Vita:QuILT offers

Abstracts from customized discussions with Students (text parts just from the conductors):

Starting level

In order to approximate the KNUTH's principle, it would be nice to have attributes for comparing/evaluating versions of expert systems = EXS (for the same problem). Therefore a specific (not obligatory:-) offer e.g. for you:

• there will be a lot of EXS-versions (=objects) about the same content
• task Nr.1 = a lot of attributes of these objects should be defined (name, description of the measurement, unit, direction)
• task Nr.2 = each version should be evaluated based on each single attribute (what leads to an OAM = object-attribute-matrix)
• task Nr.3 = the best version should be derived based on the OAM
• task Nr.4 = one of the still not ideal EXS-version (object) should be re-designed so, that the new version will not be the same as one of the already available EXS-versions and the redesigned version will be at least norm-like
• task Nr.5 = the whole process should be documented in a detailed way (= online publication )
• Motto: EXSs are services - and we want to design better and better services...

The general question is: what kind of detailed conclusions can be derived based on the XLSX (e.g. https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/expert_system.xlsx)? e.g.

• What is better: the compact version or the version on the worksheet "further versions"?
• Why seems to be necessary to have more columns for the conclusions than just a single one?
• Is the compact version error-free?
• Is it possible/necessary to derive the conclusions based on formulas?
• ...

Reaction level

• tasks/offers are unusual
• hard to solve
• what should be made in an operative level?
  • redoing tasks
  • finalizing tasks
• is a solution wrong?

Conclusion level

• Worth interpreting:
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNHBMFCzznE
  • BTW: The customized co-operation should be ensure effectivity and efficiency of the learning processes...
• First of all:
  • Offers are facultative tasks. Nobody has any responsibilities...
  • Offers are just possibilities.
• On the other hand:
  • Redoing a task would/could mean: the solution was wrong, but not a single solutions can be seen as wrong, yet: mostly each solution could be made better and better
  • Finishing a task would/could mean: the solution will become excellent, but mostly not a single solutions can be seen as the final truth, it means again and again: mostly each solution could be made better and better
  • The offers from me should make possible to find (together) a task where not just the surface but a lot of details could be interpreted mostly in form of a (common?:-) publication
  • unusual tasks = new challenges to have have the chance to be "better" (to see more complex)... BUT each task may be refused/rejected....
  • A new joke in Hungary says: Blond woman = I will never drive to a place where I have been never before... (Conclusion: this lady will stay on the spot for ever:-)
  • EXS-offer before: (1) this course tries to support the change of thinking methodologies - it means: we always need evaluation rules like a navigation system needs an objective function (e.g. fastest route, shortest route, etc.) in order to be capable of ranking alternative routes ---- in our particular case: in order to be capable of ranking expert systems
  • EXS-offer before: (2) this offer is a kind of task needing to solve by conductors - but to be a conductor is just a role - everybody should be able to play each potential roles... :-)
  • Operative summary:
    • There is no obligation
    • There are just possibilities (these emails could be seen as a kind of customized test and/or co-operation)
  • Wrong or correct?
    • These black and white evaluations are not relevant here and now.
    • Good-Better-Best... this is a scale, where we have to go on step by step...
• Please, do not forget:
  • Conductors have hardly declarations contrary to teachers....
  • Conductors are just a kind of "silent" observers (who initiate situations to create possibilities for common activities)
  • Declarations should be swotted / crammed (= literaly known) - but situative games should "just" interpreted.
  • Declarations are mostly not the final truth. Own interpretations are the best signs for the development of competences...
• Worth reading?!
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT_offers#Offers_during_the_courses
  • https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-IK057-Diary#Advanced_version