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:
“Consciousness, we shall find, is reducible to relations between objects, and objects we shall find to be reducible to relations between different states of consciousness; and neither point of view is more nearly ultimate than the other.”
—T.S. (Thomas Stearns)
“So soon did we, wayfarers, begin to learn that man’s life is rounded with the same few facts, the same simple relations everywhere, and it is vain to travel to find it new.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“During our twenties...we act toward the new adulthood the way sociologists tell us new waves of immigrants acted on becoming Americans: we adopt the host culture’s values in an exaggerated and rigid fashion until we can rethink them and make them our own. Our idea of what adults are and what we’re supposed to be is composed of outdated childhood concepts brought forward.”
—Roger Gould (20th century)