Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!pc.ecn.purdue.edu!cb.ecn.purdue.edu!kavuri
From: kavuri@cb.ecn.purdue.edu (Surya N Kavuri )
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: abduction vs. induction
Message-ID: <967@cb.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 24 May 89 04:43:44 GMT
References: <1480@crin.crin.fr <14820@paris.ics.uci.edu> <6144@cognos.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 20

In article <6144@cognos.UUCP>, rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) writes:
> 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,

> Clearly the first form of induction given is not a logically valid
>....
> Ray Tigg                          |  Cognos Incorporated

  One should be careful to distinguish between mathematical induction 
  and induction used otherwise(as in Physical sciences, ...)
  Mathematical induction is logically derivable, atleast in concept, in 
  that it is essentially applying deduction infinitely.

  Abduction may be logically invalid, but under the closed world assumption
  it is empirically valid.  
                                               SURYA KAVURI
                                               (FIAT LUX)