Wegner P., Why Interaction is More Powerful Than Algorithms, CACM, May 1997, vol.40, no.5, 81-91.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....among the computations, and between the computations and their environment. This emerging paradigm is that of interaction. Interaction goes beyond traditional parallel or distributed computing, because it models the component computations as autonomous and able to interface with an environment [111, 110]. Interaction is precisely the metaphor with which to view computation in settings where network computing reigns. Megaprogramming refers to programming large system at the component level [114] This idea is essentially a form of software engineering in which large modules are composed to form a ....

Peter Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM, 40(5):80--91, May 1997.

....the heuristic tree. Since we can store the points in a heap data structure, we can nd the parent of p and q with the maximum norm in O(log n) time and hence the total time complexity is O(n log n) The fact that the static framework breaks down in the dynamic scenario is not surprising. Wegner [26] suggests that interaction is more powerful than algorithms and such scenarios may be di cult to model using an algorithmic framework. 2.6 Clustering with Harder Constraints and Heuristics In practice, stream clustering in VoD would entail additional constraints. We list a few of them here : ....

P. Wegner, Why Interaction Is More Powerful Than Algorithms, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 80-91, May 1997. 28

....incompleteness is supposed to come from a system s involvement with its environment, whereas Godel incompleteness comes from a system s involvement with itself. Keywords: interaction, incompleteness, Wegner, Godel, Tarski, diagonalization 1 Introduction In a series of papers, notably in [15] and [16] Peter Wegner has championed the paradigm of interaction (symbolic interaction) He typically begins by observing that interaction is not expressible by a finite initial input string [16, p. 315] and then introduces what he calls interaction machines, which extend Turing machines by ....

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM, 40(5):80--91, 1997.

....Behind Dualism The dualism meta model is based on an articulation of in teractive behavior. Interaction has three components: com putation, persistence of state and channel sensitivity [10, 11] These building building blocks can be discerned from Wegner s interaction machine (IM) models [12, 13, 15, 16]. Figure I schematically depicts IM models. The least expressive interaction machine is a Turing Machine (TM) which is a purely algorithmic machine. Algorithmic computations are stateless and compute closed mappings between start and finish of computation. A Single stream Interaction Machine ....

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms? Communications of the A CM, 40(5), May 1997.

....GRK 316) possible only by a system that is interacting simultaneously over multiple interaction streams. From a database perspective, interleaved concurrency can be implemented as a serialized schedule of transactions, while true concurrency depicts a set of non serializable transactions. Wegner [8, 9, 10, 11] contends that an interactive system that interacts with more than one environments simultaneously, cannot be reduced to one that interacts with a single environment. In [7] we show that a multi stream interactive process is characterized by three properties: computation, persistence of state and ....

Peter Wegner. Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms? Communications of the ACM, May 1997.

....naturally with its activities in the real world environment it is devoted to monitor and control. In addition, explicit modeling of the environment and its activities makes it possible to identify and confine clearly the sources of dynamics and unpredictability (and, thus, of non formalizability [Weg97]) and concentrate on software components as deterministic entities that have to deal with a dynamic and possibly unpredictable environment. Examples. Control systems for physical domains (e.g. manufacturing, traffic control, home care, health care) are often built by explicitly taking into ....

....software systems, because of the dynamics of the environment. These problems will force computer scientists to change their attitudes dramatically in modeling complex software systems. Concurrency and interactivity already challenge the dream of dealing with traditionally formalizable systems [Weg97], and it will become even more impractical in the future. Traditional formalisms can deal effectively with only small portions of large systems. The next challenge is to find alternative models or, more radically, to adopt a new scientific background for the study of software systems, enabling us ....

P. Wegner. "Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms", Communications of the ACM, 1997.

....182 07 Prague 8, Czech Republic. Abstract. Embedded systems behave very di erently from classical machine models: they interact with an unpredictable environment, they never terminate, and learn over time. The behavior of embedded systems has been well studied in concurrency theory but Wegner [29, 30] recently appealed for a new theory, claiming that the computational features of interaction are not adequately captured by traditional models of computation. We describe a simple model of interactive computing consisting of one component C and one environment E, interacting using single ....

....and producing outputs on termination. In particular, it allows some of the inputs to depend on intermediate outputs. Reactive systems clearly are in nite state systems and have a behavior that is evolving over time. One can also say that their program is changing over time. Wegner [29, 30] (see also Wegner and Goldin [32] recently called for a more computational view of reactive systems, claiming that they have a richer behavior than algorithms as we know This research was partially supported by GA CR grant No. 201 00 1489 and by EC Contract IST 199914186 (Project ALCOM FT) ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms, C.ACM 40 (1997) 80-91.

....with illustrating examples trying to achieve a more moderate goal, i.e. showing that in calculus we can encode calculus and calculus. Next we will show that calculus can express formalisms which have richer behavior than Turing machines: including cellular automata [1] interaction machines [24,25,27,28,13], neural networks, and automata networks [12] exactly due to allowing innite (but enumerable) application of the parallel composition operator. Example 31 Encoding of the calculus Because calculus is higher order, encoding of calculus is straightforward: Expressiveness of Calculus: What ....

Wegner P. (1997) Why Interaction is More Powerful Than Algorithms, CACM, vol.40, no.5, 81-91.

....Much research into adaptive workflow enactment [20, 14] focus on creating better algorithms for exception handling, i.e. following the traditional mechanistic view [11] of the enactment rtvr as a Turing machine. We also find it fruitful to view the enactment engine as an interaction machine [41], where the software system and its users cooperate to bring the workflow forward in the situations that arise. This poses interesting challenges concerning how the software system best can involve its users in the problem solving and decision making process. The AIS enactment software is based ....

Wegner, P. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms, Communications of the ACM, vol. 40, no. 5, 1997, pp. 80-91.

....ine his her own cost metrics. Send, mutation and receive are used for handshaking message passing communication, but also for inferencing. The indexing set I must be inf inite to express formalisms with richer behavior than Turing machines: including cellular automata [4] interaction machines [31, 32, 33], neural networks, and random automata networks [14] This expressive power is needed to express construction universality, selfreproduction, and evolution problems. 13] shows calculus simulates calculus, calculus, interaction machines, cellular automata, neural networks and random automata ....

.... of adaptive autonomous agents include Brooks subsumption architecture [3] Maes behavior networks and competence modules [22] or Moravec bush robots [26] Probably, the most serious candidates for formal models to study and design autonomous agents are calculus [24, 25] interaction machines [31, 32], and (random) automata networks [14] We will concentrate only on automata networks. Automata networks are a generalization of cellular automata, consisting of a cellular space in the form of an arbitrary digraph and an associated family of f inite state machines (only f initely many of which are ....

Wegner P., Why Interaction is More Powerful Than Algorithms, CACM, May 1997, vol.40, no.5, 81-91.

....The process algebra subsumed in this language expresses a generalized optimization framework that contains genetic algorithms, and neural networks as limiting cases. 1 Introduction The global behavior of a group of interacting agents goes beyond juxtaposition of local behaviors. Wegner [15] indicates that interaction machines, formed by multiple agents, have richer behavior than Turing machines. Milner [7] indicates sequential processes cannot always represent concurrent interactive ones. Realistic applications of autonomous agents require new models and theories. Three fundamental ....

....of neighbors. Group reconfiguration, such as link and node migration, is possible. Groups exhibit complex behavior due to interaction among agents. Agents and groups adapt to bounded resources. Appropriate formal models for autonomous agent design are p calculus [7] interaction machines [15], cellular automata, and automata networks [4] None adapt to bounded resources. Our model does, and it is as expressive as any other model. Resource bounded computation is known under a variety of names, including anytime algorithms [16] It trades off result quality for time or memory used to ....

Wegner P.: Why Interaction is More Powerful Than Algorithms, CACM, vol.40, no.5, (May 1997) 81-91

....with its activities on a real world environment it is devoted to monitor and control. In addition, the explicit modeling of the environment and of its activities makes it possible to identify and confine clearly the sources of dynamics and unpredictability (and, thus, of non formalizability [Weg97]) and concentrate on our software components in terms of deterministic entities that have to deal with a dynamic possibly unpredictable environment. Examples. There are several notable examples of this trend. Systems for the control of manufacturing systems and, more generally, embedded ....

....of the environment. The above problems will force computer scientists to change their attitudes dramatically in the modeling of complex software systems. The dream of dealing with fully formalizable systems has already started to vanish with the advent of concurrent and interactive systems [Weg97], and it will become even more impractical in the next few years. Only small portions of big software systems will be effectively dealt with formalisms. The next challenge is to find alternative models or more radically to adopt a brand new scientific background for the study of software ....

P. Wegner. "Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms", Communications of the ACM, 1997.

....heuristic tree. Since we can store the points in a heap data structure, we can find the parent of p and q with the maximum norm in O(log n) time and hence the total time complexity is O(n log n) The fact that the static framework breaks down in the dynamic scenario is not surprising. Wegner [26] suggests that interaction is more powerful than algorithms and such scenarios may be di#cult to model using an algorithmic framework. 10 2.6 Clustering with Harder Constraints and Heuristics In practice, stream clustering in VoD would entail additional constraints. We list a few of them here ....

P. Wegner, "Why Interaction Is More Powerful Than Algorithms," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 80-91, May 1997. 27

....deliberative and reactive approaches for action selection in real time, and allowing to capture bounded optimization and metareasoning in distributed interactive AI systems. To its formal roots belong Milner s calculus [15, 16] basic theory of concurrency) and Wegner s interaction machines [20, 21, 22] (interactive agent model) Regarding expressiveness it can express formalisms having richer behaviors than Turing Machines, including calculus, cellular automata, interaction machines, neural nets, and random automata networks [6] calculus leads to a new programming paradigm (cost languages) ....

Wegner P., Why Interaction is More Powerful Than Algorithms, CACM, May 1997, vol.40, no.5, 81-91.

....definition, we are able to build complex services by writing service algebra expressions. This model explicitly takes into account user interaction and is based on a well formed semantic as will be shown later. Explicit treatment of user interaction provides a more powerful computational model [19, 34]. In addition, by means of a set of algebra properties, we are able to simplify and optimize service expressions into a minimal form guaranteeing the same semantic of initial expressions. # ## 9rsvv#v Let h 1 #####h n be n constant terms, we call #fyr the vector t = h 1 #####h n ) where ....

....its interactions with the external environment. Despite their usefulness, however they do not represent p f#h#v hy models that can formalize computational processes (e.g. relational calculus, lambda calculus etc. In other words, these models are devised to specify, rather than to compute. Wegner [34] and Milner [19] focused more on the investigation of the interaction from a computational point of view by founding the area of v#r. hp#vo oor#p f#vt. Wegner argues that interactions cannot be described by algorithms, due to the intrinsically non algorithmic evolution of interaction between user ....

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. ########################## ##(5):80-91 (1997).

....CEDEX 5, France cerri, js, castro, maraschi lirmm.fr http: www.lirmm.fr Abstract. We present in this paper our reflections about the requirements of new architectures and languages for the Web, confronted with the ones emerging from qualified scientists such as Mc Carthy [1] and Wegner [2]. The contribution highlights if and how these reflections may be concretely realized by means of extensions of non standard models and tools that we have already experimented and that appeared in previous papers (the STROBE model and Phi Calculus) We conclude with the preliminary ....

.... several times people ask simple questions such as: is an Agent different from a Program [7] Is an XML document, different from a complex datum [8] Is there a semantics associated to XML documents, or are DTDs just ways to express well formed ness properties of tags and nothing more Wegner [2] has several arguments for supporting the view that there is an essential difference between algorithms and interactive systems. We did not really work out the same profound reflections, but our intuitions years ago do match well with his conclusions [9.10] We agree with Wegner that computing on ....

Wegner, P.: Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Comm. ACM 40, 5 (1997) 80-91

....If we assume that the human computer communication loop is the object of study, then we should adopt the view that in the loop, two Agents are operating, exchanging messages, evaluating and judging. Two Agents are hardly to be reduced to a single one, insofar they are behaving autonomously [11]. However, for years the loop metaphor of Human Problem Solving with the help of Computers was strongly influenced by a single viewpoint: even if the autonomy of the User was not discussed, the Computer was considered a slave, a server for an important client: the User. With a few notable ....

Wegner, P.: Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Comm. ACM 40, 5; 8091 (1997)

....the interaction of heterogeneous software components, which are generally distributed on the net. The paradigm shift from stand alone to distributed computer systems has made the issue of interaction [93] one of the central issues both in the theory and in the practice of Computer Science. Wegner [114] recently supported the provocative argument that interaction is more important than algorithms , namely that the way in which a software component interacts with the environment is by far more important than what the component alone is able to compute. An increasing attention is being paid to ....

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. CACM, 40(5):80--91, 1997.

No context found.

Wegner P., Why Interaction is More Powerful Than Algorithms, CACM, May 1997, vol.40, no.5, 81-91.

No context found.

Wegner, P. (1997), Why Interaction is More Powerful Than Algorithms, CACM, vol.40, no.5, 81-91.

No context found.

P. Wegner, Why Interaction is more Powerful than Algorithms, Communications of the ACM, Vol 40, No. 5, pages 80-91, 1997.

No context found.

Peter Wegner, Why Interaction is More Powerful Than Algorithms, CACM, May 1997.

No context found.

Peter Wegner. Why Interaction is More Powerful Than Algorithms. Communications of the ACM, May 1997.

No context found.

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Commun. ACM, 40(5), May 1997.

No context found.

Wegner P., Why Interaction is More Powerful Than Algorithms, CACM, May 1997, vol.40, no.5, 81-91.

No context found.

Wegner, P. (1997) `Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms', Comm. ACM, 40(5), May 1997, 80--91.

No context found.

Wegner, P. (1997) `Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms', Comm. ACM, 40(5):80-91.

No context found.

Wegner P. Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms. Comm. ACM, 40(5):80-91, May 1997.

No context found.

P. Wegner. "Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms", Communications of ACM, May 1997, pp. 81--91.

No context found.

Wegner, P. Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms. CACM. May (1997).

No context found.

Peter Wegner. Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms? Communications of the ACM, May 1997.

No context found.

Wegner, P., Why Interaction Is More Powerful Than Algorithms, Communications of the ACM, 40(5), pages 80-91, 1997.

No context found.

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM, May 1997.

No context found.

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM, 40(5):80--91, 1997.

No context found.

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM, May 1997.

No context found.

Wegner, Peter; 1997. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM 40(5):80--91. 6

No context found.

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. In Comm. ACM, May 1997.

No context found.

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Comm. of the ACM, 40(5):80--91, 1997.

No context found.

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM, 40(5):80--91, 1997.

No context found.

WEGNER, P. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM, v. 40, n. 5, p.80-91, May 1997.

No context found.

Wegner P.: Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms", Communications of the ACM, 1997, (40), 5, 80---91

No context found.

P. Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM, 40(5):80--91, 1997.

No context found.

Peter Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithem. Communications of the ACM, 40(5):80-- 91, 1997.

No context found.

Wegner, P. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms, Communications of the ACM, vol. 40, no. 5, 1997.

No context found.

Peter Wegner. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM, 40(5):80--91, 1997.

No context found.

P. Wegner. "Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms", Communications of the ACM, 40(5) pp 80-91, May 1997.

No context found.

Wegner, Peter; 1997. Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM 40(5):80--91. 6

No context found.

Wegner P., Why Interaction is More Powerful Than Algorithms, CACM, May 1997, vol.40, no.5, 81-91.

No context found.

Wegner, P. (1997) Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. CACM, 40 (5), 80-91.

No context found.

P. Wegner. "Why Interaction is More Powerful than Algorithms", Communications of the ACM, 1997.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC