Yes, but the argument doesn't specify "computer sciences".
That is very good but no definition of the general notion of state as used in the argument.
It's not a definition, it's a formal condition on the kind of states which are considered in the context of computer sciences. And then, my argument is more general than computer sciences will ever be.
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pmAnd so I am having a hard time parsing your argument.
"
And so"?!
Sorry, no, that's a non-sequitur.
You can't reasonably assess the validity of an argument by restricting the vocabulary to computer sciences.
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pmEither B is a function of A or it is not.
Irrelevant.
Look at premise 1:
P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of some part of B;
If A is the state of some part of B, it means there is an unknown X which is a part of B and that A is the state of X. That's already very different from your "
Either B is a function of A or it is not".
Whether B is a function of A is obviously irrelevant to the argument and therefore to its validity.
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pm"For all we know" spells modal logic.
So C = g(B)
Sure, but that's not what premise 2 says and so you can't assess validity from there.
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pmAnd B = ◊ f(A)
That bit may be true but it's not part of the argument and therefore is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pmSo C = (◊ f(A) )
It's not what the conclusion says so you can't assess validity from there.
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pmYou are left with 50/50 probability.
Probability of what?!
The argument is about possibility, not probability.
And the OP's question is not about probabilities or even soundness but about the validity of the argument.
So, if you want to post here, please vote and then address the topic.
For the moment, all you say here is either irrelevant or a derail.
EB