295 research outputs found

    Are chimpanzees really so poor at understanding imperative pointing? Some new data and an alternative view of canine and ape social cognition

    Get PDF
    There is considerable interest in comparative research on different species’ abilities to respond to human communicative cues such as gaze and pointing. It has been reported that some canines perform significantly better than monkeys and apes on tasks requiring the comprehension of either declarative or imperative pointing and these differences have been attributed to domestication in dogs. Here we tested a sample of chimpanzees on a task requiring comprehension of an imperative request and show that, though there are considerable individual differences, the performance by the apes rival those reported in pet dogs. We suggest that small differences in methodology can have a pronounced influence on performance on these types of tasks. We further suggest that basic differences in subject sampling, subject recruitment and rearing experiences have resulted in a skewed representation of canine abilities compared to those of monkeys and apes

    The plight of the sense-making ape

    Get PDF
    This is a selective review of the published literature on object-choice tasks, where participants use directional cues to find hidden objects. This literature comprises the efforts of researchers to make sense of the sense-making capacities of our nearest living relatives. This chapter is written to highlight some nonsensical conclusions that frequently emerge from this research. The data suggest that when apes are given approximately the same sense-making opportunities as we provide our children, then they will easily make sense of our social signals. The ubiquity of nonsensical contemporary scientific claims to the effect that humans are essentially--or inherently--more capable than other great apes in the understanding of simple directional cues is, itself, a testament to the power of preconceived ideas on human perception

    SAVCBS 2003: Specification and Verification of Component-Based Systems

    Get PDF
    These are the proceedings for the SAVCBS 2003 workshop. This workshop was held at ESEC/FSE 2003 in Helsinki Finland in September 2003

    Probability distribution of arrival times in quantum mechanics

    Get PDF
    In a previous paper [V. Delgado and J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3425 (1997)] we introduced a self-adjoint operator T^(X)\hat {{\cal T}}(X) whose eigenstates can be used to define consistently a probability distribution of the time of arrival at a given spatial point. In the present work we show that the probability distribution previously proposed can be well understood on classical grounds in the sense that it is given by the expectation value of a certain positive definite operator J^(+)(X)\hat J^{(+)}(X) which is nothing but a straightforward quantum version of the modulus of the classical current. For quantum states highly localized in momentum space about a certain momentum p00p_0 \neq 0, the expectation value of J^(+)(X)\hat J^{(+)}(X) becomes indistinguishable from the quantum probability current. This fact may provide a justification for the common practice of using the latter quantity as a probability distribution of arrival times.Comment: 21 pages, LaTeX, no figures; A Note added; To be published in Phys. Rev.

    SAVCBS 2004 Specification and Verification of Component-Based Systems: Workshop Proceedings

    Get PDF
    This is the proceedings of the 2004 SAVCBS workshop. The workshop is concerned with how formal (i.e., mathematical) techniques can be or should be used to establish a suitable foundation for the specification and verification of component-based systems. Component-based systems are a growing concern for the software engineering community. Specification and reasoning techniques are urgently needed to permit composition of systems from components. Component-based specification and verification is also vital for scaling advanced verification techniques such as extended static analysis and model checking to the size of real systems. The workshop considers formalization of both functional and non-functional behavior, such as performance or reliability

    SAVCBS 2005 Proceedings: Specification and Verification of Component-Based Systems

    Get PDF
    This workshop is concerned with how formal (i.e., mathematical) techniques can be or should be used to establish a suitable foundation for the specification and verification of component-based systems. Component-based systems are a growing concern for the software engineering community. Specification and reasoning techniques are urgently needed to permit composition of systems from components. Component-based specification and verification is also vital for scaling advanced verification techniques such as extended static analysis and model checking to the size of real systems. The workshop will consider formalization of both functional and non-functional behavior, such as performance or reliability. This workshop brings together researchers and practitioners in the areas of component-based software and formal methods to address the open problems in modular specification and verification of systems composed from components. We are interested in bridging the gap between principles and practice. The intent of bringing participants together at the workshop is to help form a community-oriented understanding of the relevant research problems and help steer formal methods research in a direction that will address the problems of component-based systems. For example, researchers in formal methods have only recently begun to study principles of object-oriented software specification and verification, but do not yet have a good handle on how inheritance can be exploited in specification and verification. Other issues are also important in the practice of component-based systems, such as concurrency, mechanization and scalability, performance (time and space), reusability, and understandability. The aim is to brainstorm about these and related topics to understand both the problems involved and how formal techniques may be useful in solving them

    Possibility of the tunneling time determination

    Full text link
    We show that it is impossible to determine the time a tunneling particle spends under the barrier. However, it is possible to determine the asymptotic time, i.e., the time the particle spends in a large area including the barrier. We propose a model of time measurements. The model provides a procedure for calculation of the asymptotic tunneling and reflection times. The model also demonstrates the impossibility of determination of the time the tunneling particle spends under the barrier. Examples for delta-form and rectangular barrier illustrate the obtained results.Comment: 8 figure

    How much time does a tunneling particle spend in the barrier region?

    Get PDF
    The question in the title may be answered by considering the outcome of a ``weak measurement'' in the sense of Aharonov et al. Various properties of the resulting time are discussed, including its close relation to the Larmor times. It is a universal description of a broad class of measurement interactions, and its physical implications are unambiguous.Comment: 5 pages; no figure

    The mismeasure of ape social cognition

    Get PDF
    In his classic analysis, The Mismeasure of Man, Gould (1981) demolished the idea that intelligence was an inherent, genetic trait of different human groups by emphasizing, among other things, (a) its sensitivity to environmental input, (b) the incommensurate pre-test preparation of different human groups, and (c) the inadequacy of the testing contexts, in many cases. According to Gould, the root cause of these oversights was confirmation bias by psychometricians, an unwarranted commitment to the idea that intelligence was a fixed, immutable quality of people. By virtue of a similar, systemic interpretive bias, in the last two decades, numerous contemporary researchers in comparative psychology have claimed human superiority over apes in social intelligence, based on two-group comparisons between postindustrial, Western Europeans and captive apes, where the apes have been isolated from European styles of social interaction, and tested with radically different procedures. Moreover, direct comparisons of humans with apes suffer from pervasive lapses in argumentation: Research designs in wide contemporary use are inherently mute about the underlying psychological causes of overt behavior. Here we analyze these problems and offer a more fruitful approach to the comparative study of social intelligence, which focuses on specific individual learning histories in specific ecological circumstances
    corecore