Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Ok That Helps..

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Tim on May 2, 2003 18:39:01 UTC

Dr. Stafford states:
". Let me add additional unknowable data such that every possible observation consists of a unique pattern even after any arbitrary element is removed from that observation. If that fact is true, then the value of the removed element may be determined via the rule and the remainder of the pattern. The situation may be represented mathematically in the form"

he speaks of every possible observation consists of a unique pattern, i suppose those patterns are x1,x2,x3...xN

and that this remains true even after any arbitrary pattern(he said element) is removed from (my words) the collection of observational patterns. that part being removed i assume is xN-1 .

hence xN = f(x1,x2,x3,...xN-1)

can it be viewed as i've state? or am i missing something.

regards tim

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins