Sentence examples for hypotheses of form from inspiring English sources

Now consider those hypotheses of form 'F[A,B] = r' for r in the interval between.99 and 1.

It is a Weak Law of Large Numbers result that establishes that each frequency hypothesis of form 'F[A,B] = r' implies, via direct inference likelihoods, that randomly selected sample data is highly likely to result in sample frequencies very close to the value r that it claims to be the true frequency.

Since the hypothesis of Forms is offered next, with its corollary of participating particulars, it would seem that the logoi are opinions about Forms.

Instead he turns to what he describes as a method of hypothesis, the first of which is the hypothesis of Forms as causes (see $sect;2 supra), and its 'first corollary', that particulars are/come-to-be what each is in virtue of partaking in Forms.

Here he cites Goodman (1955) to demonstrate that some hypotheses of the form, "(x)(Fx ⊃ Gx)", are not confirmable even by instances of the kind "Fc" and "Gc".

Using this new concept, we consider the detection problem with the hypotheses of the form H 0 : z ( t ) = w ( t ), t ∈ [ 0, T ] H 1 : z ( t ) = ∫ 0 t x ( s ) ds + w ( t ), t ∈ [ 0, T ]. with x t) a known continuous quaternion signal and w(t) the general quaternion Wiener process.

Since the initial hypothesis is the theory of Forms, it is uncertain what Plato has in mind in mentioning hypotheses 'higher' than the theory or what sort of test he has in mind.

Next, consider a general linear hypothesis of the form H 0 : H β = 0 versus H A : H β ≠ 0 (11).

Consider also that, to evaluate a hypothesis of the form e 1, …, e n → P, one must perform experiments in which only e 1, …, e n hold, to see whether P occurs or not (plus other control experiments in which some of the antecedent conditions are varied).

These assumptions come in two forms: those that state that for the data at hand, a K d is too large or small to be distinguished from infinity or zero, respectively, and those that state that the data are too weak to rule out a null hypothesis of the form K d = K ′ d.

With DNA, evolutionary biologists can corroborate or refute relationships inferred from morphology and generate new insights about the tree of life while enabling us to test hypotheses about the evolution of form and function.