wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions and encouragement of Herbert Simon, Edward Feigenbaum, Julian Feldman, Frank Marzocco, and Charles Baker. Thanks are also due the Committee on Simulation of Cognitive Processes of the Social Science. Use the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues.