# cheesedaemon comments on Decision theory: Why Pearl helps reduce “could” and “would”, but still leaves us with at least three alternatives - Less Wrong

29 06 September 2009 06:10AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: 07 September 2009 08:41:05PM 1 point [-]

Can anyone explain why Goodman considers this statement to be true:

Hence `If that piece of butter had been heated to 150°F, it would not have melted.' would also hold.

Comment author: 07 September 2009 09:31:16PM *  3 points [-]

Interpreted as truth-functional, "if A then B" is equivalent to "A→B" is equivalent to "~A ∨ B". Which is true whenever A is false, regardless of its relation to B or lack thereof.

Comment author: 07 September 2009 10:05:55PM *  1 point [-]

"If that piece of butter had been heated to 150°F, it would not have melted" can be read as "that piece of butter has not been heated to 150°F, or it did not melt, or both," or "it is not the case that both that piece butter has melted and that piece of butter has been heated to 150°F."