No presentations this Thursday - university says. (I hate!)
So, instead, mail me at ahmed.ismail@miuegypt.edu.eg your presentations, before 12 noon Thursday. Send anything, even if one slide.
Deadline is very strict.
Ahmed
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
5th Week Results
No bonus marks here.
Some general notes on people's performance:
- In explaining the chat dialogues a lot of you would say things like "the computer said 'I think' and a computer cannot think, therefore it's not a computer". This is not sufficient. You need to find better reasons and explain your reasoning more.
A good example to follow came from Mina Karam:
"I don't think you're serious, by winter's day ..."
B understands that what A said has a literal meaning and another meaning (tashbeeh) [analogy or metaphor]; a computer wouldn't understand this.
A bad example is that of Rafik Farid:
B is not a computer because of the sentence "I don't think".
Rafik, you must explain more.
- In the question about finding two errors in the predicate logic statement concerning rents in Alex and Cairo, many of you were very unclear.
Ahmed Mostafa wrote a predicate logic statement without putting arrows, or anything, to show what corrections he made. Not good.
Mina Nicola wrote out the parts with the errors, and then made a point of listing each correction separately. Well done.
Shrouk Moataz put arrows on the corrections and labelled them "error" - good enough.
- Going back to the dialogue question, many of you accepted the hypothesis and started to explain on that basis. E.g., "Q is programmed so that when it finds that P is not sure, it asks him 'why are you not sure?'" Here, the student assumed that Q is a computer already. But the question asks you to show evidence that Q is a computer. Many of you started with the hypothesis as if it is already proven. Say something like: it is likely that when Q replied to P's 'might' with 'why are you not sure', Q had not understood, or chosen to ignore, the content of P's statement. Such behaviour is typical of an automaton, unless if Q is an uncooperative human being.
- Also in the dialogue question, many of you said things like "a computer cannot feel", "a computer cannot think", but computers can be programmed to say I feel, I think, so go deeper.
- I was very disappointed to find that many of you thought this was an example of inductive reasoning. Wrong!
Premise: All philosophy majors are quiet.
Premise: Nageeba is a philosophy major.
Conclusion: Nageeba is quiet.
- Please improve your grammar.
| ahmed alaa | 3 |
| ahmed aly | 3 |
| ahmed ayman | 4 |
| ahmed farouk | 3.5 |
| ahmed mostafa | 3 |
| ahmed omar | 3.5 |
| hisham rabie | 1 |
| ibrahim galal | 2.5 |
| kholoud raafat | 3.5 |
| lina nabil | 3.5 |
| maria nicola | 2.5 |
| marian moheb | 4 |
| menna fathy | 2.5 |
| mina karam | 2.5 |
| mina nicola | 4 |
| mo ezzat | 3.5 |
| mostafa hany | 3.5 |
| nada alaa | 4 |
| nathalie amir | 3.5 |
| neveen ali | 4 |
| ola mokhtar | 3 |
| omar khaled | 3 |
| omar said | 4 |
| rafik farid | 3 |
| salma sameh | 3.5 |
| sarah sameh | 4.5 |
| sherif ahmed | 3 |
| shrouk moataz | 4 |
Some general notes on people's performance:
- In explaining the chat dialogues a lot of you would say things like "the computer said 'I think' and a computer cannot think, therefore it's not a computer". This is not sufficient. You need to find better reasons and explain your reasoning more.
A good example to follow came from Mina Karam:
"I don't think you're serious, by winter's day ..."
B understands that what A said has a literal meaning and another meaning (tashbeeh) [analogy or metaphor]; a computer wouldn't understand this.
A bad example is that of Rafik Farid:
B is not a computer because of the sentence "I don't think".
Rafik, you must explain more.
- In the question about finding two errors in the predicate logic statement concerning rents in Alex and Cairo, many of you were very unclear.
Ahmed Mostafa wrote a predicate logic statement without putting arrows, or anything, to show what corrections he made. Not good.
Mina Nicola wrote out the parts with the errors, and then made a point of listing each correction separately. Well done.
Shrouk Moataz put arrows on the corrections and labelled them "error" - good enough.
- Going back to the dialogue question, many of you accepted the hypothesis and started to explain on that basis. E.g., "Q is programmed so that when it finds that P is not sure, it asks him 'why are you not sure?'" Here, the student assumed that Q is a computer already. But the question asks you to show evidence that Q is a computer. Many of you started with the hypothesis as if it is already proven. Say something like: it is likely that when Q replied to P's 'might' with 'why are you not sure', Q had not understood, or chosen to ignore, the content of P's statement. Such behaviour is typical of an automaton, unless if Q is an uncooperative human being.
- Also in the dialogue question, many of you said things like "a computer cannot feel", "a computer cannot think", but computers can be programmed to say I feel, I think, so go deeper.
- I was very disappointed to find that many of you thought this was an example of inductive reasoning. Wrong!
Premise: All philosophy majors are quiet.
Premise: Nageeba is a philosophy major.
Conclusion: Nageeba is quiet.
- Please improve your grammar.
Sunday, 14 November 2010
Research Presentation
I found that I have access to many ScienceDirect papers, so if you are interested in a particular paper, and cannot find it through an author's homepage, I can get it for you (probably). Make sure to read the abstract to make sure the paper is suitable for you.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)