The only thing it demonstrates is that I get deduction and induction confused. I stand corrected. My basic point remains. :) ----- Original message ----- > According to wikipedia, Deduction is the process of working from known > patterns to prove the validity of a statement, so the result is logically > valid as long as all of the premises are valid. Induction, on the other > hand, is the process of working from a set of statements to find a > pattern, but the result may be false even if all the premises are true, > because new information could potentially contradict that pattern. > > Not to be confused with mathematical induction, which is a bit more meta, > and consists of proving that a pattern *must* be true in all cases by > constructing an infinite series of data points that follow the pattern > but can be shown to be true without knowing the pattern. > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Buddha Buck <blaisepascal@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Shadowfirebird > > <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Since the game is about logical deduction based on an iterative > > > process > > of > > > the master marking koans, then it follows that (if you are playing > > fairly) > > > the master's rule should be discoverable using only that process. > > > > I suggest you read Kory Heath's writings on the design of the game, > > since this paragraph illustrates some fundamental misunderstanding of > > the point of the game. > > > > Specifically, the game is not about logical deduction, but rather > > about logical *induction*, a completely different process. > > _______________________________________________ > > Icehouse mailing list > > Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse > >