This should be finitely additive probability measures, right? Just saying “probability measure” usually means countably additive.
I’ll defer to the paper here, which states
Denition 1 (Coherence). We say that P is coherent if there is a probability measure over models of L such that P(phi)=mu({M:M models phi})
That said, I’m not aware of a reason why we should require P be backed by a finitely additive probability measure.
This should be finitely additive probability measures, right? Just saying “probability measure” usually means countably additive.
I’ll defer to the paper here, which states
That said, I’m not aware of a reason why we should require P be backed by a finitely additive probability measure.