= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AlexMennen comments on Logical uncertainty, kind of. A proposal, at least. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (35)
Oh, I see. Do you know whether you can get different answers by atomizing the statements differently. For instance, will the same information always give the same resulting probabilities if the atoms are A and B as it would if the atoms are A and A-xor-B?
Not a problem if A and B are correlated. I assume you mean P('AB')>min(P(A), P(B))?
Ah, right. Or even P('AB')>P(A).
You can't get different probabilities by atomizing things differently, all the atoms "already exist." But if you prove different theorems, or theorems about different things, then you can get different probabilities.