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

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 04:14:27 GMT

Message-ID: <DMMig.20488$A26.470316_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 04:14:27 GMT

Message-ID: <DMMig.20488$A26.470316_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

vc wrote:

*> Keith H Duggar wrote:
**> [Irrelevant stuff skipped]
**>
*

> Assuming Bayesian treatment (which was not specified originally, mind

*> you), the derivation is still meaningless. Let's try some argument
**> from authority:
*

[snip]

Your whole dismissal, as I recall, depends on your observation:

> P(B|A) def P(A and B)/P(A) > > the requirement for such definition being that P(A) <>0, naturally.

Keith used the equivalent definition:

P(A and B) = P(B|A)P(A), which places no requirements on P(A) because one does not divide by P(A).

Thus, both of Keith's proofs were entirely valid because he neither inferred nor concluded using the indeterminate P(B|A). He made the valid conclusion that P(A and B) = 0 when P(A) = 0. Received on Sun Jun 11 2006 - 06:14:27 CEST