[FRIAM] abduction and casuistry

glen∈ℂ gepropella at gmail.com
Fri Aug 23 11:26:37 EDT 2019

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.

More information about the Friam mailing list