Completeness Theorem of Information Precedence: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Preface == | == Preface == | ||
Wiki transcription of original with editing of grammar up to the Analysis §. | |||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
Notice that the theorem states only that each relevant information [element] ''can'' be determined by precedence analysis starting at some operating station. | Notice that the theorem states only that each relevant information [element] ''can'' be determined by precedence analysis starting at some operating station. There is no guarantee that it ''will'' be determined because the individual precedence analysis steps are intuitive procedures, or search procedures, which cannot be guaranteed to be complete. In other words the method has been prove[n] to be complete in the weak sense that any information that ''can be found by some means can also be found by the precedence analysis as described.'' Whether it actually ''will'' be found depends on ''how'' the precedence analysis is performed. Nevertheless, the likelihood that an information [element] which is relevant will actually be found seems higher when precedence analysis is used because it allows a concentrated effort on one [element] and its precedents at a time. It also allows a more systematic documentation, which can also be processed on a computer. | ||
== Analysis == | |||
In a modern context, current technology as well as the advancement of experience and perspective with info sytems allows us to fill in the gaps and give a solid foundation to the above with technology such as Haskell, Prolog, RDF, etc. | |||
== Notes == | == Notes == | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
