Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:53:51.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A universal inductive inference machine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Daniel N. Osherson ,
Michael Stob  and
Scott Weinstein
Daniel N. Osherson
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
Michael Stob
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
Scott Weinstein
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A paradigm of scientific discovery is defined within a first-order logical framework. It is shown that within this paradigm there exists a formal scientist that is Turing computable and universal in the sense that it solves every problem that any scientist can solve. It is also shown that universal scientists exist for no regular logics that extend first-order logic and satisfy the Löwenheim-Skolem condition.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 661 - 672
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barwise, J. and Feferman, S. (editors) [1985], Model theoretic logics, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Chang, C. C. and Keisler, H. J. [1973], Model theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H.-D. [1985], Extended logics: the general framework, in Barwise and Feferman [1985], pp. 25–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flum, J. [1985], Characterizing logics, in Barwise and Feferman [1985], pp. 77–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. [1985], Inductive inference in the limit, Erkenntnis, vol. 22, pp. 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haussler, D. and Pitt, L. (editors) [1988], Proceedings of the 1988 workshop on computational learning theory, Morgan-Kaufmann, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
Kelly, K. T. [1990], General characterizations of inductive inference over arbitrary sets of data presentations, Report No. CMU-LCL-90-1, Laboratory for Computational Linguistics, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Osherson, D. and Weinstein, S. [1989], Paradigms of truth detection, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 18, pp. 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osherson, D. and Weinstein, S. [1990], Notes on hierarchies and inductive inference, Technical Report No. MS-CIS-90-33, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Rivest, R. and Haussler, D. (editors) [1989], Proceedings of the second annual workshop on computational learning theory, Morgan-Kaufmann, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. [1967], Theory of recursive functions and effective computability, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Shapiro, E. [1981], An algorithm that infers theories from facts, Proceedings of the seventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-81), Vol. 1, William Kaufmann, Los Altos, California, pp. 446–451.Google Scholar