L.Fine at lycos.co.uk (Acme Debugging) wrote in message news:<35fae540.0305011251.188e4c3a at posting.google.com>...
> > So the answer to your
> >question must necessarily lie elsewhere....
>> Don't understand this part. Could you repeat the question?
>
I think incorporating probabilities into a reasoner is not sufficient
by itself, but I don't know what the "ultimate reasoner" is :) It's
probably "common-sense reasoner"!
