leekelly

• leekelly 21 Jul 2011 15:30 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: timtyler’s comment on: [Link] The Bayesian ar­gu­ment against in­duc­tion.

  I linked to the previous post. That begins with something like an abstract: a statement of intent, at least.

  This isn’t an article or a paper: it’s a blog post.

• leekelly 20 Jul 2011 20:00 UTC

  4 points

  on: [Link] The Bayesian ar­gu­ment against in­duc­tion.

  For anyone still following this, I have tried to restate my arguments in a new way here:

  http://​​www.criticalrationalism.net/​​2011/​​07/​​20/​​more-on-inductive-probability/​​

• leekelly 19 Jul 2011 12:58 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Manfred’s comment on: [Link] The Bayesian ar­gu­ment against in­duc­tion.

  Manfred,

  I calculated the result for about three different sets of probabilities before making the original post. The equation was correct each time. I could have just been mistaken, of course, but even Zack (the commenter above) conceded that the equation is true.

  EDIT: Oh, I see now. You have changed all my disjunctions into conjunctions. Why?

• leekelly 19 Jul 2011 1:49 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: Manfred’s comment on: [Link] The Bayesian ar­gu­ment against in­duc­tion.

  Well, it wasn’t actually an equation. That’s why I used the =||= symbol. It was a bientailment. It asserts logical equivalence (in classical logic), and it means something slightly different than an equals symbol. The equation with the plus signs and the logical equivalence shouldn’t be confused.

• leekelly 19 Jul 2011 1:18 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Manfred’s comment on: [Link] The Bayesian ar­gu­ment against in­duc­tion.

  Hi,

  I am the author. It wasn’t a mistranslation. The logical equivalence was not translated into anything. It was merely intended to break down A according to its logical consequences shared with B. I never wrote “P(A v B) + P(A v ~B),” because that would be irrelevant.

• leekelly 18 Jul 2011 22:42 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: DanielLC’s comment on: [Link] The Bayesian ar­gu­ment against in­duc­tion.

  DanielLC,

  Hi, I am the author.

  The =||= just means bientailment. It’s short for,

  A |= (A v B) & (A v ~B) and (A v B) & (A v ~B) |= A

  Where |= means entailment or logical consequence. =||= is analogous to a biconditional.

  The point is that each side of a bientailment is logically equivalent, but the breakdown allows us to see how B alters the probability of different logical consequences of A.