For the sake of economic usage of memory storage we will assume the simplest inductions between SPs. Yet, in the coming phenomena we may notice that the induction does not describe well the relation between the SPs. We might find that although we have the induction "smell_x always come with sound_y", we might notice that in the coming observations sound_y do not follow smell_x. This will cause refutation of the induction, and we will have to try to create a new induction or forget the refuted induction. If we want to suggest a more complex induction we may look at our stored relations between SPs, and see that when smell_x was not followed by sound_y, a touch-feeling_z did occur just before the appearance of smell_x. Therefore we may suggest the following induction " smell_x always come with sound_y unless touch-feeling_z occur just before smell_x".

Now From the sets of stored memory about SPs we may suggest many different inductions that may describe the occurence of SPs, but yet again for the sake of simplicity, it will have be better to suggest use the simplest induction possible to describe all the maximum observable SPs.This Process of suggesting induction, refutation and resuggesting a more complex induction. We may look at our stored relations between SPs, and see that when smell_x was not followed by sound_y, is a touch-feeling_z did occur just before the appearance continued process of smell_x. Therefore we may suggest the following induction " smell_x always come with sound_y unless touch-feeling_z occur just before smell_x"creating knowledge.