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

From: vc <boston103_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 11 Jun 2006 06:57:13 -0700
Message-ID: <1150034233.126373.180260_at_y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Bob Badour wrote:
> 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|B)
....

Please see the book for details.

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

>
> In the case of P(A) = 0, P(A and B) = 0 and P(B|A) is indeterminate,
> which is to say, we don't care what it's value might be and it could be
> any real number; although, as a probability, we restrict it to real
> numbers in the range [0...1].
>
> 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 - 15:57:13 CEST

Original text of this message