That suggests you mean A. Well then, it seems to me that terms are
being used in this discussion so that probability theory is
_defined_ as giving the right answers in all cases. So the
original question boils down to "is it always best to give
approximately the right answers?"; the answer is then trivially yes.
I do mean A, but I don't think it is so trivial to prove, even
though it is conceptually obvious...
See, my definition of "obeying probability theory" had to do with the
consistency-with-probability-theory of the system's **local actions**.
So the question comes down to: In what cases is the best approach to
goal-achievement **approximate local rationality** in each individual
judgment (where judgments are taken as implicit in action selections)?
It is not obvious (to me) that this will be the case for all goals
and all resource restrictions, though I do think it will very often
be the case...
-- Ben
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
