Owen Densmore wrote at 03/28/2012 08:20 AM: > All: Did no one discuss the mathematics of induction .. the inductive > proof? Certainly that is accepted by us all, even tho anyone can make a > sequence of a set of N numbers, who's generator can provide any number > for its N+1th number. It is in the fact that the induction works by > proving the N=1 case, assuming the Nth and proving the N+1th from that.
Yep. Doug listed it as one of the types. Personally, I don't regard it as categorically exceptional. It's defining a a predicate and then establishing whether or not new instances belong to the set or not. I suppose I think there are 3 categories: 1) predicative (well-founded), 2) impredicative (non-well-founded), and 3) psychological induction (what most of this conversation is about). -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
