Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Programming is the Engineering Discipline of the Science that is Mathematics

Re: Programming is the Engineering Discipline of the Science that is Mathematics

From: Keith H Duggar <duggar_at_alum.mit.edu>
Date: 10 Jun 2006 01:04:23 -0700
Message-ID: <1149926663.743280.70290@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>


> vc wrote:

[snip VI crap]

In order to give vc a specific equation reference to stare at, I had to pull out my copy of

"Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" by E. T. Jaynes

Reminded of what an excellent book it is (even though sadly Jaynes died before completing it), I started reading the first few chapters again. I ran across this statement by Jaynes:

  "Aristotelian deductive logic is the limiting form of our   rules for plausible reasoning, as the robot becomes more   certain of its conclusions."

This is nearly an exact paraphrase of my original comment which vc vociferously and ignorantly attacked. Chapter 2 of the book also contains derivations nearly identical to those I have posted here that vc called "mindless playing with formulas". So at least I'm in good company, vc, you vociferous ignoramus.

Bob Badour, you mentioned in this thread that you "feel cheated that [your] education failed to teach [you] enough useful statistics". I don't know how much time you have to study these days but I would like to recommend Jaynes' book and also for an introduction focusing on practical use:

"Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial" D. S. Sivia

I think you will find that learning probability theory from the Cox perspective will radically improve and simplify your understanding of both statistics and probability theory. The same advice goes for anyone out there in a similar situation. Reading the first few chapters of both Sivia and Jaynes as well as Jaynes' appendix "Other Approaches To Probability Theory" makes for a great start.

After reading those you will think "why the frak didn't they teach me this in school."

PS. Let me also take this opportunity to correct a typo in my previous post before the VI has a mental orgasm.

Keith H Duggar wrote:
> No but you claimed "P(p1 and p2) is not equal P(p1)*P(p1)
> in general" which is of course pointing to the possibility
> of p1 and p2 being dependent which is of course equivalent
> to a conditional statement P(p1|p2) = P(p1).

that should have been P(p1|p2) != P(p1). Received on Sat Jun 10 2006 - 03:04:23 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US