I think you are right. Because the environment also our program,
rather than a real-world's thing.
--- In email@example.com
, Mauricio Amaral de Almeida
> Someon please correct me if I wrong, but in my interpretation the
> in conceptualy part of the agent.
> But when you make a software implementation on the pair agent-
> have to implement the actuatror, and the sensor for that matter, as
> of the class environment.
> That is so for you to be able to decouple the agent and the
> that way when an agent want to act over an environment it should
> proper method in the class environment.
> This is in fact the best way to do this because doing things this
> agent doesn't need to know the environment internal structure.
> 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
> > task environment is specified by performance measure, environment,
> > actuators, and sensors. The 1st two of these I can understand -
> > 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
> > agent may be wrong - maybe the agent is simply the
> > 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