Re: Proving of classical syllogisms
From: N (mimo_545_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/24/05
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Qke_Persson?=: "Proving of classical syllogisms"
- Next in thread: N: "Re: Proving of classical syllogisms"
- Reply: N: "Re: Proving of classical syllogisms"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 24 Feb 2005 15:42:09 -0800
Åke Persson <ok.person@swipnet.se> wrote in message news:<xl0Sd.26078$Of5.16885@nntpserver.swip.net>...
I've just been reading New Scientist;
'Too much information' p.33.(Mark Buchanan)
its about'cellular automata'. Basically the article
describes the way in which they can be used to predict
occurrances.
"There are 256 distinct sets of rules for such one
dimensional automata"
The article goes on to say;-
"Perhaps most boldly, physicist Jim Crutchfield of the
Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico has devised a scheme
that he believes could predict links between the past and
future for virtually any system."
The article is accompanied by a graphic which has 4
blocks, an upper row of 3, the lower has one.
There are 8 permutations from which a divers number
of fractals are possible depending upon the repeat.
(I assume that the patterns don't have to be repeated
so the final outcome of the 'form' can be various)
I have been reading up about 3d, perception,and enquiring
into the way neurons connect to one another and 'remember',
how they can 'compute', how we perceive sets, ordinals
and cardinal numbers and how geometry is mapped.
(this looked good, www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~clifford/introduction/intro/intro.html)
I was wondering, (if a syllologism is 'a logical arguement in
three propositions, two premises and a conclusion that follows
necessarily from them'), if these arguements could be mapped
to a three dimensional 'platonic' form ? Is this an old idea ?
any answers much appreciated,
Yours,
N.
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Qke_Persson?=: "Proving of classical syllogisms"
- Next in thread: N: "Re: Proving of classical syllogisms"
- Reply: N: "Re: Proving of classical syllogisms"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|