KBS Document PDF

Assignment Brief
BTEC Level 4-5 HNC/HND Diploma (QCF)

To be filled by the Learner
Name of the Learner :
Edexcel No : Centre No : Batch:
Date of Submission :
Unit Assessment Information
Qualification : Higher National Diploma in Computing and Systems Development
Unit Code & Title : H/601/1991 Unit 31 Knowledge Based Systems
Assessment Title & Nos :
Learning outcomes and grading opportunities:
LO 01: Understand knowledge-based systems
Learning LO1.1
Outcomes
LO 02: Be able to design knowledge-based applications
Learning LO2.1 LO2.2 LO2.3

Outcomes
LO 03: 3 Be able to develop knowledge-based applications
Learning LO3.1 LO3.2 LO3.3 LO3.4 LO3.5

Outcomes
Assessor : Internal Examiner (IE) :
Date Reviewed : Date of IE :

MeritIssued
Date and Distinction
: Descriptor Date Due :
M1 M2 M3 D1 D2 D3
All rights reserved ESOFT Metro Campus, Sri Lanka Page 1 of 55

Statement of Originality and Student Declaration
I hereby, declare that I know what plagiarism entails, namely to use anothers work and to present it as
my own without attributing the sources in the correct way. I further understand what it means to copy
anothers work.
1. I know that plagiarism is a punishable offence because it constitutes theft.

2. I understand the plagiarism and copying policy of the Edexcel UK.
3. I know what the consequences will be if I plagiaries or copy anothers work in any of the
assignments for this program.
4. I declare therefore that all work presented by me for every aspects of my program, will be my
own, and where I have made use of anothers work, I will attribute the source in the correct
way.
5. I acknowledge that the attachment of this document signed or not, constitutes a binding
agreement between myself and Edexcel UK.
6. I understand that my assignment will not be considered as submitted if this document is not
attached to the attached.
Students Signature: Date:.

Task 1
Internet games have become very popular. Designing a good computer game needs to use 3D graphics
and artificial intelligence technologies. Computers are programmed to play chess, scrabble, and even
crossword puzzles (American Scientist, September/October 1999). They are getting better and better; in
fact, a computer beat the worlds number-one chess grand master, Garry Kasparov.
1.1. Do you agree that computer games with artificial intelligence technologies (Expert systems in
gaming) exhibit intelligence? Why or why not? (LO.1.1 part ii)
1.2. Describe how such computer systems perform inference. (LO.1.1 part iii)
1.3. Do you agree that using speech communication as the user interface could increase willingness
to use expert systems in gaming? Why or why not? (LO.1.1 part ii)
1.4. Proponents of AI claim that we will never have machines that truly think because they cannot,
by definition, have a soul. Supporters claim a soul is unnecessary. They cite the fact that argue
humanity originally set out to create an artificial bird for flight. Instead it eventually created an
airplane which is not a bird, but functionally acts as one. Debate the issue. (LO.1.1 part iii)
Task 2
Consider the decision-making situation defined by the following rules:
If it is a nice day and it is summer, then I go to the beach

If it is a nice day and it is winter, then I go to the canal boating resort
If it is not a nice day and it is summer, then I go to work
If it is not a nice day and it is winter, then I go to class
If I go to the beach, then I swim.
If I go to the canal boating resort , then I go boat riding
If I go boat riding or I swim, then I have fun.
If I go to work, then I make money.
If I go to class, then I learn something.
Follow the rules for the following situations (what do you conclude for each one?):
It is a nice day and it is summer.

It is not a nice day and it is winter.
It is a nice day and it is winter.
It is not a nice day and it is summer.
2.1. Are there any other combinations that are valid? Explain. (LO.1.1 part i , LO.1.1 part iv)
2.2. What needs to happen for you to learn something in this knowledge universe? Start with the
conclusion learn something and identify the rules used (backward) to get to the needed facts.
(LO.1.1)
2.3. Encode the knowledge into a graphical diagram (Semantic network). (LO.2.1)

2.4. Write a prolog program or other third-generation language program. Use IF- THEN (ELSE)
statements in your implementation. (LO.2.2), (LO.3.1)
2.5. Explain how hard would it be to modify the program to insert new facts and a rule such as:
If it is cloudy and it is warm and it is not raining and it is summer then I swim (LO.3.2), (LO.3.3)
Task 3
All animals have skin. Fish is one kind of animal, birds are another type and mammals are a third kind.
Normally fish has gills and can swim, while
birds have wings and can fly. While fish and birds usually lay eggs, mammals do not. Although sharks are
fish, they do not lay eggs. They are very dangerous. Salmon is another fish and is considered a delicacy.
Canary is a bird and is yellow. Ostrich is a bird, which is very tall, but cannot fly, only walk.
3.1. Represent the above facts and rules in First Order Logic expressions. (LO.2.1)
3.2. Write a prolog program or other third-generation language program and knowledge base to execute
this knowledge. (LO.3.1), (LO.2.3)
3.3. Using your program answer the following questions (LO.3.2)
Can canaries fly?
What is the color of canaries?
Can ostriches fly?
Do canaries have skin?
Are sharks dangerous?
3.4. Complete the above system test using proper test cases and provide all the test documents and
error handlings. (LO.3.4) (LO.3.3)
3.5. Prepare a user document to illustrate how to work with your implemented system. (LO.3.5)
Observation Sheet
Activity Activity Learning Date Feedback

No Outcome (LO) (Pass/ Redo)
1 design knowledge base, rules and structure Task 3.2
of the application
Task 2.4
2 Insert sample facts to the knowledgebase Task 3.2
3 Write, Run and test the programs in Task Task 2.4
2.4 and 3.2 Task 3.2

4 Run and test all rules written in Task 3.2 Task 3.4
5 Answer the question given in task 3.3 by Task 2.1

using the program Task 2.2
Task 3.3
Comments:
Assessor Name :.
Assessor Signature :.

Possible
Outcomes/Criteria for PASS Page Feedback
evidence
LO1- Understand knowledge-based systems
1.1 Analyse a real-world knowledge-based Task 1.1
system, detailing: Task 1.2
I. data, rules and structure Task 1.3
Task 1.4
II. how the knowledge is managed
Task 2.1
III. how artificial intelligence traits are Task 2.2
incorporated into
the system
IV. how an expert system is created from
utilizing the
knowledge base and including AI traits
LO2 - Be able to design knowledge- based applications

2.1 plan the design of an application using an Task 2.3
AI development language Task 1.1
2.2 identify the screen components and data Task 2.4
and file structures required to implement a
given design
2.3 design knowledge base, rules and structure Task 3.2

of the application

LO3 - Be able to test and document relational database systems
3.1 implement the application Task
2.4
Task
3.2
3.2 implement data validation for inputs Task

2.5
Task
3.3
3.3 identify and implement opportunities for Task

error handling and reporting. 2.5
Task
3.4
3.4 design and implement a test strategy Task

3.4
3.5 create documentation to support users Task

3.5
Grade Descriptor for MERIT Possible evidence Feedback

M1 Identify and apply strategies to
find appropriate solutions Task 2.4, Task 3.2
M1.2 complex problems with more

than one variable have been
explored
M2 Select / design appropriate
methods / techniques Task 2.4, Task 3.2
M2.1 relevant theories and Proper use of Harvard
techniques have been applied referencing. At least of
M2.3 a range of sources of information five appropriate
has been used references needed.
M3 Present and communicate Documentation is well

appropriate findings structured and
according to the
M3.3 A range of methods of formatting guidelines
presentation have been used and with non-overlapping
technical language has been facts.
accurately used
Grade Descriptor for Possible Feedback

DISTINCTION evidence

D1 Use critical reflection to
evaluate own work and justify
valid conclusions
Report: shown in the
D1.3 Self-criticism of approach has self-reflection
taken place section
Good conclusion
D1.4 Realistic improvements have with suggestions for
been proposed against defined further improvement
characteristics for subject
D2 Take responsibility for

managing and organising
activities Task 1
D2.3 Activities have been managed Gantt chart must be

provided at the
appendix section and
submit the work on
time.
D3 Demonstrate convergent /
lateral / creative thinking
Create simple GUIs
D3.5 Innovation and creative thoughts for task 2 and task 3
have been applied

Strengths: Weaknesses:
Future Improvements & Assessor Comment:
Assessor: Signature:
Date: ____/____/______
Internal Verifiers Comments:
Internal Verifier: Signature:

Date: ____/____/______

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... 1
CONTENT OF THE FIGURES ........................................................................................... xi
Task 1 .................................................................................................................................. 13
1.1 .................................................................................................................................... 13
1.2 .................................................................................................................................... 16
1.3 .................................................................................................................................... 18
1.4 .................................................................................................................................... 21
Task 2 .................................................................................................................................. 24
2.1 .................................................................................................................................... 24
2.2 .................................................................................................................................... 25
2.3 .................................................................................................................................... 26
2.4 .................................................................................................................................... 27
2.5 .................................................................................................................................... 28
Task 3 .................................................................................................................................. 33
3.1 .................................................................................................................................... 33
3.2 .................................................................................................................................... 34
3.3 .................................................................................................................................... 38
3.4 .................................................................................................................................... 40
3.5 .................................................................................................................................... 42
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix A: Evolution of Theories on Intelligence ....................................................... 45

Appendix B: The Game of Go ......................................................................................... 46
Appendix C: A brief History of Reasoning ..................................................................... 48
Appendix D: Project Management .................................................................................. 49
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 51
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 54
x
Nilshan Devinda KBS [ J | 601 | 0459]
CONTENT OF THE FIGURES
Figure 1:A typical Go board at a middle of a game. ........................................................... 14
Figure 2: Lee Sedol putting his first stone against AlphaGo in Google's DeepMind challenge
match. .................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 3: Semantic diagram of a man Eating Food. ............................................................ 17
Figure 4: Accuracy results for 3 basic methods of interaction with an arcade game. ......... 20
Figure 5: Backward Chain for finding how to Learn Something. ....................................... 25
Figure 6: Semantic Network. ............................................................................................... 26
Figure 7: First Order Logic Expressions for Determining Action and Venue (Part 01). .... 27
Figure 8: First Order Logic Expressions for Determining Action and Venue (Part 02). .... 28
Figure 9: New facts added to modify the program. ............................................................. 29
Figure 10: Facts and Rules that support modification of the program without altering the
existing code. ....................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 11: New Rule which is added to modify the program. ............................................ 31
Figure 12: Semantic Network for Representing Facts and Rules of Animals. .................... 33
Figure 13: Relationships among Animals and their Properties (Part 01). ........................... 34
Figure 14:Relationships among Animals and their Properties (Part 02). ............................ 35
Figure 19: Demonstration for Task 3.3 ............................................................................... 39
Figure 20: Keyword phase testing. ...................................................................................... 41
Figure 21: Type check phase testing. .................................................................................. 41
Figure 22: Property check phase testing. ............................................................................. 41
Figure 23: Displaying possible terms in the program. ........................................................ 42
xi
Figure 24: Displaying the format for a term in the program. .............................................. 43
Figure 25: Two use-cases of the term 'have'. ....................................................................... 43
xii
Task 1
Internet games have become very popular. Designing a good computer game
needs to use 3D graphics and artificial intelligence technologies. Computers are
programmed to play chess, scrabble, and even crossword puzzles (American
Scientist, September/October 1999). They are getting better and better; in fact,
a computer beat the worlds number-one chess grand master, Garry Kasparov.
1.1
Do you agree that computer games with artificial intelligence technologies

(Expert systems in gaming) exhibit intelligence? Why or why not? (LO.1.1 part
ii)
The statement could be agreed, based on the evidences provided below that supports the idea
that artificial intelligence goes through a similar process that human brains go in the process
of making decisions and that it could calculate all the possibilities and consequences for an
action, so that its decisions are based on logic which is very common to humans.
Intelligence is the ability to learn, reason, calculate and perceive relationships and analogies,
and to solve general cognitive problems (Brain Metrix 2016). Robert Sternberg through his
Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, points out that this intelligence could be broken down into
3 subsets namely Analytic, Creative, and Practical Intelligence (Sternberg 1988). How
various theories on intelligence evolve up to the Triarchic theory could be found on
Appendix A.
An article published by the Stanford University by McCarthy (2001) states that intelligence
could occur in varying kinds and degrees within humans, animals and machines. Sometimes
artificial intelligence exhibits methods that requires more computing than humans couldnt
perform and methods that are not observable in humans. Therefore, artificial intelligence is
not confined to methods that are biologically observable, demonstrating the fact that
comparisons made between artificial intelligence and humans are unfair. The fact that
whether computer games really exhibit intelligence, could be studied through common
examples of games that claim to exhibit intelligence such as in the ancient game of Go.
Go is an ancient strategy board game thats been popular for more than 2,500 years. Its a
two player game where each player plays with pieces called stones in black or white colors
13
in a marked grid of 19x19 lines making a Go board with 361 intersections as shown in figure
01 below (Go Game Guru n.d). The game initially starts with no stones on the board and
adding 181 black and 180 white stones into the intersections in the board, and is concerned
about which player captures more territory (361 Points n.d). More about Go and its rules are
presented in Appendices B and B1 respectively.
Figure 1:A typical Go board at a middle of a game.

Source: American Go Association (2014).
Through the comparisons of Bradley (2008) for Chess and Go, which states that 64 squares
in Chess vs 361 intersections in Go, and 400 possible first moves in Chess vs that of the
32,490 in the game of Go, makes it clear that Go is way more complex and harder to play
than chess. Andrews (2016) reported that there are around 1*10^170 possible configurations
in Go, which means there are more configurations than there are atoms in the universe.
Whitney (2016) explains that the complexity of Go which lies within the vast number of
ways that the stones could be setup and the variety of possible moves and outcomes is what
makes Go a greater challenge for artificial intelligence than Chess.
AlphaGo is a program built by Googles DeepMind subsidiary that claims to exhibit enough
intelligence to beat a human Go professional. In a game of five matches between AlphaGo
and reigning European Go champion Lee Sedol, AlphaGo beats him by four matches to one,
demonstrating what machine learning and artificial intelligence could do (Burger 2016).
Experts in artificial intelligence called the moment historic while DeepMinds CEO
compared the victory equivalent to landing on the moon (Lee 2016).
14
How AlphaGo achieves this level of skill is through machine learning. Studying older games
and teasing out patterns. It played with itself millions of times and got slightly better each
time, just like human players would practice (BBC 2016). The figure below demonstrates
how fair the game was held with Lee Sedol at the right.
Figure 2: Lee Sedol putting his first stone against AlphaGo in Google's DeepMind challenge match.
Source: Pandey (2016).
Till AlphaGo beats its former opponent European Champion Fan Hui, intuitional powers
were said only to be possible within humans. But AlphaGo used all strategical intuitional
powers in order to beat the human player reflecting how that department has been improved
within artificial intelligence (Gupta 2016).
Deep Blue, the program that beats chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov was able to evaluate
200 million possible moves in a second. The program looked into the future to find the set
of moves that leads it to the strongest position, and played them step wise. But that tactic
doesnt work for Go due to the immense difficulty of actually evaluating a move. But unlike
Deep Blue, AlphaGo approaches a new way. It could draw its own inferences using previous
attempts or watching samples, which mimics the way human brains interprets and processes
information (Hern 2016).
AlphaGo could learn from trial and error, and learn from mistakes. It could tackle with such
a complex and intuitive game such as Go and still manage to beat professionals and
champions. It does not use brute force or other kind of cheating, but uses tactics which were
very comparative to humans. AlphaGo exhibits all three subsets of intelligence up to a
certain level from the Sternbergs Triarchic theory of intelligence as mentioned previously,
15
further demonstrating the similarities present between artificial and human intelligence.
Therefore, it is obvious that computer systems like AlphaGo claiming to exhibit artificial
intelligence, really exhibit intelligence in their respective kinds and degrees as per the
findings of the Stanford University.
1.2
Describe how such computer systems perform inference. (LO.1.1 part iii)
The most basic types of knowledge bases are rule based systems, frame-based systems and
predicate expressions. Knowledge based systems such as expert systems use its built-in
inferencing engine in the process of reasoning. This inferencing engine is a program that can
reason about the knowledge base in the required format (Chang 1995). Reasoning could
progress in two directions, either forward to the goal or backward from it. These are known
in artificial intelligence as forward reasoning and backward reasoning, and are used as
methods of inferencing (Finlay & Dix 1996).
Cheng, Nara & Goto (2007: p.1) states that Forward reasoning [is a method used] to draw
[conclusions through] inference rules and [to obtain] conclusions until some previously
specified conditions are satisfied. Therefore, artificial intelligence that uses forward
reasoning to draw its conclusions must have previously defined rules upon which its
inferences would be based upon. As an example, the figure 3 below shows a semantic
diagram representing a man trying to eat food. In this example, the forward reasoning
method results in numerous ways that the man could have eaten food. The most basic
conclusions drawn here include Earn Money, Steal Food or Borrow Money. In this
manner, the inference engine could conclude what the man must do in order to Eat food.
16
Figure 3: Semantic diagram of a man Eating Food.
Source: Umich (n.d).
The other method is the opposite of the example above. Backward chaining would tell why
the man Earn Money, Steal Food, or Borrow Money and concludes that he did it to
Eat food.
Arenas et al. (2011) explains that backward chaining starts with a list of goals or hypotheses
and then searches backwards to find the available data that support any of those goals.
Therefore, backward chaining could also be expressed as a goal-driven mechanism. At
approximately the same time, Huntington (2011) reveals that backward chaining or
backward reasoning is an incredibly powerful method that facilitates the dismantling of
complex problems into small, easily defined sections thereby enabling decomposition of
complex problems into smaller modules.
It is also acceptable that methods such as reinforcement and deep learning provides
additional knowledge which aids at inferencing, as they strive to make much more accurate
choices. In reinforcement learning, computers are allowed to automatically determine the
ideal behavior within a specific context and allows to take the best possible actions through
proper ways of inferencing, and when repeated, the problem is said to be a Markov Decision
Process (Champandard 2002). Deep learning uses algorithms to learn multiple levels of
representation and abstraction to make sense of data thereby helping in the process of
inferencing by analyzing solutions and problems in different perspectives than the one at
hand (Lisa Lab 2010).
Considering the information stated above, it is clear that forward reasoning is better in
situations where the fact is clear and where all the possible goals must be predicted. In the
17
other hand, backward chaining might help to derive what facts might have caused the goal
at hand. The information acquired through deep learning and reinforcement learning allows
the inferences to be further refined and make sure they are better in terms of accuracy. The
inference engine of all the knowledge base systems listed above uses both forward and
backward chaining for appropriate situations in the process of reasoning and thus performs
inference. A brief history of reasoning has been provided in Appendix C for further
reference.
1.3
Do you agree that using speech communication as the user interface could
increase willingness to use expert systems in gaming? Why or why not? (LO.1.1
part ii)
The idea that using speech communication in gaming would increase willingness to use
expert systems could not be agreed, because while speech communication remains useful
over a wide spectrum of applications in day-to day needs, its still too clumsy when it comes
to gaming. In gaming, the commands are rich in detail providing in depth information of
direction, speed, torque, etc. in a single movement of a game controller, which is one of the
things that speech communication cannot provide but would instead lead to a slowdown in
the entire process. It would also prevent the usage of body parts such as hands and fingers
to input commands, limiting the chances for practicing through a trial and error method as
speech would completely eliminate physical gestures.
Even though speech interaction would survive on some of the slow-paced strategy games
such as quizzes, puzzles and chess, it has no rule over the much major areas of gaming where
fast-paced arcade games become prominent for the users. Further demonstrating this fact,
Cai (2013: p.3) mentioned on his work after an investigation of adapting existing games for
education using speech recognition, that it remains dicult to augment fast-paced games
with speech interaction because the frustrating eect of recognition errors highly
compromises entertainment. This might be because computers face difficulties dealing with
other frequencies and bands of sound rather than the users input, and as a result, the
communications might seem to be erroneous. However, The University of Washington and
IBM Research published alternative reasons for the compromise, which was published after
18
they conducted a quantitative experiment to determine performance characteristics of non-
speech vocalization in comparison to existing speech and keyboard inputs. They outlined
some of the critical factors that keep speech communication away from being an effective
hands-free game control modality by clearly mentioning the following points in their work.
Time taken to complete uttering a word or a phrase is a significant factor in games

which requires sub-second timing. Processing time required to recognize the
utterances adds further delay to the process.
Speech communication does not support dynamically inputting multiple input events
at a rapid and varying rate because of the per-utterance delay which imposes a limit
on the number of utterances per given time span.
When using speech communication, output is not generated until a word is

recognized. The result of a single recognition is a single event; therefore, it eliminates
continuous inputs such as smooth motion of a pointer.
The work also demonstrates that speech when used as vocal inputs consumes more
processing power and takes more time to recognize than non-speech vocalization by stating
non-speech vocalization is significantly faster than the other by as much as 50% (Harada,
Wobbrock & Landay 2011).
The following Graph on figure 4 illustrates results from an episode test from a report aimed
at comparing user performance when controlling an arcade game using speech, non-verbal
communication and keyboard input. The accuracy of the inputs has been measured against
pre-defined episodes repeated in 3 difficulty levels mentioned as slow, medium and fast.
19
ACCURACY AVERAGES
Keyboard Input Speech Communication Non-Verbal Speech Communication
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
SLOW MEDIUM FAST
Figure 4: Accuracy results for 3 basic methods of interaction with an arcade game.
Source: Authors work adopted from Sporka et al. (2006).
Out of the many conclusions that could be drawn from the above graph, it is obvious that it
protrudes 2 basic facts about the accuracy of the communication modes at each phase of the
game. 1Keyboard input is the most accurate method of inputting commands and speech
communication is the least within the scope of the experiment. 2The speech communication
method falls in accuracy dramatically with the 3 difficulty levels from 0.7 on the first, all the
way down to 0.2 thereby proving to be a less reliable mode of interaction with the game,
while keyboard input accuracy rises in the medium level and falls but still remains at 0.9 in
the third level. The presence of difficulty levels and the data achieved at each level in this
experiment helps in understanding that the problem lies within the users and not in the
processing power of computers. Therefore, improving speech as a reliable method for
interaction, require its users to improve in the area as well. Hence, it demonstrates that speech
communication does not succeed with other methods of interaction when it comes to gaming.
However, it is still acceptable for speech communication to be used as a supportive and an

alternative interface in games wherever such technologies could be applied within the game.
For instance, it would still be possible to use speech interaction to control the game menu
whereas a controller would be necessary in the actual game play, however it would always
be an alternative to using the controller on the menu screen and not a substitute feature.
20
Speech as a method of communication in gaming is not a complete unachievable target, in
fact, there are a lot of slow paced games that still rely on the technology, however as a result,
from the barriers introduced above, speech wouldnt be a better mode of communication and
would in no case be an aid or will not contribute to the effort of increasing willingness to use
expert systems in gaming. The technology could be improved with time, but would not
guarantee to increase willingness in using expert systems in gaming.
1.4
Proponents of AI claim that we will never have machines that truly think
because they cannot, by definition, have a soul. Supporters claim a soul is
unnecessary. They cite the fact that argue humanity originally set out to create
an artificial bird for flight. Instead it eventually created an airplane which is not
a bird, but functionally acts as one. Debate the issue. (LO.1.1 part iii)
Technologies improve over time, and it takes a lot of time for a certain technology to reach
to its maximum possible. Functionality is what matters; in whatever way it may work. Even
though airplanes dont look and fly like birds, they functionally do the same, using different
technologies. There is no need of waiting until the technology improves to a level of a bird
to be able to make use of airplanes. In fact, one could argue that even a bird is not the perfect
flying machine, they too may be improved with time. But its enough for them to survive
and do their role at present, and their future generations might be more efficient and effective
in what they do, as a result of them adapting to their environment. It is wise to understand
that animals such as birds are taken as examples to model their functionality so that people
could use similar technologies to meet the required needs. It is in no way that flying like a
bird is the target for airplanes, birds are just the model which inspired humans to make one.
A similar argument was introduced by Baer (2016) where artificial neurons when compared
to a real neuron is like an airplane is to a bird. The argument was concluded that even though
they are very different at a certain level of a detail, they both do the same job and that
similarly, even though artificial neurons were silicon based where real neurons are carbon
based, again they both do the same job. Anderson et al. (2013: pp.90-91) mentions on his
work that the first computational neuron was created in 1943 by McCulloch and Pitts and
consisted of logical elements and that its properties are said to be analogous to those of an
21
action potential of a neural cell. With time, in 1958, Frank Rosenblatt developed an artificial
neural net in which firing of actual neurons were reflected through On or Off states of simple
neural nods (Postma 2016). Considering these two cases which shows development of
artificial neural nets within considerably short periods of time, it is clear that artificial neural
nets though not being real neurons, would do the same job by reflecting action potentials in
the first case and by firing neurons in the second; and with time, will improve, further adding
more functionality. It is good practice to appreciate the work done by such systems than to
criticize them of their variations from their origins, as those systems are more likely to
benefit humanity in ways that were previously impossible.
In a more exemplary approach to this debate, it is possible to address on the many uses of
artificial intelligence in everyday life such as the Automatic Alternative Text technology
which Facebook recently introduced. The technology is based on neural networks and uses
artificial intelligence to identify content in a photo and describe the photos to visually
impaired people. The company made references concerning the 39 million people who are
blind and 246 million people who were severely visually impaired and mentioned that their
effort allows such people to experience social media the same way others do (Wu, Pique &
Wieland 2016). In contrast, Microsoft also developed an app called Seeing AI which uses a
camera on a smartphone or a pair of camera equipped smart glasses to describe what happens
around the environment in real time. Instead of photos, it could dynamically understand the
environment and notify its users who are visually impaired (Smith 2016). These examples
prove that even though the technologies are not equivalent to human level thinking, it would
still help people in many ways.
And when considering some cases, human level intelligence cannot provide the services that
certain parties require, just because humans are more intelligent than the job they are
assigned to do. For example, there is no guarantee that a worker on a customer care center
would treat or speak with every person, in the same consistent way that theyve been
assigned to do. In this case, many companies move on to artificial intelligence technologies
which could provide facilities like consistency for their end users, because human employees
struggle at this level of functioning where artificial intelligence might be an expert (VFU
2016). This is an example that demonstrates that, it is not necessarily required that computers
would have to truly think or act like humans, but only requires to perform some of the
functions which humans could perform in order to be able to aid humans at work.
22
Through the examples and facts mentioned above, an approach to a clear conclusion on the
matter might seem obvious that computers could think, and that it has nothing to do with a
soul but everything with the knowledge, power and infrastructure to support inferences
leading to the performing of better functions similar to humans. It would still remain obvious
that, to use a certain technology, it does not need to be perfect, it just need to be above
threshold. The examples mentioned above supports the idea that if artificial intelligence
technology were to be not used until it becomes equivalent to human level intelligence or to
a level that it could truly think, it would leave a question whether people with disabilities or
people that now rely on the technology are to be benefited or not; dont they have rights to
socialize and explore? These questions highly promote and encourages the need to get use
of these technologies in whatever stages they may be right now. Someday, airplanes would
make it to the level of birds, and perhaps better than them and that artificial intelligence
would be better than human intelligence. However, they would have different uses at that
time, but for now, it is wise to make use of airplanes as well as artificial intelligence where
possible to make life easier.
23
Task 2
Consider the decision-making situation defined by the following rules:

If it is a nice day and it is summer, then I go to the beach
If it is a nice day and it is winter, then I go to the canal boating resort
If it is not a nice day and it is summer, then I go to work
If it is not a nice day and it is winter, then I go to class
If I go to the beach, then I swim.
If I go to the canal boating resort, then I go boat riding
If I go boat riding or I swim, then I have fun.
If I go to work, then I make money.
If I go to class, then I learn something.
Follow the rules for the following situations (what do you conclude for each
one?):
It is a nice day and it is summer.
It is not a nice day and it is winter.
It is a nice day and it is winter.
It is not a nice day and it is summer.
2.1
Are there any other combinations that are valid? Explain. (LO.1.1 part I,
LO.1.1-part iv)
It is a nice day and it is summer, then I go to the beach.
It is not a nice day and it is winter, then I go to the class.
It is a nice day and it is winter, then I go to canal boating resort.
It is not a nice day and it is summer, then I go to work.
It is a nice day and it is summer, so I go to the beach, then I swim.
It is a nice day and it is winter, so I go to canal boating resort, then I ride boat.
24
2.2
What needs to happen for you to learn something in this knowledge universe?
Start with the conclusion learn something and identify the rules used
(backward) to get to the needed facts. (LO.1.1)
Ill learn something If I go to class if it is winter and it is not a nice day. (As illustrated in
the backward chain of the semantic graph in figure 5 below)
Figure 5: Backward Chain for finding how to Learn Something.

Source: Authors work.
25
2.3
Encode the knowledge into a graphical diagram (Semantic network). (LO.2.1)
The following diagram in figure 6 shows the semantic network of the example given in task
02.
Figure 6: Semantic Network.

26
2.4
Write a prolog program or other third-generation language program. Use IF-

THEN (ELSE) statements in your implementation. (LO.2.2), (LO.3.1)
Figure 7: First Order Logic Expressions for Determining Action and Venue (Part 01).
27
Figure 8: First Order Logic Expressions for Determining Action and Venue (Part 02).
2.5
Explain how hard would it be to modify the program to insert new facts and a
rule such as:
If it is cloudy and it is warm and it is not raining and it is summer then I swim (LO.3.2),
(LO.3.3)
The number of facts that would relate to the rule for the above mentioned information is
more than 5, therefore it would be really hard to relate all of those facts so that they provide
meaningful information. However, the following passages describes the procedure in which
the rule could be achieved.
It is clear from figure 7 above, that structures for both day and season already exist within
the program, and that the argument summer comes under the predicate season which
already exist. If correctly inserted, the additional rules and facts could be applied to the
program with ease in a similar manner, so that they become meaningful and would therefore,
flow with the logic. For instance, a structure for Temperature, Weather and another for the
status of Rain could be added to the program. Within this context, the Temperature
predicate would be able to hold arguments such as warm and cold whereas the
Weather predicate holds arguments such as cloudy or windy while the status of rain
predicate holds arguments such as raining and not_raining. This way, the facts become
28
more structured and would make sense. The code in figure 9 below shows how the facts
could be organized in the code editor and how they become unique by adapting its format to
a recursive structure (Nested Complex Term) where arguments becomes functors itself
which makes them unique by varying the arity of the structure even in the presence of an
overloaded predicate.
Figure 9: New facts added to modify the program.

The figure above shows the possessing of additional arguments such as windy and cold
just to highlight the importance of recursive structures in such a problem so that the predicate
could be further overloaded to add more facts in the future. Since the new facts were added,
it provides the infrastructure to build a new rule that could help to query the necessary
information from the system. Initially, the program held the knowledge that if it is a nice
day and it is summer then I go to the beach. It also had the knowledge regarding the
action performed once on the beach, as If I go to the Beach then I Swim. The inked
image below demonstrates the presence of both the instants where upon the new rule would
be supported.
29
Figure 10: Facts and Rules that support the modification without altering the existing code.
This logic could be used to add a new rule to modify the program to add the additional
knowledge. Consider figure 11 below which shows the recently added rule that has been
inked to help explain whats written in the content below.
30
Figure 11: New Rule which is added to modify the program.
Further breaking down whats shown on figure 11 would help in understanding how the
logic works and how an addition of a new rule didnt affect the original structure of the
program. At its simplest form, the arguments Weather, Temperature and Rain_status
shown on the image resembles a state for the Day. Figure 10 showed that Day and
Season brings forth Venue, And Venue in turn results in an Action. If Action is
triggered by Venue and that Venue is formed by Day and Season, it is possible that
the Action could be brought forth by providing the status of Day and the necessary
Season. This is similar to the popular axiom if A=B, and B=C therefore C=A. Forgetting
about the body of the rules for a moment, consider the following lines of codes in each point
to better understand how they breakdown to prove its relation to each other.
action (Action (Venue)) rule for action.

venue (Venue (Day, Season)) - rule for venue.
Now the arguments of the Venue could be applied in place of Venue in the action rule.
action (Action (Day, Season)) venue replaced by its own definition.
Similarly, Day could be replaced by its definition, if Day consists of arguments such as
Weather, Temperature and Rain_status, then they could be substituted where day lies
within the Action rule, which will look like the following point.
31
action (Action (Weather, Temperature, Rain_status), Season) day replaced by its
definition.
This is how the rule came into existence and make sense in terms of logical flow and
relations. Because now the combination of weather, temperature and rain status forms Day
and Day combines with Season to form Venue which could be the means of accessing
the required Action, provided that venue is the only way to access an action.
The facts are new, and so is the rule. Even though the new rule is inspired by the pattern of
the existing code, it is still a stand-alone rule which does not affect the program in any way.
In fact, even if the new rule is removed from the code, the program would still work fine as
the new rule didnt alter any of the facts or complex terms in the program. And even though
the rule relies on the existing facts and rules, none of the rules in the program relies on the
new rule allowing them to operate independently.
32
Task 3
All animals have skin. Fish is one kind of animal, birds are another type and m
ammals are a third kind. Normally fish has gills and can swim, while
birds have wings and can fly. While fish and birds usually lay eggs, mammals d
o not.
Although sharks are fish, they do not lay eggs. They are very dangerous. Salmo
n is another fish and is considered a delicacy. Canary is a bird and is yellow.
Ostrich is a bird, which is very tall, but cannot fly, only walk.
3.1
Represent the above facts and rules in First Order Logic expressions. (LO.2.1)
Figure 12: Semantic Network for Representing Facts and Rules of Animals.
33
3.2
Write a prolog program or other third-generation language program and knowledge

base to execute this knowledge. (LO.3.1), (LO.2.3)
Figure 13: Relationships among Animals and their Properties (Part 01).
34
Figure 14:Relationships among Animals and their Properties (Part 02).
35
36
37
3.3
Using your program answer the following questions (LO.3.2)
Can canaries fly?
Yes
What is the color of canaries?
Yellow
Can ostriches fly?
No
Do canaries have skin?
Yes
Are sharks dangerous?
Yes
38
The image below demonstrates how the above answers are achieved through the questions
queried on the SWI-Prolog IDE.
Figure 19: Demonstration for Task 3.3

39
3.4
Complete the above system test using proper test cases and provide all the test
documents and error handlings. (LO.3.4) (LO.3.3)
The table below shows the White-Box test results on testing the program for the knowledge
provided through the task 3 based scenario. The 3 images below provide proof on how the
test case was carried out in each phase.
Table 1: White-Box Testing of the Program.

Test Test Query Test
Case Expected Actual
Phase Num Test Case Representa Statu
Definition Result Result
Name ber tion s
Display List all Lists all
Checking
possible possible the
whether all
predicates predicates predicates
01 Keywords are key(X)/1 Pass
in place of that could that could
being
Keywor variable be queried be queried
displayed
X
d
Display List all Successful
Checkin Checking
possible possible listing of
g whether
predicates predicates all
keywords
02 for X and key(X, Y)/2 and their predicates Pass
guides with the
its format correspon and
format
in place of ding formats
Y formats
Display the
Type of the isan(canary,
Type 03 bird bird Pass
Checks the species Type)/2
Checkin Type of a Canary
g given Species Check if
isan(shark,
04 Shark is a True True Pass
fish)/2
Fish
Check if
have(canary,
05 canary has True True Pass
skin)/2
skin
Check if both
Propert Check if
the Species lay(shark,
y 06 Shark lay False False Pass
unique eggs)/2
Checkin eggs
properties, and
g Check if an
the inherited can(ostrich,
07 properties have
Ostrich can False False Pass
fly)/2
fly
been applied
Check if
are(salmon,
08 Salmon are True True Pass
delicious)/2
Delicious
40
Figure 20: Keyword phase testing.
Source: Authors work
Figure 21: Type check phase testing.

Figure 22: Property check phase testing.

41
3.5
Prepare a user document to illustrate how to work with your implemented system.
(LO.3.5)
3.5.1 The User Manual
This document assumes that the user has some basic knowledge concerning the Prolog
environment and about querying. The user must have a working version of SWI-Prolog
installed on his/her computer in order to access the program.
Getting Started
Copy the files found on the drive provided, into a library in one of the directories of the
computer. Open the SWI-Prolog desktop application and click File in the Splitter
containers found on top of the application. In the menu that scrolls down, click Consult
and look for the pop-up window that appears. Use the pop-up menu to navigate the copied
prolog files containing the program in the computer. Once on the particular path, click the
prolog file which came with the drive and click Open to finish consulting.
On-Screen Help
The program comes with a handful of terms packed in, to allow queries to be made using the
program. In effort of providing on-screen help, the program packs a special keyword that
lets the user receive on-screen help in identifying the terms and formats from which the
queries should be made.
Type key(X). in the prolog querying environment and press enter. Together with the first
term that appears, press semi-colon to achieve more results that ends up displaying all the
possible terms for querying as shown in the image below. These terms are meant to be used
as predicates for the query.
Figure 23: Displaying possible terms in the program.

42
Note that the above example uses a keyword with Arity 1 (key(X)/1), which means there is
only one argument inside parenthesis. To display the format in which the queries should be
made using the terms appeared in the program, use the very same keyword with Arity 2
(key(X, Y)/2), and replace the first argument with one of the terms displayed on the above
example. This will display the correct format that the query should be made relating to the
term in use as seen through the next image, which shows how the have term is used to
display its format.
Figure 24: Displaying the format for a term in the program.

Figure 24 shows the format in which the have term must be used in order to perform a
query from the program. It shows that have must include 2 arguments inside parenthesis
and that they could both be used as variables given that they start with upper-case letters. It
further shows that the first argument should be a Species and the second should be a
Property for that species. As an example, the figure 25 below shows two instances where
this format and term could be used in the program to know 1what a canary has, by using the
second argument as a variable and to 2ask whether a canary has skin.
Figure 25: Two use-cases of the term 'have'.

Additional Assistance
It is best practice to always use the above introduced keyword as a means of guidance for
the program. The table below shows all the terms and formats which could be used to query
the necessary information from the program. Note, that the data present on this table might
not get supported for the program in the future unless otherwise, this document would get
updated with each and every modification to the program.
43
Table 2: Keywords and Formats.
Functor Format
key key(X).
key key(X, Y).
isan isan(Species, Type).
have have(Species, Property).
lay lay(Species, Property).
are are(Species, Property).
iss iss(Species, Property).
can can(Species, Property).
44
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Evolution of Theories on Intelligence
The first person to bring forth a theory on intelligence is Herbert Spencer (1820 1903) in
the 19th century, who developed a substantive theory which implied individual, racial, and
species differences in intelligence. He held the idea that intelligence is determined by the
quantity and quality of adaptive associations made by organisms to their environment by the
continuous adjustment of internal relations and external relations. However, Francis Galton
(1822 1911) and Alfred Binet (1857 1911) was also credited as the first to develop
theories on intelligence and instruments to measure it. Galton was Charles Darwins half
cousin. He claimed that sensory acuity was correlated with intelligence and could serve as
an indirect method of measuring intelligence. He also said that intelligence was largely
determined by heredity.
In a similar manner Jean Piaget explains that "Intelligence is an adaptationTo say that
intelligence is a particular instance of biological adaptation is thus to suppose that it is
essentially an organization and that its function is to structure the universe just as the
organism structures its immediate environment" and that "Intelligence is assimilation to the
extent that it incorporates all the given data of experience within its frameworkThere can
be no doubt either, that mental life is also accommodation to the environment. Assimilation
can never be pure because by incorporating new elements into its earlier schemata the
intelligence constantly modifies the latter in order to adjust them to new elements".
After these kinds of initial work on understanding intelligence and measuring it, Howard
Gardner reveals his theory of Multiple intelligences in 1983. He viewed intelligence as "the
capacity to solve problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural
settings". After Gardners work on intelligence came Robert Stenberg who brought the
Triarchic theory of Intelligence, dividing intelligence into three aspects as mentioned in
chapter 2.1 of this document. Afterwards, Sternberg said that individuals who excel in all
three subsets of intelligence from his previous theory could be considered to have successful
intelligence. This second theory is known as Sternbergs Theory of Successful Intelligence.
45
Appendix B: The Game of Go
Go which is also referred as Weiqi, Romaji, Romaja, and Baduk is a two player abstract
strategy board game meaning encircling game. The objective of this game is to surround
more territory than the opponent. It rooted from the ancient China more than 2,500 years
ago.
The two players use black vs white pieces of stones in the vacant intersections of the Go
board. Normally, there are 19x19 intersections making a total of 361 in a standard Go board.
However, there are Go boards which have grid lines both below and above this limit. As an
example, there are boards of 13x13 and or 17x17 or even 9x9 grid lines. The image below
represents a typical 19x19 grid Go board at gameplay.
The two players place stones alternately until they reach a point at which neither player
wishes to make another move; the game has no set ending conditions beyond this. The game
ends when both players pass, and players pass when there are no more profitable moves to
be made. The game is then scored: The player with the greater number of controlled points,
factoring in the number of captured stones and Komi, wins the game. Komi are the points
added to the score of the player with the white stones as compensation for playing second.
When a game concludes, the territory is counted along with captured stones and Komi to
determine the winner, but it may also be won by resignation, for example if a player has lost
a large group of stones, the opponent will win at that situation.
46
Appendix B1: Rules of Go Game
The rules of Go have seen some variation over time and from place to place, for example the
Chinese rules for Go differ from the Korean and Japanese rules. However, the Go is overall
consistent in many areas within these communities. The table below lists down some of the
basic and common Japanese rules of Go.
Rule Description
After a move is completed, a group of one or more stones belonging

Stone that may exist
to one player exists on its points of play on the board as long as it has
on the board a horizontally or vertically adjacent empty point, called a "liberty."
No group of stones without a liberty can exist on the board.
If, due to a player's move, one or more of his opponent's stones

Capture cannot exist on the board, the player must remove all these
opposing stones, which are called "prisoners." In this case, the
move is completed when the stones have been removed.
1. When a player passes his move and his opponent passes in

succession, the game stops.
2. After stopping, the game ends through confirmation and
End of the Game agreement by the two players about the life and death of stones
and territory. This is called "the end of the game."
3. If a player requests resumption of a stopped game, his
opponent must oblige and has the right to play first.
1. After agreement that the game has ended, each player

removes any opposing dead stones from his territory as is, and
adds them to his prisoners.
2. Prisoners are then filled into the opponent's territory, and the
Determining the points of territory are counted and compared. The player with
more territory wins. If both players have the same amount the
Result
game is a draw, which is called a "jigo."
3. If one player lodges an objection to the result, both players
must reconfirm the result by, for example, replaying the game.
4. After both players have confirmed the result, the result
cannot be changed under any circumstances.
47
Appendix C: A brief History of Reasoning
The table below illustrates some of the basic information regarding how reasoning solutions
were developed with time since 450 B.C till the late 1965 by their respective founders.
Year Founder Description
450 B.C Stoics propositional logic, inference (maybe)
syllogisms (inference rules),

322 B.C Aristotle
quantiers
probability theory (propositional logic +

1565 Cardano
uncertainty)
1847 Boole propositional logic (again)
1879 Frege rst-order logic
1922 Wittgenstein proof by truth tables
1930 Godel complete algorithm for FOL
complete algorithm for FOL (reduce to

1930 Herbrand
propositional)
1931 Godel complete algorithm for arithmetic
practical algorithm for propositional

1960 Davis/Putnam
logic
practical algorithm for FOL

1965 Robinson
resolution
48
Appendix D: Project Management
Appendix D1: The Gantt Chart
Time Duration: 21 days [ 3 Weeks]
Phases Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

03/07/16
04/07/16
05/07/16
06/07/16
07/07/16
08/07/16
09/07/16
10/07/16
11/07/16
12/07/16
13/107/1
14/07/16
15/07/16
16/07/16
17/07/16
18/07/16
19/07/16
20/07/16
21/07/16
22/07/16
23/07/16
6
6
Date
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Finalization
49
Appendix D2: Self-Reflection
As I came about doing this work, I found that the language and style of instructing the
computer was completely different when dealing with first order logic expressions to solve
problems than that for the paradigms of other languages Ive learned before. It might be the
cause that Prolog presents a set of styles and rules for the syntax of the code itself, rather
than a set of language specific keywords. And having a perfectionists mindset to a certain
level that troubles me to follow a do your best or drop route, at times I found it really hard
to figure out how should the system meet the level of quality I had on my mind, because I
was depressed for my sluggish attainments as a novice. But with much experimenting, I
learnt how to achieve things without compromising what was expected, due to my tendency
to refuse giving up the initial thought on the solution, as it would leave me with a powerful
reminisce to look upon. I also found that to solve a particular problem, the language supports
different methods and that each approach whether it is easy or difficult would lead to similar
results. The approach I have taken resembles how much I was interested in learning the
language and how the methods Ive used, helps me regain understanding of it If I were to
look back at it later on. However, the action resulted in procrastination where I felt
uncomfortable with the deadlines. I did found many things interesting on the subject, such
as the ability to define unique complex terms based on their signatures rather than predicate
names, however I do find myself confusing with some technical wording when it comes to
theory where I find it difficult to differentiate between terms such as Functor with
Predicate due to the fact that many educating bodies use the words interchangeably. I dealt
with such terms by classifying them and jotting them down to personal notes through
research on the area I was coping with, so that I would often remember them. It is also my
fault that at certain points I have debated topics to my personal opinion even though there
were lack of evidence supporting my conclusions. Such points reflect my inability to
critically compare, and highlights my inability to transcribe direct quotations where I relied
heavily on my old style of paraphrasing and risked altering the original meaning of the work
I used. I was also not aware of comparing work of others so that I could always include the
most timely, accurate and reliable information to support my suggestions. Even though these
things degrade the quality of my work, I found myself pushed to be a critical and reflective
learner through the experiences I had dealing the trials raised upon completion of the
assignment.
50
REFERENCES
361 Points. (no date) Game of Go/Baduk/Weiqi. [Online] Available from:

http://361points.com/whatisgo/ [Accessed 04th July 2016].
American Go Association. (2014) What is Go. [Online] Available from:

http://www.usgo.org/what-go [Accessed 05th July 2016].
Anderson, H., Dieks, D., Gonzalez, W.J., Uebel, T. & Wheeler, G. (ed.) (2013) The Value
of Computer Science for Brain Research. In: New Challenges to Philosophy of Science.
Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective, 4. New York, Springer, pp. 90-91.
Andrews, R. (2016) Googles AlphaGo beats Go champion 4-1 in Landmark Victory for AI.
[Online] Available from: http://www.iflscience.com/technology/googles-alphago-beats-go-
champion-4-1-landmark-victory-artificial-intelligence [Accessed 07th July 2016].
Arenas, M., Schneider, P. F. P., Polleres, A., Amato, C. D., Handschuh, S., Kroner, P. &
Ossowski, S. (ed.) (2011) Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for the Web of Data: 7th
International Summer School 2011, Galway, Ireland, August 23-27, 2011, Tutorial Lectures.
Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI, 6848. Ireland, Springer
Science & Business Media.
Baer, D. (Monday 11th April 2016) Google and Microsoft are making Gigantic Artificial
Brains. Business Insider. [Online] Available from: http://www.techinsider.io/google-and-
microsoft-are-making-artificial-brains-2016-4 [Accessed 15th July 2016].
BBC. (Saturday 12th March 2016) Artificial Intelligence: Googles AlphaGo beats Go master
Lee Se-dol. BBC News. [Online] Available from: xhttp://www.bbc.com/news/technology-
35785875 [Accessed 08th July 2016].
Bradley, M.N. (2008) Comparison between Chess and Go. [Online] Available from:
http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html [Accessed 05th July 2016].
Brain Metrix. (2016) Intelligence Definition. [Online] Available from:

http://www.brainmetrix.com/intelligence-definition/ [Accessed 03rd July 2016].
Burger, C. (2016) Google DeepMinds AlphaGo: How it works. [Online] Available from:
https://www.tastehit.com/blog/google-deepmind-alphago-how-it-works/ [Accessed 06th
July 2016].
51
Cai, C. J. (2013) Adapting Existing Games for Education Using Speech Recognition.
Masters thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Champandard, A. J. (2002) Reinforcement Learning. [Online] Available from:

http://reinforcementlearning.ai-depot.com/ [Accessed 12th July 2016].
Chang, H. M. H. (1995) Relational artificial intelligence system. US 5473732 A (Patent).
Cheng, J., Nara, S. & Goto, Y. (2007) FreeEnCal: A Forward Reasoning Engine with
General-Purpose. In: Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4693. Berlin, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, p. 1.
Finlay, J. & Dix, A. (1996) Reasoning. In: An Introduction To Artificial Intelligence. Boca
Raton, CRC Press, p. 33.
Go Game Guru. (no date) What is Go. [Online] Available from:

https://gogameguru.com/what-is-go/ [Accessed 04th July 2016].
Gupta, N. (Thursday 28th January 2016) Computer Program Wins the Ancient Game GO
Against Professional Human Player. The News Recorder. [Online] Available from:
http://www.thenewsrecorder.com/computer-program-wins-the-ancient-asian-game-go-
against-professional-human-player [Accessed 06th July 2016].
Harada, S., Wobbrock, J. & Landay, J.A. (2011) LNCS. Voice Games: Investigation into the
use of Non-Speech voice input for making computer games more Accessible, [Online] 6946,
11-29 Available from: https://faculty.washington.edu/wobbrock/pubs/interact-11.pdf
[Accessed 14th July 2016].
Hern, A. (2016) Googles Artificial Intelligence Machine to battle Human Champion of

Go. [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/07/go-
board-game-google-alphago-lee-se-dol [Accessed 09th July 2016].
Huntington, D. (2011) Back to Basics- Backward Chaining: Expert System Fundamentals.

[Online] Available from: http://www.exsys.com/pdf/BackwardChaining.pdf [Accessed 10th
July 2016].
Lee, Y. (2016) All about Go, the ancient game in which AI bested master. [Online] Available
from: http://phys.org/news/2016-03-ancient-game-ai-bested-master.html [Accessed 07th
July 2016].
52
Lisa Lab. (2010) Deep Learning Tutorials. [Online] Available from:
http://deeplearning.net/tutorial/ [Accessed 12th July 2016].
McCarthy, J. (2001) What is Artificial Intelligence. [Online] Available from:

http://lidecc.cs.uns.edu.ar/~grs/InteligenciaArtificial/whatisai.pdf [Accessed 03rd July
2016].
Pandey, A. (Saturday 12th March 2016) Against World champion Lee Sedol. IB Times.
[Online] Available from: http://www.ibtimes.com/google-deepminds-alphago-wins-5-
match-go-series-third-straight-victory-against-world-2335217 [Accessed 09th July 2016].
Postma, E. (2016) Deep Learning: The Third Neural network wave. [Online] Available from:
https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/research/institutes-and-research-groups/data-science-
center/blogs/data-science-blog-eric-postma/ [Accessed 16th July 2016].
Smith, D. (Monday 21st April 2016) Microsofts Incredible new app helps blind people see
the world around them take a look. Business Insider. [Online] Available from:
http://www.techinsider.io/microsoft-seeing-ai-app-photos-video-2016-4 [Accessed 23rd
July 2016].
Sporka, A.J., Kurnlawan, S.H., Mahmud, M. & Slavik, P. (2006) Non-Speech Input and
Speech Recognition for Real-time control of Computer Games. Czech Technical University
in Prague & University of Manchester.
Sternberg, R. (1988) The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Intelligence. New York, Viking
Press.
Umich. (no date) Knowledge Acquisition. [Online] Available from:

http://groups.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis479/lectures/es-ka.html [Accessed
10th July 2016].
VFU. (2016) Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems: Knowledge-Based Systems.

[Online] Available from: http://vfu.bg/en/e-Learning/Artificial-Intelligence--
AI_and_ES_Nowledge_base_systems.pdf [Accessed 11th July 2016].
Whitney, L. (2016) AlphaGo wins a close one to wrap up battle of man vs machine. [Online]
Available from: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-alphago-artificial-intelligence-victor-in-
game-of-man-vs-machine/ [Accessed 06th July 2016].
53
Wu, S., Pique, H. & Wieland, J. (2016) Using Artificial Intelligence to Help Blind People
See Facebook. [Online] Available from: http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/04/using-
artificial-intelligence-to-help-blind-people-see-facebook/ [Accessed 19th July 2016].
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ajlan, A. A. (2015) The Comparison between Forward and Backward Chaining.

International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing, 5 (2), 106 113.
Barros, L. N. & Trevizan, F. W. (2015) Reachability-based model reduction for Markov

decision process. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 21 (5), 1-16.
Cohen, L., Pooley, J. A., Stewart, A. C., Penner, L. A., Roy, E. J., Bernstein, D. A., Provost,
S., Gouldthorp, B. & Cranney, J. (2013) Cognitive Abilities: Intelligence and Intelligence
testing. In: Psychology: An International Discipline in Context: Australian & New Zealand
Edition PDF. Australia, Cengage Learning Australia, p. 383.
Dean, T. & Kanazawa, K. (1989) A model for reasoning about persistence and causation.
Computational Intelligence, 5 (2), 142 150.
Dubois, D. & Prade, H. (1991) Fuzzy sets in approximate reasoning, Part 1: Inference with
possibility distributions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 40 (1), 143 202.
Muller, V. C. (ed.) (2013) Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence. Studies in

Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 5. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.
Norman, G. R., Brooks, L. R., Colle, C. L. & Hatala, R. M. (1999) The Benefit of Diagnostic
Hypotheses in Clinical Reasoning: Experimental Study of an Instructional Intervention for
Forward and Backward Reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 17 (4), 433 448.
Sharma, T., Tiwari, N. & Kelkar, D. (2012) Study of Difference between Forward and
Backward Reasoning. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering, 2 (10), 271 273.
54
Stallman, R. M. & Sussman, G. J. (1977) Forward reasoning and dependency-directed
backtracking in a system for computer-aided circuit analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 9 (2),
135 196.
Yang, S., Nagamachi, M. & Lee, S. (1999) Rule-based inference model for the Kansei
Engineering System. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24 (5), 459 471.
55

KBS Document PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

KBS Document PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Assignment Brief

BTEC Level 4-5 HNC/HND Diploma (QCF)

Name of the Learner :

Edexcel No : Centre No : Batch:

Qualification : Higher National Diploma in Computing and Systems Development

Unit Code & Title : H/601/1991 Unit 31 Knowledge Based Systems

Assessment Title & Nos :

Learning outcomes and grading opportunities:

LO 01: Understand knowledge-based systems

LO 02: Be able to design knowledge-based applications

Learning LO2.1 LO2.2 LO2.3

LO 03: 3 Be able to develop knowledge-based applications

Learning LO3.1 LO3.2 LO3.3 LO3.4 LO3.5

Date Reviewed : Date of IE :

All rights reserved ESOFT Metro Campus, Sri Lanka Page 1 of 55

1. I know that plagiarism is a punishable offence because it constitutes theft.

Students Signature: Date:.

All rights reserved ESOFT Metro Campus, Sri Lanka Page 2 of 55

Consider the decision-making situation defined by the following rules:

If it is a nice day and it is summer, then I go to the beach

It is a nice day and it is summer.

All rights reserved ESOFT Metro Campus, Sri Lanka Page 3 of 55

Activity Activity Learning Date Feedback

All rights reserved ESOFT Metro Campus, Sri Lanka Page 4 of 55

5 Answer the question given in task 3.3 by Task 2.1

All rights reserved ESOFT Metro Campus, Sri Lanka Page 5 of 55

LO2 - Be able to design knowledge- based applications

2.3 design knowledge base, rules and structure Task 3.2

All rights reserved ESOFT Metro Campus, Sri Lanka Page 6 of 55

3.2 implement data validation for inputs Task

3.3 identify and implement opportunities for Task

3.4 design and implement a test strategy Task

3.5 create documentation to support users Task

Grade Descriptor for MERIT Possible evidence Feedback

M1.2 complex problems with more

M3 Present and communicate Documentation is well

Grade Descriptor for Possible Feedback

All rights reserved ESOFT Metro Campus, Sri Lanka Page 7 of 55

D2 Take responsibility for

D2.3 Activities have been managed Gantt chart must be

All rights reserved ESOFT Metro Campus, Sri Lanka Page 8 of 55

Future Improvements & Assessor Comment:

Internal Verifiers Comments:

Internal Verifier: Signature:

All rights reserved ESOFT Metro Campus, Sri Lanka Page 9 of 55

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... 1

CONTENT OF THE FIGURES ........................................................................................... xi

Appendix A: Evolution of Theories on Intelligence ....................................................... 45

Figure 1:A typical Go board at a middle of a game. ........................................................... 14

Figure 3: Semantic diagram of a man Eating Food. ............................................................ 17

Figure 6: Semantic Network. ............................................................................................... 26

Figure 9: New facts added to modify the program. ............................................................. 29

Figure 19: Demonstration for Task 3.3 ............................................................................... 39

Figure 20: Keyword phase testing. ...................................................................................... 41

Figure 21: Type check phase testing. .................................................................................. 41

Figure 22: Property check phase testing. ............................................................................. 41

Figure 23: Displaying possible terms in the program. ........................................................ 42

Figure 25: Two use-cases of the term 'have'. ....................................................................... 43

Do you agree that computer games with artificial intelligence technologies

Figure 1:A typical Go board at a middle of a game.

Time taken to complete uttering a word or a phrase is a significant factor in games

When using speech communication, output is not generated until a word is

However, it is still acceptable for speech communication to be used as a supportive and an