Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Programming is the Engineering Discipline of the Science that is Mathematics
vc wrote:
> Keith H Duggar wrote: >
> > The informal statement above should be read metaphorically rather than > literally. PT aint' no logic due to lack of truth functionality, and > the 'reduction' to logic, which you've failed to prove by the way, is > possible only in trivial and uninteresting cases.
Are you seriously suggesting that true and false are trivial and uninteresting? Should we all pack up and go home?
>>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.
> > What Jaynes did in his derivation of the sum/product rules has got > nothing to do with your mindless playing with formulas. See the > argument from authority in my previous messages.
Your argument from authority was flawed. I will reply in the other thread.
>>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."
>>
>>-- Keith --
>>
>>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).
> > That's assuming that P(p1|p2) even makes sense. More general > formulation of such independence is just P(p1 and p2) = P(p1)* P(p2).
The formulation is neither more general nor less general. It is, in fact, a simple substitution of the equation describing independence:
(1) P(p1|p2) = P(p1)
into the formula for conditional probability:
(2) P(p1 and p2) = P(p1|p2)*P(p2)
Substitute (1) into (2) gives P(p1 and p2) = P(p1)*P(p2) Received on Sat Jun 10 2006 - 23:01:46 CDT