For example, the following disquotational principle follows from the reflection principle (by taking contrapositives): P( x ⇐ P(A) ⇐ y) > 0 ----> x ⇐ P(A) ⇐ y The unsatisfying thing is that one direction has “<=” while the other has “<”.
For example, the following disquotational principle follows from the reflection principle (by taking contrapositives):
P( x ⇐ P(A) ⇐ y) > 0 ----> x ⇐ P(A) ⇐ y
The unsatisfying thing is that one direction has “<=” while the other has “<”.
The negated statements become ‘or’, so we get x ⇐ P(A) or P(A) ⇐ y, right?
To me, the strangest thing about this is the >0 condition… if the probability of this type of statement is above 0, it is true!
I agree that the derivation of (4) from (3) in the paper is unclear. The negation of a=b>=c.
Ah, so there are already revisions… (I didn’t have a (4) in the version I read).
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
The negated statements become ‘or’, so we get x ⇐ P(A) or P(A) ⇐ y, right?
To me, the strangest thing about this is the >0 condition… if the probability of this type of statement is above 0, it is true!
I agree that the derivation of (4) from (3) in the paper is unclear. The negation of a=b>=c.
Ah, so there are already revisions… (I didn’t have a (4) in the version I read).