Hey Glen,
Yes, on the first issue with respect to the Axiom of Choice, I think the
word "choice" there does not map one-for-one to the same word used in
probability theory. I think the two concepts are mutually exclusive, but
this may be beyond my "pay grade" to worry or talk about. 🤐
However, I
Well, my question hasn't been addressed satisfactorily. But I sincerely
appreciate all the different ways everyone has tried to talk about it. My
question is about language, not math or statistics. I'm adept enough at those.
What I'm having trouble with in the argument (the guy's name is St
Well, sure. But the point is that the axiom of choice asserts, merely, the
existence of the ability to choose a subset. They call them "choice
functions", as if there exists some "chooser". But there's no sense of time
(before the choice function is applied versus after it's applied). The n
;
>
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> wimber...@gmail.com wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu
> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Hi Glen, et al,
Thanks for cashing mu $0.02 check. :-)
When I wrote that "but it doesn't have to be" I wasn't asserting that
probability theory is devoid of events. Events are fundamental to
probability theory. They are the outcomes to which probability is
assigned. In a nutshell, the practice
(505) 670-9918
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:36 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] probability vs. statistics (was Re: Model of induction)
Ha! Yay!
And I completely agree with Eric. But we can language it real simply and
intuitively by just looking at what a probability space is. For further
simplicity lets keep it to a finite probability space. (Neither a finite
nor an infinite one says anything about "time".)
A finite probability space
Ha! Yay! Yes, now I feel like we're discussing the radicality (radicalness?)
of Platonic math ... and how weird mathematicians sound (to me) when they say
we're discovering theorems rather than constructing them. 8^)
Perhaps it's helpful to think about the "axiom of choice"? Is a "choosable"
Ack! Well... I guess now we're in the muck of what the heck probability and
statistics are for mathematicians vs. scientists. Of note, my understanding
is that statistics was a field for at least a few decades before it was
specified in a formal enough way to be invited into the hallows of
mathemat
Thanks! Everything you say seems to land squarely in my opponent's camp, with
the focus on the concept of an action or event, requiring some sort of
partially ordered index (like time). But you included the clause "but doesn't
have to be". I'd like to hear more about what you conceive probab
Hi Glen,
I feel a bit like Nick says he feels when immersed in the stream of such
erudite responses to each of your seemingly related, but thread-separated
questions. As always, though, when reading the posted responses in this
forum, I learn a lot from the various and remarkable ways questions c
Glen,
On closer reading of the issue you are interested in, and upon
re-consulting the sources I was thinking of (Bunge and Popper), I can
see that neither of those sources directly address the question of
whether time must be involved in order for probability theory to come
into play. Nevert
Yes, definitely. I intend to bring up deterministic stochasticity >8^D the
next time I see him. So a discussion of it in the context QM would be helpful.
On 12/13/2016 10:54 AM, Grant Holland wrote:
> This topic was well-developed in the last century. The probabilists argued
> the issues thor
Glenn,
This topic was well-developed in the last century. The probabilists
argued the issues thoroughly. But I find what the philosophers of
science have to say about the subject a little more pertinent to what
you are asking, since your discussion seems to be somewhat ontological.
In particu
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] probability vs. statistics (was Re: Model of induction)
Excellent! My opponent will be very happy when I make that concession. It's
interesting that, for this argument, I've adopted the Platonic perspective
despite being a constructivist myself. And it's i
Excellent! My opponent will be very happy when I make that concession. It's
interesting that, for this argument, I've adopted the Platonic perspective
despite being a constructivist myself. And it's interesting that my current
position (that the math world is extant and static) seems to rely
I don't have an answer per se, but I have some relevant information:
Back in the early days of statistics, one could become a pariah in the eyes
of the field if it became suspected one had surreptitiously used Bayes'
Theorem in a proof. This was because the early statisticians believed
future even
17 matches
Mail list logo
