Recent content by yeet991only

Suppose this expression : ((A ∨ ~B) ∨ (C -> D)) This simplifies to : A + ~B + ~C + D , using boolean algebra. Now suppose i know that this expression is true: p( ((A ∨ ~B) ∨ (C -> D)) ) = 1; and I also know that p(A) = 0.3 , p(B) = 0.99 , p(C) = 0.92 . but the probability of the expression is...

Suppose this example: You said a joke to a girl. She didn't laugh (let this be behaviour/evidence E). Was this because she is mad at you (let it be M) or because she didn't get the joke (let it be NJ , and it be 1 - p(M) = p(NJ)). So we have just 2 hypotheses M and NJ that is all. Now how to...

I see your point. Why can't you just assume it was just noise in the data and that it will get to 0.5 : 0.5 eventually? Clearly if you think that the player down has an advantage, you would need to assume more things. For example: Why he would get an advantage now? Who helped him? What causes...

Hey I don't understand your example. Why wouldn't the 5th set be a even bet? I don't know tennis rules, but why wouldn't the players have a even chance to win? ( they are both 2-2 before the 5th , it's fairly even).

How is that a framework. All you are doing is multiplying and dividing ratios. Is all probability theory just that? No way to use a mix of mathematical logic and probability?

My question is in general about subjective probabilities. (The title of the thread is how to make quick qualitative predictions). Why won't math work with subjective probabilities?? My question is not about assessments, I need a mathematical framework.

Hey Dale, I have read your post and that's why I posted on this forum. Regarding your first point, I think that more explanatory power actually means the opposite , it means more simple. See wikipedia. Is it wrong? Let's think of Ockham razor as Kahnemann's Linda example. As other guys on...

Ok , so is it like: p(hypothesis1) = 0.6 given it has 10 assumptions and p(hypothesis2) = 0.92 given it has 2 assumptions??? supposing they have equal explanatory power. is this what you mean MORE LIKELY? it doesnt guarantee it , it is a probability.

I asked in this reddit post the same question, and i got the answer that this is not a "law" and it is just preferable for a hypothesis to be more simple (something like Einstein quotes you hear). Yet I am still not convinced and I wanted to ask here. I saw on this website this "insight" post...