@themattsimpson Well, Cox’s book is delightful. Lots of funny footnotes. I can see why Rota liked it. “Kultur” he would say.
-
-
@themattsimpson Actually, I’d say don’t read the book. It’s entertaining, but Halpern has shown that the theorem is just utterly false.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@themattsimpson It doesn’t seem to be possible to rescue it, although the underlying intuition is probably approximately correctly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@themattsimpson This makes my exposition more complicated. The point I *want* to make is that Jaynes misunderstood Cox.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@themattsimpson But it turns out
#Bayesianism rests on a drastic misinterpretation of a “theorem” that is itself entirely false. Sigh.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@themattsimpson This always happens when I start digging into some bit of math that people are enthusiastic about.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@themattsimpson I never manage to be cynical enough about how careless and stupid people are.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness @themattsimpson Very eager to hear more about this.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev @themattsimpson Halpern’s papers are http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/jair/pub/volume10/halpern99a.pdf … and http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/jair/pub/volume11/halpern99b.pdf …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@St_Rev @themattsimpson These are referenced by the goddamn wikipedia article on Cox’s theorem… You’d think EY or someone would bother to
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.