[Heartlogic-dev] Re: quoting your explanation of procedural adequacy

[William L. Jarrold]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:09:13AM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > Well, aside from being flattered, I have an obvious personal interest
> > in credit.  So, what is the argument against doing it as a block quote?
>
> Your discussion is split between p5-6 and p22-24.  I am re-organizing

Thanks for the pointer and the kick in the pants to pull out the
'ole document.

> it somewhat.  Let's see how it turns out.  You'll certainly get
> credit in some form depending how I remix it.  Now for a question:
>
> Why do you call it "procedural adequacy"?  This phrase initially
> confused me.  I would prefer to call it "descriptive adequacy"
> because that seems like the essence of it.  Just re-read your
> discussion at the top of p24 -- "A limitation associated with
> explicating one's theories in English, or any natural language,
> is that natural languages can be notoriously vague as well as
> ambiguous.  ... However, procedural adequacy assures explanatory
> completeness."  To me, the adequacy of "explanatory completeness"
> is "descriptive adequacy".
>
> Am I naive?  Is the phrase "procedural adequacy" already well
> established in the literature?

I can not confirm that procedural adequacy is already well established
in the literature.  And I have some evidence that it is not...

I google'd "procedural adequacy" and found a few references.  Some seemed
to have to do with nuclear power.  A scarce few were in the software
world.  One of them seemed especially buzzword compliant.  It had
about 10 different "X adequacy"'s in it, including descriptive adequacey.

Procedural adequacey was "defined" as refering to
"recognition, and search capabilities."

Here's the pdf link...

http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/fayad/current.courses/cmpe296u/handouts/CmpE296U-essays-topics.pdf.

..here's google's link to the htmlified version...

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:FYmQubIGprwJ:www.engr.sjsu.edu/fayad/current.courses/cmpe296u/handouts/CmpE296U-essays-topics.pdf+%22procedural+adequacy%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

...I wonder, is the immediately above link a evanescent or quick to vanish
one that has been dynamically generated ?

Whoa, I even found an aleader-related thing that I wrote!

...Here's a little quote from some ICANN related list...

"invoking the religious mantra of presumed competition does not
constitute a demonstration of procedural adequacy.  Provide the concrete
detail of how things would work and your view will, by definition, have
more substance.  If you develop the detail diligently, you will also
discover that it is not practical."

...I looked at several hundred more hits on the hits pages and most seemed
to have to do with legal concepts.

The grammar of a language is procedurally adequate if and only if
it provides an explicit formal statement of the grammatical rules
[seems like google messed up here with a skip of some sort] provides a
bidirectional meaning mapping [another skip] is inherently decidable.

The pdf version of the above is at...

http://www.linguistik.uni-erlangen.de/~rrh/books/cl-input.pdf

.....Bill spends five aggravating minutes digging through his
file cabinet and comes up empty handed.  Argh, where did I put
that BBS article by Colby!!!  I wanted to directly view Carbonell's
commentary from that article....Well, what the heck, more background
on this area is something I've long been interested in.  I'll email him
right now and cc you.

But first, let me review Carbonell from my lit review.  He mentions that
psychological theories have been evaluated along the dimensions of
descriptive and explanatory adequacy.  He proposes adding procedural
adequacy.

...Hmm, I got a little chicken and then thought I'd search citeseer.
1000 documents found but in the first 5 to 10 none of them had
"procedural adequacy" as a contiguous phrase....Then I went to some
sort of ACM index that I have privileges on because I am a UT student.
Only one hit...

Object oriented (domain) analysis John Burnham, Dennis de Champeaux
September 1991  ACM SIGPLAN OOPS Messenger , Addendum to the proceedings
on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications

...I'm going to assume that is irrelevant...Then I went to some online
resource called "The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences"
and this turned up nothing...Then I went to the Science Citation Index
(which apparently is called the "ISI Web of Knowledge" and only came up
with this...

PROCEDURAL ADEQUACY IN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONMAKING - UNIFIED FORMULATION
.2. HAHN G ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW 31 (1): 31-66 1979

...and an article that had an identical or nearly identical title from
1978.  The law stuff again.

Okay, I officially give up.  I'm going to email him now.

Anyway, AFTER ALL THAT!!!! I think I do prefer your term simulation
adequacy.  I also gave thought that algorithmic adequacy might be a
good name bc it sort of invokes Church's Thesis.  But, whatever,
simulation adequacey sounds good too.  Tho I'll still email Carbonell, I
have obsessed more than enough on this issue.

Bill


>
> --
> A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader
>