Sorry for the confusion, but I couldn’t recast your argument in any formal language whatsoever.
Sorry too. That was my risk of inventing a notion on the spot. The original comment started using excessive “believes X” which I basically replaced. I’m not aware of/trained in a notation to compactly write nested probability assertions.
I’m still trying to resolve the expansion and nesting issues I totally glossed over.
What is B[a][b]? b believes that a believes B or a believes that b believes that B?
[] is like a parameterized suffix. It could be bracketed as X[a][b] = (X[a])[b] if that is more clear. I just lent this from programming languages.
So what does B[a] mean? B[a] means are are reasoning about the probability assignment P_a(B) of the actor a and we ask for variants of P(P_a(B)=p).
First: I glossed about a lot of required P(...) assuming (in my eagerness to address the issue) that that’d be clear from context.
In general instead of writing e.g.
P((A & B)[p]) ~= P(A[p] & B[p])
I just wrote
(A & B)[P] ~= A[P] & B[P]
What is B0(a)? It is the same as B[a]?
No. the 0 was meant to indicate an apriori (which was hidden in the fragment “a) an aprioi B0 of a person”).
Instead of writing the needed probability that Bobs prior probability of B is b (needed in the orig post) as
P_{Bob}(B) = b
I just wrote
B0(Bob)
That is informally I represented my belief in the prior p of another actor in some fact F as a fact in itself (calling it F0) instead of representing all beliefs of the represented actor as relative to that (P(F)=p).
This allowed me to simplify the never written out long form of P(B|X(Bob)). On this I’m still working.
What is X0(a)? It is the same as X[a], so that X is a relational variable?
Yes. For all prior belief expressions X0 it is plausible to approximate other persons prior probability to be less strict than your own.
Is X(a) different from X[a]?
Yes. X(a) is the X of person a. This is mostly releant for the priors.
What I now see after trying to clean up all the issues glossed over is that this possibly doesn’t make sense. At least not in this incomplete form. Please stay tuned.
I will! The main problem (not in your post, in the general discussion) seems to me that there’s no way to talk about probabilities and beliefs clearly and dependently, since after all a belief is the assignment of a probability, but they cannot be directly targeted in the base logic.
Sorry too. That was my risk of inventing a notion on the spot. The original comment started using excessive “believes X” which I basically replaced. I’m not aware of/trained in a notation to compactly write nested probability assertions.
I’m still trying to resolve the expansion and nesting issues I totally glossed over.
[] is like a parameterized suffix. It could be bracketed as X[a][b] = (X[a])[b] if that is more clear. I just lent this from programming languages.
Note: There seems to be a theory of beliefs that might applicable but which uses a different notion (looks like X[a] == K_aX): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_modal_logic
So what does B[a] mean? B[a] means are are reasoning about the probability assignment P_a(B) of the actor a and we ask for variants of P(P_a(B)=p).
First: I glossed about a lot of required P(...) assuming (in my eagerness to address the issue) that that’d be clear from context. In general instead of writing e.g.
P((A & B)[p]) ~= P(A[p] & B[p])
I just wrote
(A & B)[P] ~= A[P] & B[P]
No. the 0 was meant to indicate an apriori (which was hidden in the fragment “a) an aprioi B0 of a person”). Instead of writing the needed probability that Bobs prior probability of B is b (needed in the orig post) as
P_{Bob}(B) = b
I just wrote
B0(Bob)
That is informally I represented my belief in the prior p of another actor in some fact F as a fact in itself (calling it F0) instead of representing all beliefs of the represented actor as relative to that (P(F)=p).
This allowed me to simplify the never written out long form of P(B|X(Bob)). On this I’m still working.
Yes. For all prior belief expressions X0 it is plausible to approximate other persons prior probability to be less strict than your own.
Yes. X(a) is the X of person a. This is mostly releant for the priors.
What I now see after trying to clean up all the issues glossed over is that this possibly doesn’t make sense. At least not in this incomplete form. Please stay tuned.
I will!
The main problem (not in your post, in the general discussion) seems to me that there’s no way to talk about probabilities and beliefs clearly and dependently, since after all a belief is the assignment of a probability, but they cannot be directly targeted in the base logic.
Puh. And I feared that I came across as writing totally unintellegible stuff. I promise that I will put some more effort into the notation.