G. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the term logician, that's a better choice. (Just had a
flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian,
maybe I was channeling).
Yeah man, you can get flashbacks
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Fool wrote:
Goethe's arguments:
Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes
along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical. In a
mathematical sense, one could say that it was equally likely or
unlikely that omd sent the
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the term logician, that's a better choice. (Just had a
flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian,
maybe I was channeling).
Yeah man, you can get flashbacks from that sort of thing. Or so I've
heard, I
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the term logician, that's a better choice. (Just had a
flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian,
maybe I was channeling).
Yeah man, you can get flashbacks
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
Although there are no appeals, I do strenuously object to this judgement.
The default assumption is the default because it is
usually accurate. Unless you believe that my brother and I are not in
control of the theagoranundead Gmail account, something
You should have injected them with an emergency hit of information theory.
Instant clarity.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 27 Jun 2013 02:08, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the
On 25/06/2013 4:34 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The UNDEADtheagoranund...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not register. I propose repealing rule 327.
Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't
want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :)
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
Furthermore I fail to see how even the mathematician's (thought it was
supposed to be logician's) version of the argument is sound. The reference to
the principle of indifference instead makes it sound like some sort of
Bayesian reasoning. But let me put my
8 matches
Mail list logo
