MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Wednesday October 29, 2025
Jump to navigationJump to search
20 bytes removed
, 16:54, 6 March 2009
| Line 576: |
Line 576: |
| | | | |
| | ==Note 12== | | ==Note 12== |
| | + | |
| | + | On first examination of our present example we made a likely guess at a form of rule that |
| | + | would account for the finite protocol of states that we observed the system <math>X\!</math> passing through, as spied in the light of its boolean state variable <math>x : X \to \mathbb{B},</math> and that rule is well-formulated in any of these styles of notation: |
| | | | |
| | <pre> | | <pre> |
| − | Way back in DATA Note 3, we guessed, or "abduced",
| |
| − | as a line of logicians from Aristotle to Peirce
| |
| − | and beyond would say, the form of a rule that
| |
| − | adequately accounts for the finite protocol
| |
| − | of states that we observed the system X
| |
| − | pass through, as spied in the light of
| |
| − | its boolean state variable x : X -> B,
| |
| − | and that rule is well-formulated in
| |
| − | any of these styles of notation:
| |
| − |
| |
| | 1.1. f : B -> B such that f : x ~> (x) | | 1.1. f : B -> B such that f : x ~> (x) |
| | | | |