That’s untrue—a biased coin might well still happen to produce 50% heads and 50% tails given a certain finite number of trials.
Manfred’s point is that the frequentist is not using “probability” to stand for “frequency of occurrence”, but to stand for “imaginary frequency of occurrence in an infinite number of trials”—otherwise the frequentist position would be blatantly false for the reason that I pointed out.
That’s untrue—a biased coin might well still happen to produce 50% heads and 50% tails given a certain finite number of trials.
Manfred’s point is that the frequentist is not using “probability” to stand for “frequency of occurrence”, but to stand for “imaginary frequency of occurrence in an infinite number of trials”—otherwise the frequentist position would be blatantly false for the reason that I pointed out.
Ok, now I understand what you are saying.
I wrote my update here
Ok, so the frequentest is giving the right answer given the question he is being asked about hypothetical infinite frequencies.
How does this do in light of this comment ?