Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [aima-talk] Simple question regarding task environment

Expand Messages
  • Mauricio Amaral de Almeida
    Someon please correct me if I wrong, but in my interpretation the actuators as in conceptualy part of the agent. But when you make a software implementation on
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 20, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Someon please correct me if I wrong, but in my interpretation the actuators as
      in conceptualy part of the agent.
      But when you make a software implementation on the pair agent-environment you
      have to implement the actuatror, and the sensor for that matter, as methods
      of the class environment.
      That is so for you to be able to decouple the agent and the environment. In
      that way when an agent want to act over an environment it should call the
      proper method in the class environment.
      This is in fact the best way to do this because doing things this way the
      agent doesn't need to know the environment internal structure.

      Mauricio


      On Monday 19 April 2004 23:25, Bob Riley wrote:
      > I am starting on some of the computing exercises in chapter 2 and
      > have a question regarding task environment. According to the book,
      > task environment is specified by performance measure, environment,
      > actuators, and sensors. The 1st two of these I can understand - but
      > why are acuators and sensors included in the task environment?
      > Shouldn't the task environment be the elements of interest outisde
      > of the agent? Aren't sensors and actuators part of the agent
      > itself? Upon first seeing this, I thought that my interpretation of
      > agent may be wrong - maybe the agent is simply the program/function
      > and the actuators and sensors are external entities that the agent
      > interacts with. But there are several examples in this chapter
      > where the actuators and sensors are considered to be part of the
      > agent. Can someone clear this up? Is it just me or does the book
      > seem to be altering the definition of agent in different parts of
      > the chapter?
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Bob
      >

      --
      Prof. Dr. Maurício Amaral de Almeida
      malmeida@...
    • ³ÂÓí
      I think you are right. Because the environment also our program, rather than a real-world s thing. kind regards chenyu ... actuators as ... environment you ...
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 23, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I think you are right. Because the environment also our program,
        rather than a real-world's thing.


        kind regards
        chenyu



        --- In aima-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mauricio Amaral de Almeida
        <malmeida@i...> wrote:
        > Someon please correct me if I wrong, but in my interpretation the
        actuators as
        > in conceptualy part of the agent.
        > But when you make a software implementation on the pair agent-
        environment you
        > have to implement the actuatror, and the sensor for that matter, as
        methods
        > of the class environment.
        > That is so for you to be able to decouple the agent and the
        environment. In
        > that way when an agent want to act over an environment it should
        call the
        > proper method in the class environment.
        > This is in fact the best way to do this because doing things this
        way the
        > agent doesn't need to know the environment internal structure.
        >
        > Mauricio
        >
        >
        > On Monday 19 April 2004 23:25, Bob Riley wrote:
        > > I am starting on some of the computing exercises in chapter 2 and
        > > have a question regarding task environment. According to the
        book,
        > > task environment is specified by performance measure, environment,
        > > actuators, and sensors. The 1st two of these I can understand -
        but
        > > why are acuators and sensors included in the task environment?
        > > Shouldn't the task environment be the elements of interest outisde
        > > of the agent? Aren't sensors and actuators part of the agent
        > > itself? Upon first seeing this, I thought that my interpretation
        of
        > > agent may be wrong - maybe the agent is simply the
        program/function
        > > and the actuators and sensors are external entities that the agent
        > > interacts with. But there are several examples in this chapter
        > > where the actuators and sensors are considered to be part of the
        > > agent. Can someone clear this up? Is it just me or does the book
        > > seem to be altering the definition of agent in different parts of
        > > the chapter?
        > >
        > > Thanks,
        > >
        > > Bob
        > >
        >
        > --
        > Prof. Dr. Maurício Amaral de Almeida
        > malmeida@i...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.