@semiotechnic Once you start saying X *more* likely than Y, you are quantifying. Seems unavoidable common sense.
-
-
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10@semiotechnic ...cardinal model supporting any given ordinal quantification, but it's not clear whether you'd gain any info.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@semiotechnic >... if you choose Red Sox, seems to imply you think Red Sox victory has prob > 1/20 M.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10@semiotechnic ...but I don't think that implies that P(red sox victory) is quantifiable.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@semiotechnic P(Red Sox Victory) is BOTH non-quantifiable AND has prob greater than 1/20M?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10@semiotechnic Yes. You're mistaking abuse of notation for proof. Here P and > are shorthand for looser concepts of likelihood.9 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@semiotechnic My point is you can "sandwich" P(RedSoxVic) between two classic lottery probabilities... odd to say incommensurate.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10@semiotechnic I distinguished earlier between ordinal and cardinal likelihood. Compare to utility theory. To say u(X) > u(Y)...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@semiotechnic What I find odd is that you are willing to say "a > X > b" but also "X is a completely different thing from a & c."3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@simplic10 @semiotechnic 0 < (0.2,0.8) < 1. The interval (0.2,0.8) is a different thing from 0 and 1.
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.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.