@themattsimpson Actually, I’d say don’t read the book. It’s entertaining, but Halpern has shown that the theorem is just utterly false.
@themattsimpson Well, Cox’s book is delightful. Lots of funny footnotes. I can see why Rota liked it. “Kultur” he would say.
-
-
-
@themattsimpson It doesn’t seem to be possible to rescue it, although the underlying intuition is probably approximately correctly.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@themattsimpson It’s the all-purpose “Bayesianism rules!” talisman of
#LessWrong; so very glad to hear professionals don’t do that. -
@themattsimpson If it’s only idiots who take Cox’s non-theorem seriously, there’s probably no point debunking it?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@themattsimpson Am going to try to write it today :-)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@themattsimpson FWIW, I am happy to assume there’s a correct axiomatization… My interest is “complete theory of rationality/epistemology.”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@themattsimpson
@GrumplessGrinch@Meaningness@St_Rev Too comprehensible, where to put the approval cutoff.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.