Jesse Mazer wrote:
I don't think that's a good counterargument, because the whole concept of
probability is based on ignorance...
No, I don't agree! Probability is based in a sense on ignorance, but you
must make full use of such information as you do have. If you toss a fair
coin, is Pr(heads)
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
I don't think that's a good counterargument, because the whole concept of
probability is based on ignorance...
No, I don't agree! Probability is based in a sense on ignorance, but you
must make full use of such information as you do have.
Of course--
At 11:54 06/10/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
To avoid confusion between my Switch belief function and the one you use,
let me rename my three state switch belief function from B to S.
So now, what I had expressed in an earlier post as qBp becomes qSp, where
q is the switch control line, p is the i
Jesse Mazer wrote:
I don't think that's a good counterargument, because the whole concept of
probability is based on ignorance...
No, I don't agree! Probability is based in a sense on ignorance, but you
must make full use of such information as you do have.
Of course--I didn't mean it was based
Addition to my last post:
(1) The original game: envelope A and B, you know one has double the amount
of the other, but you don't know which. You open A and find $100. Should
you switch to B, which may have either $50 or $200?
(2) A variation: everything is the same, up to the point where you ar
This has been an interesting thread so far, but let me bring it back to
topic for the Everything List. It has been assumed in most posts to this
list over the years that our current state must be a "typical" state in some
sense. For example, our world has followed consistent laws of physics for
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Sorry Jesse, I can see in retrospect that I was insulting your intelligence
as a rhetorical ploy, and we >shouldn't stoop to that level of debate on
this list.
No problem, I wasn't insulted...
You say that you "must incorporate whatever information you have, but no
mor
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
> Suppose that according to X-Theory, in the next minute the world will split
> into one million different versions, of which one version will be the same
> sort of orderly world we are used to, while the rest will be worlds in which
> it will be immediately obvious t
8 matches
Mail list logo
