🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <14820@paris.ics.uci.edu> Wendy Sarrett writes:
 
<>"induction" is the process of generalizing from lots of examples. For
<>example, suppose you see a number of examples of ducks and they are
<>all grey ( isa-duck -> grey) then you would conclude for all ducks,
<>isa-duck -> grey.  Note that there is also induction in mathematics
<>where if you can show (where A is a set) (1 in A) and (n in A) -> (n+1
<>in A) then you can conclude for all n, n in A.
 
<>Note that both "abduction" and "induction" are not "safe" forms of
<>inference as "deduction" is. (i.e. you can't be 100% certain your
<>inference is correct)

Clearly the first form of induction given is not a logically valid
deduction. I am surprised to here that the SECOND isn't, since MANY
mathematical proofs rest upon it. Have I perhaps misunderstood your
assertion?

						R.
-- 
Ray Tigg                          |  Cognos Incorporated
                                  |  P.O. Box 9707
(613) 738-1338 x5013              |  3755 Riverside Dr.
UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp            |  Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4