@Meaningness I agree with everything in the article so far, and I work in the area of combining probability and logic. (skimming some)
-
-
-
@abramdemski good! Please let me know if you find any errors, or have other feedback! - 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@Meaningness @themattsimpson This is based on misunderstanding. 'For all' and 'exists' are defined in prop. logicpic.twitter.com/C31gMNyUuX
-
@vladtarko @themattsimpson No. This equivalence only works in a finite domain. - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
TBH, I’m not sure how common these misconceptions are—but they were foundational for the
#LessWrong worldview, which has had some influence. -
“Cox’s Theorem” is something you may have heard me ranting about obscurely. This, finally, is my explanation: http://meaningness.com/probability-and-logic …
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@Meaningness I’d say you have to give a nod to the most important and useful thing that is “like” probability theory: quantum mechanics. -
@Meaningness Aaronson (natch) has a good overview of what kind of generalization of probability quantum mechanics is: http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html … - 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@wargfranklin :-) any advice about how to proceed?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@Meaningness More intuitively: syllogisms are described with set th, which is expanded into fuzzy sets, & prob th is special case of fuzzy -
@vladtarko No, fuzzy is a different, incompatible system. - 1 more reply
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.
“Probability theory does not extend logic”: I dispel some common rationalist misconceptions!