tanszek:oktatas:techcomm:information_-_basics:sciences
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
tanszek:oktatas:techcomm:information_-_basics:sciences [2024/09/08 18:08] – [Deductive Sciences] knehez | tanszek:oktatas:techcomm:information_-_basics:sciences [2025/09/15 17:52] (current) – [Inductive Sciences] knehez | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== What is science? ====== | ====== What is science? ====== | ||
- | According to the definition, //science// is understood as the provable and fact-based system of the objective relationships between //nature//, // | + | According to the definition: //Science// is understood as a provable and fact-based system of the objective relationships between //nature//, // |
- | // | + | However, science |
- | //Science// is distinguished from other historically established forms of social consciousness by the following characteristics: | + | //Science// is not just a collection |
- | //Science// has been highlighted because of the following criteria from our historically established | + | Science, among our historically established forms of social |
- | * they possess | + | * It possesses |
+ | |||
+ | | ||
- | * they possess the required | + | * It provides |
- | * they can describe the objective **conditions** under which these principles | + | From a modern engineering viewpoint, these features mean that science is not abstract—it is applied, testable, and useful. Every time an engineer uses mathematical models to optimize a production line, simulates a digital twin of a factory, or analyzes big data to predict outcomes, |
- | ====== Inductive Sciences ====== | + | According to the three general aspects — **principles**, |
- | According to **law**, **conditions** (circumstances), | + | ---- |
+ | |||
+ | ====== Inductive Sciences ====== | ||
**Induction**: | **Induction**: | ||
Line 23: | Line 27: | ||
< | < | ||
flowchart TD | flowchart TD | ||
- | E((Results | + | E((Results)) |
F((Conditions)) | F((Conditions)) | ||
- | T(( | + | T((Principles)) |
E-->T | E-->T | ||
F-->T | F-->T | ||
Line 32: | Line 36: | ||
**Explanation: | **Explanation: | ||
- | Induction is a generalizing method, which means that we seek a universal or general law from a given set of data with fixed conditions. A well-known example of this method is the [[https:// | + | Induction is a generalizing method, which means that we seek a universal or general law from a given set of data with fixed conditions. A well-known example of this method is the [[https:// |
- | The biggest problem with this method is whether we have (or have yet to) carry out sufficient observations to arrive at a general conclusion. | + | The biggest problem with this method is whether we have (or have yet to) carry out //sufficient observations// to arrive at a general conclusion. |
In natural sciences, we are always dealing with partial induction. The more experiments we do, the more confident we will become and the better our chances of understanding the connections. | In natural sciences, we are always dealing with partial induction. The more experiments we do, the more confident we will become and the better our chances of understanding the connections. | ||
Line 44: | Line 48: | ||
**Remark**: Legislative processes are based on an inductive method that analyzes social problems and their causes and makes new laws as a conclusion. | **Remark**: Legislative processes are based on an inductive method that analyzes social problems and their causes and makes new laws as a conclusion. | ||
- | **Example**: | + | ---- |
+ | |||
+ | **Example | ||
**Problem**: | **Problem**: | ||
Line 56: | Line 62: | ||
- **Inductive Hypothesis**: | - **Inductive Hypothesis**: | ||
- **Inductive Step**: We must prove that if the statement holds for a binary tree with \(k\) nodes, then it also holds for a binary tree with \(k+1\) nodes. \\ Suppose we add one more node to the binary tree, bringing the total number of nodes to \(k+1\). When we add this node, we also add exactly one edge connecting the new node to an existing node in the tree (either as a left or right child of a parent node). \\ \\ By the inductive hypothesis, the tree with \(k\) nodes has \((k - 1)\) edges. Adding one more node introduces one additional edge, so the number of edges in the tree with \((k + 1)\) nodes is: $$ (k-1) + 1 = k $$ This matches the formula for the number of edges in a tree with \((k + 1)\) nodes, which should be \((k-1) + 1 = k\). | - **Inductive Step**: We must prove that if the statement holds for a binary tree with \(k\) nodes, then it also holds for a binary tree with \(k+1\) nodes. \\ Suppose we add one more node to the binary tree, bringing the total number of nodes to \(k+1\). When we add this node, we also add exactly one edge connecting the new node to an existing node in the tree (either as a left or right child of a parent node). \\ \\ By the inductive hypothesis, the tree with \(k\) nodes has \((k - 1)\) edges. Adding one more node introduces one additional edge, so the number of edges in the tree with \((k + 1)\) nodes is: $$ (k-1) + 1 = k $$ This matches the formula for the number of edges in a tree with \((k + 1)\) nodes, which should be \((k-1) + 1 = k\). | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Example 2**: Sum of consecutive natural numbers. **Claim**: | ||
+ | |||
+ | $$ 1 + 2 + \cdots + n = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}. $$ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Base case (n=1): | ||
+ | |||
+ | $$ 1 = \frac{1 \cdot 2}{2} = 1, $$ | ||
+ | |||
+ | so the statement holds. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Inductive step**: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Assume the formula is true for \(n = k\): | ||
+ | |||
+ | $$ 1 + 2 + \cdots + k = \frac{k(k+1)}{2}. $$ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Then for \(n = k+1\): | ||
+ | |||
+ | $$ 1 + 2 + \cdots + k + (k+1) = \frac{k(k+1)}{2} + (k+1). $$ | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Simplify**: | ||
+ | |||
+ | $$ \frac{k(k+1)}{2} + (k+1) = \frac{k(k+1) + 2(k+1)}{2} = \frac{(k+1)(k+2)}{2}. $$ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus, the formula also holds for \( n = k+1 \). Thus, by mathematical induction, the formula holds for all \(n\in\mathbb{N}\) | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
====== Deductive Sciences ====== | ====== Deductive Sciences ====== | ||
Line 77: | Line 116: | ||
E((Results)) | E((Results)) | ||
F((Conditions)) | F((Conditions)) | ||
- | T((Laws)) | + | T((Principles)) |
T-->E | T-->E | ||
F-->E | F-->E | ||
Line 86: | Line 125: | ||
Logic can only state that the results will be true if the premises are true (and consistent) and the arguments are logically correct. | Logic can only state that the results will be true if the premises are true (and consistent) and the arguments are logically correct. | ||
- | //Bonus Content//: | + | **Example**: |
János Bólyai – a famous Hungarian mathematician – wrote this famous sentence to his father: | János Bólyai – a famous Hungarian mathematician – wrote this famous sentence to his father: | ||
Line 96: | Line 135: | ||
People in his era were not really convinced by his theories, but today we have already known that our world is one of those which are based on different Euclidean geometrical principles. | People in his era were not really convinced by his theories, but today we have already known that our world is one of those which are based on different Euclidean geometrical principles. | ||
- | {{: | + | {{: |
+ | |||
+ | The quote from [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
====== Reductive Sciences ====== | ====== Reductive Sciences ====== | ||
Line 103: | Line 146: | ||
- | **Explanation**: | + | **Explanation**: |
- | We can face another interpretation of reduction in the classification of elementary scientific problems (the so-called ’Trinity’ of sciences). | + | We can face another interpretation of reduction in classifying |
Line 114: | Line 157: | ||
E((Result | E((Result | ||
F((Condition)) | F((Condition)) | ||
- | T(( | + | T((Principles)) |
T-->F | T-->F | ||
E-->F | E-->F | ||
</ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Example: Database Query Optimization** | ||
+ | |||
+ | When working with databases, especially large-scale systems, an important task is to optimize database queries to ensure they run as efficiently as possible. The main goal is already clear: execute a query in the shortest time possible while minimizing resource consumption (CPU, memory, disk usage). However, there are many possible ways to structure a query, and each structure might result in different performance levels depending on the database engine, indexing, and hardware setup. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Here’s how the concept of **reductive science** applies in this case: | ||
+ | |||
+ | - **Main Principles Known:** | ||
+ | - The query must retrieve specific data based on given conditions (e.g., filtering, joining tables, sorting). | ||
+ | - The performance depends on factors like indexing, table size, query structure, and features of database engine. | ||
+ | - The result of the query must remain the same regardless of the optimization. | ||
+ | - **Seeking Appropriate Conditions: | ||
+ | - **There’s no single “perfect” solution** | ||
+ | - Additionally, | ||
+ | - **Reducing the Number of Conditions: | ||
+ | - Query profiling tools (e.g., EXPLAIN in SQL) to examine how different query structures perform. | ||
+ | - Applying **best practices** like indexing the right columns, minimizing nested queries, and using joins effectively. | ||
+ | - By profiling and tweaking different versions of the query, the developer reduces the number of possible query structures to a few that perform optimally in the given context. | ||
+ | | ||
+ | The //reductive approach// in database query optimization involves narrowing down many possible solutions (query structures) to a few practical ones. The solution can’t simply be inverted from the final result (i.e., retrieving the data); instead, developers use heuristics, profiling, and experience to eliminate inefficient options and find the most effective query structure for their specific environment. |
tanszek/oktatas/techcomm/information_-_basics/sciences.1725818895.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/09/08 18:08 by knehez