Wrong. If all black boxes do obey their specified formulas, then every single time you call the other person a liar, you will be wrong. P(wrong|”false”) ~ 1.
Ok, bear with me. cousin_it’s claim was that P(wrong|boxes-obey-formulas)<=.1, am I right? I get that P(wrong|”false” & boxes-obey-formulas) ~ 1, so the denial of cousin_it’s claim seems to require P(“false”|boxes-obey-formulas) > .1? I assumed that the point was precisely that the frequentist procedure will give you P(“false”|boxes-obey-formulas)<=.1. Is that wrong?
Ok, bear with me. cousin_it’s claim was that P(wrong|boxes-obey-formulas)<=.1, am I right? I get that P(wrong|”false” & boxes-obey-formulas) ~ 1, so the denial of cousin_it’s claim seems to require P(“false”|boxes-obey-formulas) > .1? I assumed that the point was precisely that the frequentist procedure will give you P(“false”|boxes-obey-formulas)<=.1. Is that wrong?
My claim was what Eliezer said, and it was incorrect. Other than that, your comment is correct.
Ah, I parsed it wrongly. Whoops. Would it be worth replacing it with a corrected claim rather than just striking it?
Done. Thanks for the help!