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

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 04:01:46 GMT

Message-ID: <KAMig.20486$A26.470258_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

vc wrote:

> Keith H Duggar wrote: >

*>>>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."*

> > 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 Sun Jun 11 2006 - 06:01:46 CEST