Argument forms — The form of inference an ARG makes, and with it the critical questions that inference has to survive (Walton’s argumentation schemes). An ARG answers each question in its body or is objected to (ADR-032).
Application of a formal result — a theorem or model applied to a new domain. Critical questions: does the mapping premise hold? Are the model’s assumptions met in the new domain?.
5 of 52 ARG documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARG-006 v3 | If the transport intertwines each framing operation exactly, it intertwines their commutator, so a translation that preserves the framing operations preserves their noncommutativity | A34 §4: from ΦA_o = A_tΦ and ΦB_o = B_tΦ, Φ[A_o,B_o] = [A_t,B_t]Φ follows algebraically. The algebra holds; the conclusion holds only of Φ’s image unless Φ is informative (A40 §6.4). | Active |
| ARG-017 v2 | A constant kernel fits any one source–target pair, so one pair does not identify the procedure-level fidelity score | The derivation behind CLAIM-228: for one source–target pair a constant kernel makes the per-item term zero, so one pair does not identify the procedure-level score. It holds for CLAIM-228’s version 2 title. As an inference to version 1’s title, that observational fidelity “is not defined” for a single rendering, it failed, and CLAIM-200 granted that. | Proposed |
| ARG-019 v2 | Blackwell’s order on rendering procedures grounds the thesis that what survives translation is what a receiver can reconstruct | CLAIM-115 rests on CLAIM-050, so the manuscript’s thesis about what a receiver can reconstruct takes Blackwell’s order as its formal ground. That order describes a decision-maker free to use any rule, and the thesis and its tests are about bounded receivers. Since CLAIM-199 and CLAIM-050’s version 4 the order is the ceiling on what a rendering makes possible, so the inference is narrowed, not defeated. CLAIM-225 undercuts it. | Proposed |
| ARG-023 | The Yoneda lemma shows that relations constitute what a communicative act is | The Yoneda lemma fixes an object up to isomorphism from its whole hom-functor, and it is read as the formal version of “an object is determined by its relations”. It fixes the object only among objects the category already has, so it presupposes the relata. It cannot establish constitution, and it gives elimination of the relata no support. CLAIM-150 undercuts it. | Rejected |
| ARG-041 | From the effective-information bound and its ties to proportionality: a gain that depends on the intervention distribution is not a property of the system, the coarse-grainings that lose nothing are, and the coarsest of them is where the causes are | How the record went from THEORY-787, Hoel, Albantakis and Tononi’s causal emergence, to CLAIM-497, proportionality. Two results the record derived on 2026-10-29 are applied to the question of where a system’s causes are. One is the bound (THEORY-1167). The other is its ties, which are causal feature learning’s partitions (THEORY-1169). One further premise is interpretive: that the coarsest lossless description is the causal one. Proposed for that premise. | Proposed |