Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

"The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" is the entry-level subject in Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It is required of all students at MIT who major in Electrical Engineering or in Computer Science, as one fourth of the "common core curriculum," which also includes two subjects on circuits and linear systems and a subject on the design of digital systems. We have been involved in the development of this subject since 1978, and we have taught this material in its present form since the fall of 1980 to approximately 600 students each year. Most of these students have had little or no prior formal training in computation, although most have played with computers a bit and a few have had extensive programming or hardware design experience. Our design of this introductory Computer Science subject reflects two major concerns. First we want to establish the idea that a computer language is not just a way of getting a computer to perform operations, but rather that it is a novel formal medium for expressing ideas about methodology. Thus, programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute. Secondly, we believe that the essential material to be addressed by a subject at this level, is not the syntax of particular programming language constructs, nor clever algorithms for computing particular functions of efficiently, not even the mathematical analysis of algorithms and the foundations of computing, but rather the techniques used to control the intellectual complexity of large software systems.

KAM: Automatic Planning and Interpretation of Numerical Experiments Using Geometrical Methods

KAM is a computer program that can automatically plan, monitor, and interpret numerical experiments with Hamiltonian systems with two degrees of freedom. The program has recently helped solve an open problem in hydrodynamics. Unlike other approaches to qualitative reasoning about physical system dynamics, KAM embodies a significant amount of knowledge about nonlinear dynamics. KAM's ability to control numerical experiments arises from the fact that it not only produces pictures for us to see, but also looks at (sic---in its mind's eye) the pictures it draws to guide its own actions. KAM is organized in three semantic levels: orbit recognition, phase space searching, and parameter space searching. Within each level spatial properties and relationships that are not explicitly represented in the initial representation are extracted by applying three operations ---(1) aggregation, (2) partition, and (3) classification--- iteratively.

Translation Invariance in Object Recognition, and Its Relation to Other Visual Transformations

Human object recognition is generally considered to tolerate changes of the stimulus position in the visual field. A number of recent studies, however, have cast doubt on the completeness of translation invariance. In a new series of experiments we tried to investigate whether positional specificity of short-term memory is a general property of visual perception. We tested same/different discrimination of computer graphics models that were displayed at the same or at different locations of the visual field, and found complete translation invariance, regardless of the similarity of the animals and irrespective of direction and size of the displacement (Exp. 1 and 2). Decisions were strongly biased towards same decisions if stimuli appeared at a constant location, while after translation subjects displayed a tendency towards different decisions. Even if the spatial order of animal limbs was randomized ("scrambled animals"), no deteriorating effect of shifts in the field of view could be detected (Exp. 3). However, if the influence of single features was reduced (Exp. 4 and 5) small but significant effects of translation could be obtained. Under conditions that do not reveal an influence of translation, rotation in depth strongly interferes with recognition (Exp. 6). Changes of stimulus size did not reduce performance (Exp. 7). Tolerance to these object transformations seems to rely on different brain mechanisms, with translation and scale invariance being achieved in principle, while rotation invariance is not.