Glen, I am out of my depth here, but ...
I don't think we've been talking about psychological induction, here but logical induction. And I think mathematical induction is actually a species of Deduction. I am in a rush now, but I am putting in this marker in the hope that others will help out. Nick -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:53 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Clarifying Induction Threads 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 ============================================================ 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
