> I'm just saying that "persistent agents" look and behave more like an algorithm that tries all the possibilities rather than a "persistent human".And I'm saying, that is, in fact, not how they work, nor is it that the common perception of how they look and behave. No need to keep returning to "for x in etc..." because modern agents do not do that any more than humans do (and humans do do that - the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act loop).
To simplify, just ask the question: is it continuing to work towards an end, even when challenges are encountered? Yes, therefore, it is persistent. Whatever example you may come up with, you can ask that question, because the definition remains the same.
> As a proof, a postman that visits all the houses in the street to deliver the mail is not persistent
They certainly could be called persistent in delivering the mail, especially whenever it is a nontrivial task (getting past dogs, bad weather, long walking, etc) or they have been doing it for a while. If this is confusing, just go back to the above definition/question: are they continuing to work towards an end, especially when challenges are encountered? Yes, therefore they are persistent. It really is that simple.
Perhaps you are thrown off because so many postfolks are indeed persistent? Being persistent is, after all, what the job requires, rather than them giving up halfway through. This is an important point: the definition of persistent does not require that a postperson be more persistent than other postfolks to be called "persistent". Again: that is not required by the definition or common meaning of "persistent".
And I'm saying, that is, in fact, not how they work, nor is it that the common perception of how they look and behave. No need to keep returning to "for x in etc..." because modern agents do not do that any more than humans do (and humans do do that - the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act loop).
To simplify, just ask the question: is it continuing to work towards an end, even when challenges are encountered? Yes, therefore, it is persistent. Whatever example you may come up with, you can ask that question, because the definition remains the same.
> As a proof, a postman that visits all the houses in the street to deliver the mail is not persistent
They certainly could be called persistent in delivering the mail, especially whenever it is a nontrivial task (getting past dogs, bad weather, long walking, etc) or they have been doing it for a while. If this is confusing, just go back to the above definition/question: are they continuing to work towards an end, especially when challenges are encountered? Yes, therefore they are persistent. It really is that simple.
Perhaps you are thrown off because so many postfolks are indeed persistent? Being persistent is, after all, what the job requires, rather than them giving up halfway through. This is an important point: the definition of persistent does not require that a postperson be more persistent than other postfolks to be called "persistent". Again: that is not required by the definition or common meaning of "persistent".