Yes, the discussion goes on to say that
Well, this one is just straightforwardly wrong, I think. If the new Law one says the same thing, then it’s also straightforwardly wrong… “This is a consistent set of axioms” does not imply that it applies to anything, much less to everything. Separate question from tractability.
-
-
I don't think EY would disagree with that statement. I've read both of you extensively, and I strongly suspect your interpretive difficulties are coming from implicitly believing that you must have a major substantive disagreement with EY, when in fact you mostly don't.
-
That is quite possible! Neither of us seems to be able to make any sense of what the other says, which I find quite puzzling. (Maybe he does too.)
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
(It was specifically in the context of statistics.)
-
Ah, well, that’s a different matter. I have no dog in the frequentist vs Bayesian stats fight.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.