A successful prediction does not weaken a hypothesis.
Also, your argument works just as well for G as for g; therefore, a green emerald is evidence against emeralds being green and against emeralds being grue.
You made an arithmetic mistake. I figured you might want to try and find it yourself, and reasoned: if you do want to be told, you can just ask, but if I had assumed you wanted to be told and was wrong, I couldn’t untell you.
The assumption that P(O) is P(G) + P(g) is also incorrect; there is also the hypothesis that half the emeralds are green, for example. But either way you shouldn’t end up with P(g|O) < P(g).
A successful prediction does not weaken a hypothesis.
Also, your argument works just as well for G as for g; therefore, a green emerald is evidence against emeralds being green and against emeralds being grue.
You made an arithmetic mistake. I figured you might want to try and find it yourself, and reasoned: if you do want to be told, you can just ask, but if I had assumed you wanted to be told and was wrong, I couldn’t untell you.
The assumption that P(O) is P(G) + P(g) is also incorrect; there is also the hypothesis that half the emeralds are green, for example. But either way you shouldn’t end up with P(g|O) < P(g).
It can weaken it relative to a competing hypothesis.