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)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
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).