Questions about the model for non-deductive inferences

Hello Avner, and thank you for the comments. 1. If money has the power to do something that a bill or a chuppah does not, then it is more powerful. This is a reasonable explanation for the case. Especially since the kiddush of money is learned from the field of Kinan. I didn’t understand the comment from the fraternity in Emma. 2. I think in the chapter dealing with ink we discuss the relationship between column and row considerations and show that it should give the same thing. There are subtleties there, and it’s hard to get into that here. As far as I remember, when you go over the subtleties you’ll see that there is equivalence between the presentations. 3. I think we have explained why intuitively the topological parameters are significant (we defined them a priori and only later saw that it really works. That is, there is an internal logic in their relevance to deciding inference). In principle, they all point to simplicity (expressions of Ockham’s razor). These parameters point to connections between the parts of the graph, and the more connections there are and the shorter and more directional they are, the simpler the picture. Regarding the example of the diagrams with two vertices, I didn’t understand. When there is an arrow between the points, there is one parameter (alpha and two alphas) ​​and not two (alpha and beta). Reminder that we are solving for a minimal model (the simplest). The first is better both in terms of dimension and in terms of constraints. And it is completely intuitively clear that the picture of the constrained diagram is simpler. Here it is really Occam’s razor, because without an arrow there are two parameters and two independent columns, and with an arrow there is one parameter and the columns are dependent (i.e. one is a function of the other). It’s like a straight line is simpler than a parabola (a graph with two parameters). 4. I didn’t completely understand the argument. But it’s certainly possible that there are options for additional models. From your description, I didn’t understand why the second CV has two parameters (beta and gamma). The CV diagram has only one parameter. 5. There are usually intuitive assumptions regarding the connection between the causes (or microscopic parameters) and the (halakhic) results. Pleasure adds to the ability to sanctify, not subtracts. Contrary to what one might think, we do not come to a tabula rasa conclusion, if only because of the fact that we decided which columns to include in the same table and which not. ——————————————— Asks: Hello and thanks for the answers. You’ve answered my questions a bit: 1. At the end of the issue, they try to refute the equal side by arguing that everyone has a “Bak”, and then Rav Huna rejects this by saying that money is possible “Bak” only in the mother but not in the person, and therefore it is irrelevant. It seems to me that the same argument could be made against the claim that money can redeem a second tithe. It is irrelevant because I will not forget who they are. 2. Let’s look at the following table for example (excerpt from the first KV): You can see that the line diagram of fill 0 and fill 1 are identical. Both have two points in the TL, m and h. 3. I understand why the topological consideration indicates simplicity in the graphic sense of the diagram, but if we try to think of the diagram as a parable and the collection of halachic events as a parable – then I have difficulty understanding the parable. For example, let’s look at the following diagram (I didn’t write what the relevant data table is, but one can be invented): What is important is that according to the model, it is clear that we should choose option 1 on the left (which includes an arrow between C and A) because of the constraints. But it’s not clear why – why would we prefer to say that C has a combination of alpha and beta, why is it simpler than saying that there is only beta? 4. Let’s look at the following table, it consists of two different KWs added together (this can be done from any two KWs that exist in the world) Filling in 1 in both places will give the diagram: And we see that D should take a combination of two microscopic parameters instead of twice beta. That’s a little strange. Thank you very much, and sorry for the quality of my diagrams. —————————————- Rabbi: 1. There is money in the company only in the mother and not in the husband. Identify a positive figure (it is known that there is no money in the husband). You suggested a negative interpretation that perhaps redemption is not relevant to the husband. 2. If you look in the chapter on ink (I think it’s there) you’ll see that the way the row diagram is constructed is different from the column diagram. It’s a delicate calculation, and I don’t have time to go into it now. 3. Topological simplicity is not just another tool that is concerned with expressing the complexity of the parameters. The graph and the parameters (dimension) are two different criteria. Therefore, the fact that both diagrams have two parameters does not mean that they are equivalent. The complexity of the diagram itself is also a criterion and is the decisive one. 4. On the surface, it seems to me that you are right, and that high values ​​should be allowed in one parameter in each subgraph. But this requires more thought.