Sorry for my incompleteness. I should have stated that G&W say the schema is for a *solved* abduction problem. What you're describing is the exploration of the *inverse* map. Using the conclusion, you infer the premise(s) that fit. I'd hoped it would be obvious this is possible with the connect the dots game. It should be easy to imagine a field of dots and thinking something like "That could be a face. All it needs is an extra dot for the nose."
G&W mention this in general when they say:
⊢ can be treated as a relation which gives with respect to Τ *whatever* property the investigator (the abducer) is interested in Τ's having, and which is not delivered by Δ alone or by {A_(n+j)} alone.
On 8/22/19 5:50 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
I always thought that abduction had the form "If A entails B then the presence/occurrence of B makes it more Likely that A is present/has occurred." I don't see how that is represented by the formalism you quoted, however.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
