= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Benja comments on Reflection in Probabilistic Logic - 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 (171)
Right, here's what's going on. The statement in the paper is,
The idea is not that this whole statement is an axiom schema. Instead, the idea is that the schema is the collection of the axioms%20%3C%20b)
for all rational numbers a,b and sentences phi such that %20%3C%20b)
. The full statement above is saying that each instance of this schema is assigned probability 1. (From what I remember of a previous conversation with Paul, I'm pretty confident that this is the intended interpretation.) The language in the paper should probably be clearer about this.
That makes sense...