Joe,
Thanks for the corrections. I think I wasn't distinguishing
"responsibility" from "contribution". Also, as to "the" cause, my
sloppiness. Your paper I believe provides a minimal "without which not",
but it is of course relative to other variables. Thanks for the reminder
about Eiter etc.'s proof that X is of size 1.
}> does not need to make that assumption. [determinism]
}
}You may be right, but it's not obvious exactly how the deifnitions
}should be modified if the structural equations are probabilistic rether
For actual causation, I don't know. For type/general causation, it's a
matter of getting "difference making" right.
-Charles
--
Charles R. Twardy, Res.Fellow, Monash University, School of CSSE
ctwardy at alumni indiana edu +61(3) 9905 5823 (w) 5146 (fax)
"Incongruous places often inspire anomalous stories." -- S.J. Gould
