Sentence examples for argument formulation from inspiring English sources

Using categories identified from human multi-agent negotiation, we demonstrate how the logic can be used to specify argument formulation and evaluation.

The hole argument as formulated in Earman and Norton (1987) applies to all local spacetime theories and that includes generally covariant formulations of virtually all known spacetime theories.

It is important to stress, however, that the argument receives other formulations.

In this respect, the treatment bears similarities to approaches in theoretical physics, where symmetry properties are often used as main arguments in the formulation of physical theories of the world.

Because our power allocation algorithm maps the average power parameter to the resource in the Lagrangian formulation, an argument analogous to the theorem presented there can be used to show that the configurations that minimize the Lagrangian for a particular and the configurations that maximize the utility for the average power that corresponds to that are the same.

In its starkest formulation, the argument comes down to this: with the end of the cold war, there is no need to begin yet another drawn-out arms control negotiation with a Russia that is no longer an enemy.

By a similar argument, the axis-symmetric formulation of Eq. (2) becomes: begin{aligned}& frac{1}{r} frac{partial}{partial r} biggl( r frac{partial phi _{g}}{partial r} biggr) + frac{partial^{2} phi_{g}}{partial z^{2}} = -4 pi G Deltarhoquad text{in } mathbb {R}^{2}, text{ with } phi_{g}=0 text{ at infinity,} & Delta g = -frac{partialphi_{g}}{partial z}.

The main theodicies to consider are the free will argument (including Plantinga's formulation of it) and the soul-making theodicy (as presented by John Hick).

We reveal how one simple Lagrange duality argument allows the re-formulation as a parameterized positive real design problem.

(Both of these arguments receive a clearer formulation and more extensive treatment in Broad (1938).)[10] Broad's later account of time differs in some significant respects from both of the earlier accounts.

A good way of underlining the basic point here is by setting out an alternative formulation of the argument from evil in which it is granted, for the sake of argument, that there is an omnipotent and omniscient person.