Agreement Analogy

The legal analogy may also be based on more than one legal provision, or even a legal mind. In the latter case, it is called analogy iuris (of the law in general) as opposed to the legislation by analogy (from a particular provision or legal provision). The analogy (from Greek, analog, “proportion,” from ana- to, after, [also “against,” “anew” – logos “ratio” [also “word, language, calculus”[1]]) is a cognitive process of transmitting information or meanings from a particular subject (or source) to another (objective) or linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In the strict sense, the analogy is a conclusion or argument of one to the other, as opposed to inference, initiation and abduction, in which at least one of the premises or conclusion is general in nature and not particular. The term analogy can also refer to the relationship between the source and the goal itself, which is often (but not always) a similarity, as in the biological idea of analogy. Where there is addiction and thus the interaction between a couple or more of the biological or physical communication of the participants and describe the tensions produced internal models within the participants. Pask asserts in his theory of conversation that there is an analogy that presents both similarities and differences between each pair of internal models or concepts of the participants. This is unattractive in artificial intelligence, as it requires a calculation on Turing`s abstract machines. Suppose Ms and Mt are local theories of source and target that are available to the observer. The best analogy between a source case and a target case is the analogy that minimizes: a physical prototype is often created to model and represent another physical object. For example, wind tunnels are used to test wing balance models and aircraft that serve as an analogy with large wings and airplanes.

Antoine CornuĂ©jols[19] presented the analogy as a principle of profitability and mathematical complexity. An analogy can be indicated with, and as in the representation of the analog relationship between two pairs of expressions, for example, “smile is in the mouth, as a wink.” In the field of mathematics and logic, this can be double-formalized to represent relationships, using a single double point for the ratio and a double for equality. [22] On the contrary, Ibn Taymiyya,[7][9] [9] Francis Bacon and later John Stuart Mill argued that the analogy was simply a particular case of induction. [6] From their point of view, the analogy is an inductive succession of known attributes to another probable common attribute, which is known only on the source of the analogy, in the following form: Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle used a broader notion of analogy. They saw analogy as a common abstraction. [6] Similar objects did not necessarily have a relationship, but also an idea, motive, regularity, attribute, effect or philosophy. They also accepted that comparisons, metaphors and “images” (allegories) could be used as arguments, and sometimes they called them analogies. The analogies should also make these abstractions easier to understand and give confidence to those who use them. First, the precedent (the case law) allows us to draw analogies from precedents (in the past, if not decided). The judge in this case may find that, in this case, the facts are similar to those of a precedent, to the extent that the results of these cases are justified, whether identical or similar.