排序方式: 共有2条查询结果,搜索用时 0 毫秒
1
1.
Otto P. van Driel 《Psychometrika》1978,43(2):225-243
In the applications of maximum likelihood factor analysis the occurrence of boundary minima instead of proper minima is no exception at all. In the past the causes of such improper solutions could not be detected. This was impossible because the matrices containing the parameters of the factor analysis model were kept positive definite. By dropping these constraints, it becomes possible to distinguish between the different causes of improper solutions. In this paper some of the most important causes are discussed and illustrated by means of artificial and empirical data.The author is indebted to H. J. Prins for stimulating and encouraging discussions. 相似文献
2.
Constantin Antonopoulos 《Journal for General Philosophy of Science》2004,35(2):235-259
The classical response to Zeno’s paradoxes goes like this: ‘Motion cannot properly be defined within an instant. Only over
a period’ (Vlastos.) I show that this ob-jection is exactly what it takes for Zeno to be right. If motion cannot be defined
at an instant, even though the object is always moving at that instant, motion cannot be defined at all, for any longer period of time identical in content to that instant. The
nonclassical response introduces discontinuity, to evade the paradox of infinite proximity of any point of a distance with any ‘next’. But it introduces the wrong sort of discontinuity because, rather than assuming
the discontinuity of motion, as Quantum Theory does, it assumes the discontinuity of space. Due then to the resulting spacetime disorder, though all else is certainly lost, the Tortoise now turns up at least as fast as Achilles and hence not even this much is
rescued. Zeno rejects motion because he shows that a moving object must be where it is not. Hence motion, if to occur, must
violate the Law of Contradiction (LNC). Applying the concept of quantum discontinuity, I produce an alternative. If an object
is to move discontinuously between two boundary points, A and B, what actually obtains is, rather, that it is nowhere at all in-between A and B. And cannot therefore be at two places in-between A and B. And cannot therefore be where it is not. Thus, LNC is conserved. However, in these conditions,
the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) fails. To mitigate the undesirability of this effect, I show that LEM fails because LNC holds. Thus, the resulting nonbivalent logic, which is also appropriate for quantized transitions of all kinds, will
always turn up nonbivalent, because consistent. And this is not too bad, considering. 相似文献
1