Stream thrust averaging - Revision history

en>Wavelength: inserting 1 hyphen: —> "three-dimensional"—wikt:three-dimensional

2014-02-21T22:10:50Z

inserting 1 hyphen: —> "three-dimensional"—wikt:three-dimensional

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{expand lead|date=November 2009}}
+fee to watch your webinar at their convenience. Once it is in place, [http://www.comoganhardinheiro101.com/?p=90 como ganhar dinheiro] promotion and possibly answering questions will be your only tasks. <br><br><br>Make money online by selling your talents. Good music is always in demand and with today's technological advances, anyone with musical talent can make music and offer it for sale [http://www.comoganhardinheiro101.com/?p=10 como ganhar dinheiro na internet] to a broad audience. By [http://Www.Comoganhardinheiro101.com/como-ganhar-dinheiro-pela-internet/ setting] up your own website and using social media for promotion, you can share your music with others and sell downloads with a free PayPal account.<br><br>Getting paid money to work online isn't the easiest thing to do in the world, but it is possible.
-==Properties==
+  Here is more info about [http://comoganhardinheiropelainternet.comoganhardinheiro101.com/ como ganhar dinheiro] look into http://comoganhardinheiropelainternet.comoganhardinheiro101.com/ If this is something you wish to work with, then the tips presented above should have  como conseguir dinheiro helped you. Take some time, do things the right way and then you can succeed. Start your online [http://www.comoganhardinheiro101.com/?p=8 como ganhar dinheiro pela internet] earning today by following the great advice discussed in this article. Earning money is not as hard as it may seem, you just need to know how to  [http://ganhandodinheironainternet.comoganhardinheiro101.com/ como ganhar dinheiro] get started. By choosing to put your right foot forward, you are heading off to a great start earning money to make ends meet.<br><br>It's easy to make money online. There is truth to the fact that you can start making money on the Internet as soon as you're done with this article. After all, so many others are making money online, why not you?
-and the so-called '''Gabbay-Makinson''' rules:
+ Keep your mind open and you can make a lot of money. As you [http://www.comoganhardinheiro101.com/?p=16 como conseguir dinheiro] can see, there are many ways to approach the world of online income. With various streams of income available, you are sure to find one, or two, that can help you with your income needs. Take this information to heart, put it to use and build your own online success story.

92.244.170.244: Citation link replacement. Previous link to Glenn Research Center was broken. Replace with more reliable link to NASA TRS.

2013-02-18T17:07:16Z

Citation link replacement. Previous link to Glenn Research Center was broken. Replace with more reliable link to NASA TRS.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 18 February 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~40 yrs old Engineering Manager Sternberg~~ from ~~Haliburton~~, ~~loves~~ to ~~spend some time wall art~~, [~~http~~://~~comoganhardinheiropelainternet~~.~~comoganhardinheiro101~~.~~com~~/ ~~como ganhar dinheiro~~] ~~na internet~~ and ~~sketching~~. ~~Will shortly undertake~~ a ~~contiki tour~~ that ~~will include planing~~ a ~~trip to~~ the ~~Anjar~~.		{{expand lead\|date=November 2009}}
			In [[logic]], a '''rational consequence relation''' is a [[non-monotonic logic\|non-monotonic]] [[consequence relation]] satisfying certain properties listed below.

			==Properties==
			A rational consequence relation satisfies:
			:; REF : [[Reflexive relation\|Reflexivity]] <math>\theta \vdash \theta</math>

			and the so-called '''Gabbay-Makinson''' rules:

			:; LLE : Left Logical Equivalence <math>\frac{\theta \vdash \psi \quad \theta \equiv \phi}{\phi \vdash \psi}</math>
			:; RWE : Right-hand weakening <math>\frac{\theta \vdash \phi \quad \phi \models \psi}{\theta \vdash \psi}</math>
			:; CMO : Cautious [[Monotonic logic\|monotonicity]] <math>\frac{\theta \vdash \phi \quad \theta \vdash \psi}{\theta \wedge \psi \vdash \phi}</math>
			:; DIS : [[Logical or]] (ie disjunction) on left hand side <math>\frac{\theta \vdash \psi \quad \phi \vdash \psi}{\theta \vee \phi \vdash \psi}</math>
			:; AND : [[Logical and]] on right hand side <math>\frac{\theta \vdash \phi \quad \theta \vdash \psi}{\theta \vdash \phi \wedge \psi}</math>
			:; RMO : Rational monotonicity <math>\frac{\phi \not\vdash \neg\theta \quad \phi \vdash \psi}{\phi \wedge \theta \vdash \psi}</math>

			==Uses==

			The rational consequence relation is [[monotonic logic\|non-monotonic]], and the relation <math>\theta \vdash \phi</math> is intended to carry the meaning ''theta usually implies phi'' or ''phi usually follows from theta''. In this sense it is more useful for modeling some everyday situations than a [[monotone consequence relation]] because the latter relation models facts in a more strict boolean fashion - something either follows under all circumstances or it does not.

			===Example===
			The statement ''"If a cake contains sugar then it tastes good"'' implies under a monotone consequence relation the statement ''"If a cake contains sugar and soap then it tastes good."'' Clearly this doesn't match our own understanding of cakes. By asserting ''"If a cake contains sugar then it '''usually''' tastes good"'' a rational consequence relation allows for a more realistic model of the real world, and certainly it does not automatically follow that ''"If a cake contains sugar and soap then it usually tastes good."''

			Note that if we also have the information ''"If a cake contains sugar then it usually contains butter"'' then we may legally conclude (under CMO) that ''"If a cake contains sugar and butter then it usually tastes good."''. Equally in the absence of a statement such as ''"If a cake contains sugar then usually it contains no soap''" then we may legally conclude from RMO that ''"If the cake contains sugar and soap then it usually tastes good."''

			If this latter conclusion seems ridiculous to you then it is likely that you are subconsciously asserting your own preconceived knowledge about cakes when evaluating the validity of the statement. That is, from your experience you know that cakes which contain soap are likely to taste bad so you add to the system your own knowledge such as ''"Cakes which contain sugar do not usually contain soap."'', even though this knowledge is absent from it. If the conclusion seems silly to you then you might consider replacing the word ''soap'' with the word ''eggs'' to see if it changes your feelings.

			===Example===

			Consider the sentences:
			*''Young people are usually happy''
			*''Drug abusers are usually not happy''
			*''Drug abusers are usually young''

			We may consider it reasonable to conclude:

			*''Young drug abusers are usually not happy''

			This would not be a valid conclusion under a monotonic deduction system (omitting of course the word 'usually'), since the third sentence would contradict the first two. In contrast the conclusion follows immediately using the Gabbay-Makinson rules: applying the rule '''CMO''' to the last two sentences yields the result.

			==Consequences==

			The following consequences follow from the above rules:

			:;MP : [[Modus ponens]] <math>\frac{\theta \vdash \phi \quad \theta \vdash \left( \phi \rightarrow \psi \right)}{\theta \vdash \psi}</math>
			::MP is proved via the rules AND and RWE.

			:;CON : Conditionalisation <math>\frac{\theta \wedge \phi \vdash \psi}{\theta \vdash \left(\phi \rightarrow \psi \right)}</math>

			:;CC : Cautious Cut <math>\frac{\theta \vdash \phi \quad \theta \wedge \phi \vdash \psi}{\theta \vdash \psi}</math>
			::The notion of Cautious Cut simply encapsulates the operation of conditionalisation, followed by MP. It may seem redundant in this sense, but it is often used in proofs so it is useful to have a name for it to act as a shortcut.

			:;SCL : Supraclassity <math>\frac{\theta \models \phi}{\theta \vdash \phi}</math>
			::SCL is proved trivially via REF and RWE.

			==Rational consequence relations via atom preferences==

			Let <math>L = \{p_1, \ldots , p_n\}</math> be a finite language. An atom is a formula of the form <math>\bigwedge_{i=1}^n p^\epsilon_i</math> (where <math>p^1 = p</math> and <math>p^{-1} = \neg p</math>). Notice that there is a unique valuation which makes any given atom true (and conversely each valuation satisfies precisely one atom). Thus an atom can be used to represent a preference about what we believe ought to be true.

			Let <math>At^L</math> be the set of all atoms in L. For <math>\theta \in</math> [[Sentential logic\|SL]], define <math>S_\theta = \{\alpha \in At^L \| \alpha \models^{SC} \theta \}</math>.

			Let <math>\vec{s} = s_1, \ldots , s_m</math> be a sequence of subsets of <math>At^L</math>. For <math>\theta</math>, <math>\phi</math> in SL, let the relation <math>\vdash_\vec{s}</math> be such that <math>\theta \vdash_{\vec{s}} \phi</math> if one of the following holds:
			#<math>S_\theta \cap s_i = \emptyset</math> for each <math>1 \leq i \leq m</math>
			#<math>S_\theta \cap s_i \neq \emptyset</math> for some <math>1 \leq i \leq m</math> and for the least such i, <math>S_\theta \cap s_i \subseteq S_\phi</math>.

			Then the relation <math>\vdash_\vec{s}</math> is a rational consequence relation. This may easily be verified by checking directly that it satisfies the GM-conditions.


			The idea behind the sequence of atom sets is that the earlier sets account for the most likely situations such as ''"young people are usually law abiding"'' whereas the later sets account for the less likely situations such as ''"young joyriders are usually not law abiding"''.

			===Notes===
			#By the definition of the relation <math>\vdash_\vec{s}</math>, the relation is unchanged if we replace <math>s_2</math> with <math>s_2 \setminus s_1</math>, <math>s_3</math> with <math>s_3 \setminus s_2 \setminus s_1</math> ... and <math>s_m</math> with <math>s_m \setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^{m-1} s_i</math>. In this way we make each <math>s_i</math> disjoint. Conversely it makes no difference to the rcr <math>\vdash_\vec{s}</math> if we add to subsequent <math>s_i</math> atoms from any of the preceding <math>s_i</math>.

			==The representation theorem==
			It can be proven that any rational consequence relation on a finite language is representable via a sequence of atom preferences above. That is, for any such rational consequence relation <math>\vdash</math> there is a sequence <math>\vec{s} = s_1, \ldots , s_m</math> of subsets of <math>At^L</math> such that the associated rcr <math>\vdash_\vec{s}</math> is the same relation: <math>\vdash_\vec{s} = \vdash</math>

			===Notes===
			#By the above property of <math>\vdash_\vec{s}</math>, the representation of an rcr <math>\vdash</math> need not be unique - if the <math>s_i</math> are not disjoint then they can be made so without changing the rcr and conversely if they are disjoint then each subsequent set can contain any of the atoms of the previous sets without changing the rcr.

			==References==

			* [http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/~jeff/theses/lee-hill.ps A mathematical paper in which the GM rules are defined]


			[[Category:Logical consequence]]
			[[Category:Mathematical relations]]
			[[Category:Non-classical logic]]

en>RjwilmsiBot: /* References */Fix cite template param names, firts3 -> first3, using AWB (7701)

2011-05-17T20:13:47Z

References: Fix cite template param names, firts3 -> first3, using AWB (7701)

New page

40 yrs old Engineering Manager Sternberg from Haliburton, loves to spend some time wall art, [http://comoganhardinheiropelainternet.comoganhardinheiro101.com/ como ganhar dinheiro] na internet and sketching. Will shortly undertake a contiki tour that will include planing a trip to the Anjar.