Relations Between Concepts
- Finite thickness implies finite elasticity; the converse is not true.
- Finite elasticity and conservatively learnable implies the existence of a mind change bound.
- Finite elasticity and M-finite thickness implies the existence of a mind change bound. However, M-finite thickness alone does not imply the existence of a mind change bound; neither does the existence of a mind change bound imply M-finite thickness.
- Existence of a mind change bound implies learnability; the converse is not true.
- If we allow for noncomputable learners, then finite elasticity implies the existence of a mind change bound; the converse is not true.
- If there is no accumulation order for a class of languages, then there is a language (not necessarily in the class) that has infinite cross property within the class, which in turn implies infinite elasticity of the class.
Read more about this topic: Language Identification In The Limit
Famous quotes containing the words relations between, relations and/or concepts:
“All social rules and all relations between individuals are eroded by a cash economy, avarice drags Pluto himself out of the bowels of the earth.”
—Karl Marx (1818–1883)
“She has problems with separation; he has trouble with unity—problems that make themselves felt in our relationships with our children just as they do in our relations with each other. She pulls for connection; he pushes for separateness. She tends to feel shut out; he tends to feel overwhelmed and intruded upon. It’s one of the reasons why she turns so eagerly to children—especially when they’re very young.”
—Lillian Breslow Rubin (20th century)
“Institutional psychiatry is a continuation of the Inquisition. All that has really changed is the vocabulary and the social style. The vocabulary conforms to the intellectual expectations of our age: it is a pseudo-medical jargon that parodies the concepts of science. The social style conforms to the political expectations of our age: it is a pseudo-liberal social movement that parodies the ideals of freedom and rationality.”
—Thomas Szasz (b. 1920)