Experiences in Expert Systems

This paper describes some work carried out in the Scientific Research and Development Branch (SRDB) of the Home Office, intended to contribute to an overall aim of building up internal expertise in the field of expert systems. This was done by carrying out a number of pilot and demonstrator projects, two of which are described in some detail. The plan, which proved successful, was to build as far as possible on the relevant skills already possessed by an OR group in the branch. The lessons learned from these are summarized in the hope that they will be of use to other groups who wish to become involved in this important area.     

Crystallographic report: Bis{[diacetyl‐bis(2,6‐isopropylphenylimine)]nickel(I)(µ‐chloro)}

The first α‐diimine nickel(I) complex having a chloro bridge is reported. The centrosymmetric dinuclear structure of {[ArN?C(Me)C(Me)?NAr]NiCl}₂[Ar?2,6?C₆H₃(i‐Pr)₂] features two chelating α‐diimine ligands and two bridged chlorine atoms, so that a distorted tetrahedral N₂Cl₂ coordination geometry for nickel results. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Structural hierarchy of rock masses and the mechanisms of its formation

The formation mechanisms for the structural hierarchy in geological media are discussed. It is shown that the formation of such a hierarchy is caused by certain external and internal circumstances. The first ones consist in the fact that, because of external actions, the Earth’s poles continuously execute the translational and rotational motions responsible for a regular structure of rock fracture and for the appearance of the scale factor √2. The second ones consist in the fact that, under the action of many random factors and because of external actions, during the formation of geological media there appear dissipative structures and, hence, some self-similar fractal structures are formed.     

Reply to Nathan: How to reconstruct the causal argument

Nicholas Nathan tries to resist the current version of the causal argument for sense-data in two ways. First he suggests that, on what he considers to be the correct re-construction of the argument, it equivocates on the sense of proximate cause. Second he defends a form of disjunctivism, by claiming that there might be an extra mechanism involved in producing veridical hallucination, that is not present in perception. I argue that Nathan’s reconstruction of the argument is not the appropriate one, and that, properly interpreted, the argument does not equivocate on proximate cause. Furthermore, I claim that his postulation of a modified mechanism for hallucinations is implausibly ad hoc.