R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), by Karel Capek is part of HackerNoon's Book Blog Post series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here. Box candy. 1 Pad and blotter. 1 Letter opener. 1 Cigarette box. 1 Inkwell stand. 1 Practical buzzer (6 buttons). Off L.: 1 Fountain pen (for Busman). 1 Telephone buzzer. 1 Siren whistle. On Table L.C.: 2 Book ends (wooden).

Human programmers seem to know a lot about programming. This suggests a way to try to build automatic programming systems: encode this knowledge in some machine-usable form. In order to test the viability of this approach, knowledge about elementary symbolic programming has been codified into a set of about four hundred detailed rules, and a system, called PECOS, has been built for applying these rules to the task of implementing abstract algorithms. The implementation techniques covered by the rules include the representation of mappings as tables, sets of pairs, property list markings, and inverted mappings, as well as several techniques for enumerating the elements of a collection. The generality of the rules is suggested by the variety of domains in which PECOS has successfully implemented abstract algorithms, including simple symbolic programming, sorting, graph theory, and even simple number theory.

Human programmers seem to know a lot about programming. This suggests a way to try to build automatic programming systems: encode this knowledge in some machine-usable form. In order to test the viability of this approach, knowledge about elementary symbolic programming has been codified into a set of about four hundred detailed rules, and a system, called PECOS, has been built for applying these rules to the task of implementing abstract algorithms. The implementation techniques covered by the rules include the representation of mappings as tables, sets of pairs, property list markings, and inverted mappings, as well as several techniques for enumerating the elements of a collection. The generality of the rules is suggested by the variety of domains in which PECOS has successfully implemented abstract algorithms, including simple symbolic programming, sorting, graph theory, and even simple number theory. In each case, PECOS's knowledge of different techniques enabled the construction of several alternative implementations. In addition, the rules can be used to explain such programming tricks as the use of property list markings to perform an intersection of two linked lists in linear time. Extrapolating from PECOS's knowledge-based approach and from three other approaches to automatic programming (deductive, transformational, high level language), the future of automatic programming seems to involve a changing role for deduction and a range of positions on the generality-power spectrum.

A theorem prover for part of arithmetic in described which proves theorems by representing them in the form of a diagram or network. The nodes of this network represent 'ideal integers', i.e. objects which have all the properties of integers, without being any particular intoger. The links in the network represent relationships between 'ideal integers'. The procedures which draw these diagrams make elementary deductions based on their built-in knowledge of the functions and predicates of arithmetic. This theorem prover is intended as a model of some kinds of human problem-solving behaviour. Also found at EdinburghIn IJCAI-73: THIRD INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 20-23 August 1973, Stanford University Stanford, California.

COMPUTER SOLUTION OF CALCULUS WORD PROBLEMS* Eugene Charniak Massachusetts Ins:itute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts SUMMARY A program was written to solve calculus word problems. The program, CARPS (CAlculus Rate Problem Solver), is restricted to rate problems. The overall plan of the program is similar to Bobrow's STUDENT, the primary difference being the introduction of "structures" as the internal model in CARPS. Structures are stored internally as trees, each structure holding the information gathered about one object. It was found that the use of structures made CARPS more powerful than STUDENT in several respects. In calculus word problems it is not uncommon to have two or three sentences providing information for one equation. For example, in a problem about a filter, ALTITUDE was interpreted as ALTITUDE OF THE FILTER because CARPS knew that since the filter was a cone and cones have altitudes the filter had an altitude. The program has solved 14 calculus problems, most taken (sometimes with slight modifications) from standard calculus texts. CARPS is written in two languages. The bulk of the coding is in LISP.

"The LISP language is designed primarily for symbolic data processing. It has been used for symbolic calculations in differential and integral calculus, electrical circuit theory, mathematical logic, game playing, and other fields of artificial intelligence.LISP is a formal mathematical language. It is therefore podsible to give a concise yet complete description of it. Such is the purpose of this first section of the manual. Other sections will describe ways of using LISP to advantage and will explain extensions of the language which make it a convenient programming system."The M.I.T. Press

This is the first clear call for the separation of knowledge and inference procedure in AI. In this paper McCarthy advocates using predicate logic as a declarative representation of knowledge and first-order logic as the inference procedure.Additional notes on this landmark paper at http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/mcc59/mcc59.html.Bar-Hilel's comments in the discussion section from the conference are also interesting:"PROF. Y. BAR-HILLEL: Dr. McCarthy's paper belongs in the Journal of Half-Baked Ideas, the creation of which was recently proposed by Dr. I. J. Good. Dr. McCarthy will probably be the first to admit this. Before he goes on to bake his ideas fully, it might be well to give him some advice and raise some objections. He himself mentions some possible objections, but I do not think that he treats them with the full consideration they deserve; there are others he does not mention.For lack of time, I shall not go into the first part of his paper, although I think that it contains a lot of highly unclear philosophical, or pseudo-philosophical assumptions. I shall rather spend my time in commenting on the example he works out in his paper at some length. Before I start, let me voice my protest against the general assumption of Dr. McCarthy -- slightly caricatured -- that a machine, if only its program is specified with a sufficient degree of carelessness, will be able to carry out satisfactory even rather difficult tasks."In Proceedings of the Symposium on the Mechanization of Thought Processes, National Physical Laboratory 1:77-84