Proof that absence of evidence is evidence of absence

File: 740 KB, 600x529, 1514908113876.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Proof that absence of evidence is evidence of absence Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:15:45 2018 No.9492512 [Reply] [Original]

guys I've proven that absense of evidence is evidence of absence.
what should I so with this discovery?

the only assumption necessary for this proof is that none of the events have a probability of 0 of occuring.
let x be some event and e be an event which makes x more likely when e is true , aka evidence for x so P(x|e)>P(x) and let x' and e' be the complements/negation of x and e and let <=> denote a 2 way implication, in other words "if and only if"
then P(x|e)>P(x) <=> 1-P(x|e)<1-P(x) <=> P(x'|e) <P(x') call this result (1.)
then start again with P(x|e)>P(x) <=> by bayes theorem P(e|x)P(x)/P(e) > P(x) <=> P(e|x) > P(e) now apply result (1.) <=> P(e'|x) < P(e') <=> by bayes theorem P(x|e')P(e')/P(x) < P(e') <=> P(x|e') < P(x) <=> applying result 1 again P(x'|e') > P(x')
Q.E.D.

So e being evidence for x is equivalent to not e being evidence for not x.
And before you complain that absence does not mean negation, look at the original phrase
>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
here evidence of absence clearly means the absence of something, meaning there is no such thing, meaning the thing does not exist, meaning more generally that the event is not true i.e. the negation of the event. therefore rigorously speaking, absence does mean negation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:18:07 2018 No.9492559 dude... absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence!

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:18:15 2018 No.9492560 >>9492512 Where does the absence of evidence appear in your "proof"? I see evidence in every single inequality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:22:49 2018 No.9492646 >>9492512 Suppose probability of evidence is certain: P(e) = 1 Your second line becomes P(x) > P(x). Nah.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:24:13 2018 No.9492681 >>9492560 event e is evidence for event x === P(x\|e) > P(x) e' i.e. the complement or negation of e is the absence of evidence.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:25:21 2018 No.9492707

>>9492512
Logical negation is not a good representation of what "absence" means, if we haven't found e then the probability of x given the absence of e is P(x|e'). But then after finding e, our new probability is P(x|e',e)=0.

The issue is the illogical assumption that the phrase "absence of evidence" ought to be modeled mathematically as a construction that actually models presence of evidence to the contrary.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:25:59 2018 No.9492718 >>9492681 >e' i.e. the complement or negation of e is the absence of evidence. But e' is evidence, since P(x'\|e') > P(x'), so it cannot not be evidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:26:03 2018 No.9492720 >>9492646 yes, like I said this proof holds whenever and only when none of the probabilities are 0 . P(e) = 1 would mean P(e') = 0 your fault for not reading the proof properly.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:28:10 2018 No.9492747

>>9492718
in that case x' is not absence, it is presence of not-x

I believe your complaint is already answered in the OP post:
And before you complain that absence does not mean negation, look at the original phrase
>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
here evidence of absence clearly means the absence of something, meaning there is no such thing, meaning the thing does not exist, meaning more generally that the event is not true i.e. the negation of the event. therefore rigorously speaking, absence does mean negation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:30:38 2018 No.9492794 >>9492747 >in that case x' is not absence, it is presence of not-x What would it mean for something to "be absence"?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:31:23 2018 No.9492813 >>9492720 >it's not valid for the trivial cases that show the whole thing is wrong >but trust me it's right the rest of the time :^)

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:31:43 2018 No.9492820

>>9492707
>But then after finding e, our new probability is P(x|e',e)=0.

the new probability is actually P(x|e)
e' is no longer the case so it is not "given" so we do not have probability of x given e and not e. we simply have the probability of x given e.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:34:05 2018 No.9492851 >>9492794 as explained, negation. >>9492813 >hurr look guys bayes theorem doesn't apply when conditioned on probabilities of measure 0 therefore bayes theorem is wrong!! YESSS EPIIICCC WIIIIIINNNNNNNN ;^)

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:35:16 2018 No.9492877 >>9492851 >as explained, negation. What does it mean for something to "be negation"?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:35:52 2018 No.9492888 >>9492820 >the new probability is actually P(x\|e) e' is an event though, either it occurred or it didn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:37:00 2018 No.9492911 >>9492851 >>hurr look guys bayes theorem doesn't apply when conditioned on probabilities of measure 0 therefore bayes theorem is wrong!! YESSS EPIIICCC WIIIIIINNNNNNNN ;^) Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:38:29 2018 No.9492937 >/sci/ got baited again Not surprised desu

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:49:55 2018 No.9493108

>>9492512
The truth value of a proposition is independent of the evidence. Also, outside quantum mechanics the actuality of something existing is either 1 or 0.
So there is no, "Evidence adds to the probability." There is only actuality and it is independent of the evidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 16:58:32 2018 No.9493276 File: 127 KB, 2202x850, Carl-Sagan-Quotes-5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:07:01 2018 No.9493406 >>9492877 the negation of something is the complement of that thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_(set_theory)

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:07:46 2018 No.9493415 >>9493406 >the negation of something is the complement of that thing Yes but what does it mean to "be negation"?

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:09:26 2018 No.9493438

>>9493108
probability isn't a branch of physics or applied mathematics, it's a branch of pure mathematics.

also it is very brainletish of you to claim that only quantum mechanics gives probability meaning or validity when you could just adopt the de-broglie-bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics and say that the "actuality" of anything being the case or existing is 1 or 0.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:09:40 2018 No.9493440 >>9493438 >probability isn't a branch of physics or applied mathematics, it's a branch of pure mathematics. Probability is applied mathematics, actually.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:12:06 2018 No.9493485 >>9493415 I don't know. I didn't write "be negation" I did my best to interpret your post that said "be negation".

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:13:08 2018 No.9493501 >>9493440 wrong, brainlet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_axioms

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:17:18 2018 No.9493569 >>9493501 Axioms don't preclude being applied.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:17:50 2018 No.9493579 >>9493485 >I don't know. I didn't write "be negation" I did my best to interpret your post that said "be negation". see >>9492747 > x' is not absence

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:21:36 2018 No.9493637 File: 130 KB, 1119x550, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9493501 Wrong, brainlet.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:32:47 2018 No.9493784

>>9493637
>wikipedia's article categorisation is a greater authority on probability than Kolmogorov
please , kid . you're just embarrassing yourself

>>9493569
nevertheless, probability is not applied because it is not predicated whatsoever on the real world anymore than analysis is.

the foundations of probability aren't based on doing experiments in real life, they're based on measure theory and were formulated by kolmogorov at the beginning of the 20th century.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:33:51 2018 No.9493792

>>9493784
>>wikipedia's article categorisation is a greater authority on probability than Kolmogorov
>please , kid . you're just embarrassing yourself
Where does Kolmogorov say probability is pure mathematics? It doesn't say that anywhere in the Wikipedia article you linked.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:35:33 2018 No.9493817 >>9493579 that should probably say absence of x

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:35:36 2018 No.9493818 >>9493784 Probability doesn't describe real life, which is where you went wrong in the OP.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:36:35 2018 No.9493829 >>9493792 when he formulated probability from measure theory rather than any reference to experiments or the real world.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:38:42 2018 No.9493853

>>9493829
>when he formulated probability from measure theory rather than any reference to experiments or the real world.
Did you misread my post? I asked "Where does Kolmogorov say probability is pure mathematics?". You answered with why "you" think probability is pure mathematics.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:40:15 2018 No.9493877

>>9493818
on the contrary, probability does describe real life very well.
It describes situations where were are uncertain about all the information or unable to do all the necessary calculations to reach a certain answer and does so well.
The proof that it does so well is that we are able to use probability to solve many problems much better than we would if we tried to model the situation deterministically or if we gave up trying to address the problem at all because we lack the informtion or computational power necessary to reach a deterministic answer.

e.g. medical diagnoses
e.g. failure/reliability engineering.
e.g. network queues

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:42:58 2018 No.9493918

>>9493853
no, I answered with what he did , and what he did means that probability is pure mathematics.

You're throwing a hissyfit because when you learnt probability you learnt about dice and bernoulli trials and so are unaware that probability is actually a pure branch of mathematics whose formulation is based on measure theory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:46:31 2018 No.9493991 >>9493877 A mental model is not reality. Your uncertainty about your mental model's accuracy is not reality's uncertainty about its own truth value. Reality is either 1 or 0.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:46:48 2018 No.9493994

>>9493918
>You're throwing a hissyfit because when you learnt probability you learnt about dice and bernoulli trials and so are unaware that probability is actually a pure branch of mathematics whose formulation is based on measure theory.
But I learned probability both ways, and irregardless, how I personally learned it doesn't change its nature of being applied maths.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:49:34 2018 No.9494027 >>9493918 What is applied mathematics in your opinion?

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:52:33 2018 No.9494071

>>9493991
>A mental model is not reality.
and a description is not reality either.
probability is a description and a model of reality and may or may not be reality (it is if the non-deterministic interpretations of QM are right, it is not if they are not).

>>9493994
>>9493994
in that case arithmetic is applied maths because cavemen used to formulate arithmetic in terms of visible, distinct objects in the real world
good one brainlet
also
>irregardless
heh...sheesh kid...

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:54:00 2018 No.9494089 >>9494027 applied mathematics is formulated in terms of the real, physical world, pure maths is formulated totally independent of the real world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:57:29 2018 No.9494120 >>9494089 >applied mathematics is formulated in terms of the real, physical world, pure maths is formulated totally independent of the real world. Can you give an example?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:58:54 2018 No.9494140 >>9494071 >in that case arithmetic is applied maths because cavemen used to formulate arithmetic in terms of visible, distinct objects in the real world How exactly does that follow?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:59:09 2018 No.9494143 >>9494120 operational research

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 17:59:54 2018 No.9494152 >>9494071 >probability is a description Only of meatspace. You can't break it out of that. Trying to say that your meatspace interpretation of the evidence creates the Universe is just as illogical as trying to define God into existence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:00:25 2018 No.9494164 >>9494140 >people used to formulate arithmetic in terms of the real world so arithmetic is applied mathematics >people used to formulate probability in terms of the real world so probability is applied mathematics

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:01:25 2018 No.9494181 >>9494164 >>people used to formulate probability in terms of the real world so probability is applied mathematics Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:02:50 2018 No.9494204 >>9494181 you when you insisted that probability is applied mathematics despite supposedly learning its rigorous formulation in terms of measure theory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:02:54 2018 No.9494205 >>9492512 t. Freshman.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:03:39 2018 No.9494217 >>9494204 >you when you insisted that probability is applied mathematics despite supposedly learning its rigorous formulation in terms of measure theory. Can you point to the post where I said it? I don't recall saying such nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:04:13 2018 No.9494219 >>9494143 >operational research What part of operations research can not be formulated independently of the real world?

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:11:32 2018 No.9494289

>>9494219
I'm changing my answer.

Applied mathematics is actually a branch of mathematics that deals with mathematical methods that find use in science, engineering, business, computer science, and industry. Thus, applied mathematics is a combination of mathematical science and specialized knowledge. The term "applied mathematics" also describes the professional specialty in which mathematicians work on practical problems by formulating and studying mathematical models.

probability requires no specialised knowledge , unlike say operational research.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:13:27 2018 No.9494313 >>9494289 Probability also doesn't describe reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:13:56 2018 No.9494324 >>9494217 here >>9493994 >But I learned probability both ways, and irregardless, how I personally learned it doesn't change its nature of being applied maths.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:14:58 2018 No.9494334 >>9494313 yes it does. It's a model of reality that is accurate in useful ways so it describes reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:15:22 2018 No.9494342 >>9494324 I meant the part where I allegedly said "people used to formulate probability in terms of the real world so probability is applied mathematics".

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:16:35 2018 No.9494356

>>9494289
>Applied mathematics is actually a branch of mathematics that deals with mathematical methods that find use in science, engineering, business, computer science, and industry.
So you're saying probability does not find use in engineering, business, computer science, and industry?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:17:44 2018 No.9494367 >>9494289 >probability requires no specialised knowledge , unlike say operational research. What specialized knowledge does operations research require?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:18:20 2018 No.9494376 >>9494334 A description of a model of a thing is not a description of the thing.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:18:25 2018 No.9494377

>>9494342
the fact that you insist that probability is applied mathematics despite knowing that it's rigorous formulation and modern study is founded in measure theory can only be explained by you thinking that because probability used to be part of applied mathematics by virtue of people doing it in a way that necessarily related to the real world it must still count as an applied branch of mathematics.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:18:57 2018 No.9494382

>>9492512
You understood the maxim wrongly.
Both e and e' are evidence. e is evidence that supports the claim, e' is evidence that disproves it.
"evidence of absence" is correctly modeled by negation, but "absence of evidence" is not. True "absence of evidence" would make you unable to conjure a suitable e (or e', for that matter).

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:23:18 2018 No.9494417

>>9494377
>the fact that you insist that probability is applied mathematics despite knowing that it's rigorous formulation and modern study is founded in measure theory can only be explained by you thinking that because probability used to be part of applied mathematics by virtue of people doing it in a way that necessarily related to the real world it must still count as an applied branch of mathematics.
Why can it only be explained that way? I don't follow. And my position is that "probability is a part of applied mathematics", not that "probability used to be part of applied mathematics".

Game theory has also been formulated axiomatically, but that doesn't prevent it from still being applied mathematics (as it always has been).

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:29:00 2018 No.9494461

>>9494356
that is not what "deals with" means.
by equating "deals with" with "finds use" you thereby make number theory, abstract algebra, algebraic topology, mathematical logic all branches of applied mathematics so your attempt to twist the meaning is absurd.
>>9494367
specialist insight into what suitable modelling assumptions of the factory/road system/network are.

>>9494376
probability is not a description of a model of reality. it is something that can be used to model and thus to describe reality.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/model
>model
>a representation
>a description

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:31:33 2018 No.9494479

>>9494461
>that is not what "deals with" means.
>by equating "deals with" with "finds use" you thereby make number theory, abstract algebra, algebraic topology, mathematical logic all branches of applied mathematics so your attempt to twist the meaning is absurd.
Can you explain what "deals with" means?

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:33:15 2018 No.9494495

>>9494382
using the same word in the same sentence to mean 2 totally different things would be illogical and very poor english.

the fact that absence is used later in the sentence to mean negation/complement means that earlier in the sentence it must also mean that.

Or else I could just as easily say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" means
"being ignorant of the evidence is not evidence of being ignorant of "

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:37:09 2018 No.9494519 >>9494479 I don't need to. It is sufficient for me to point out that according to your interpretation branches of mathematics that are definitely pure would count as applied and therefore your interpretation is incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:38:59 2018 No.9494532 >>9494495 "There being no evidence is not evidence of there being no [what we are talking about]."

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:39:24 2018 No.9494535 >>9494461 >probability is not a description of a model of reality. it is something that can be used to model and thus to describe reality. Things either exist or they don't. Probability does not describe reality.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:40:41 2018 No.9494544

>>9494417
That was rhetorical exaggeration. It can't only be explained that way. perhaps you chose your words at random and produced those sentences by chance, or through some other inscrutable and incorrect thought process. the explanation I provided was simply my best guess at why you believe something incorrect.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:41:16 2018 No.9494550

>>9494461
>specialist insight into what suitable modelling assumptions of the factory/road system/network are.
Why do you need specialist insight into suitable modelling assumptions? You can do research on general road systems and general networks and on factories (assuming you're talking about facility location) using graphs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:43:48 2018 No.9494566 >>9494461 >by equating "deals with" with "finds use" When did I do that? "find use" is in YOUR definition of applied mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:44:27 2018 No.9494569 >>9494544 >the explanation I provided was simply my best guess at why you believe something incorrect. Your guess was wholly incorrect.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:45:34 2018 No.9494579

>>9494519
>It is sufficient for me to point out that according to your interpretation branches of mathematics that are definitely pure would count as applied and therefore your interpretation is incorrect.
What do you mean by "my interpretation"? We're using your definition of applied mathematics (see >>9494289), in which case either probability is applied mathematics, or it does not find use in in engineering, business, computer science, and industry (which is absurd).

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:46:54 2018 No.9494586 >>9494495 >the fact that absence is used later in the sentence to mean negation/complement means that earlier in the sentence it must also mean that. The English language is not commutative.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:50:00 2018 No.9494610

>>9494535
yes it does.
it models parts of reality very well, therefore it describes those parts of reality very well since the words are synonyms that differ only in connotations. A description does not need to be an exact specification to be a description.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:53:32 2018 No.9494630

>>9494550
without specialist insight your model and attempt to solve the problem would probably be worthless.

If you need convincing of this you can attempt to become an operational researcher and attempt to solve problems for companies with only a lay person's knowledge about the the system you are trying to solve a problem for and see how successful you are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:54:23 2018 No.9494639 >>9494630 >without specialist insight your model and attempt to solve the problem would probably be worthless. How does this not apply to probability?

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:56:56 2018 No.9494662

>>9494579
you're only using part of the criteria I gave.
as I said before:

Applied mathematics is actually a branch of mathematics that deals with mathematical methods that find use in science, engineering, business, computer science, and industry. Thus, applied mathematics is a combination of mathematical science and specialized knowledge. The term "applied mathematics" also describes the professional specialty in which mathematicians work on practical problems by formulating and studying mathematical models.

probability requires no specialised knowledge , unlike say operational research.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 18:58:31 2018 No.9494676

>>9494662
>probability requires no specialised knowledge
without specialist insight your model and attempt to solve the problem would probably be worthless.

If you need convincing of this you can attempt to become an probability researcher and attempt to solve problems for companies with only a lay person's knowledge about the the system you are trying to solve a problem for and see how successful you are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 19:00:23 2018 No.9494697 >>9494639 in probability the axioms are chosen by the mathematician and so fully specified thus do not require specialist knowledge. You already possess all the knowledge necessary to derive probability.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 19:01:25 2018 No.9494711 >>9494676 wrong. see >>9494697

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 19:10:10 2018 No.9494826

>>9494697
>in probability the axioms are chosen by the mathematician and so fully specified thus do not require specialist knowledge.
without specialist insight your model and attempt to solve the problem would probably be worthless.

If you need convincing of this you can attempt to become an probability researcher and attempt to solve problems for companies with only a lay person's knowledge about the the system you are trying to solve a problem for and see how successful you are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 19:34:19 2018 No.9495031 >>9494826 repeating your point after it's been answered and refuted just makes you look stupid and like a sore loser.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 19:38:57 2018 No.9495061 >>9495031 >refuted Where was it refuted?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 19:42:30 2018 No.9495084 >>9495061 You know where. if you think I'm wrong then refute my post.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 19:43:49 2018 No.9495091

>>9495084
>if you think I'm wrong then refute my post.
Wrong about what?

without specialist insight your model and attempt to solve the problem would probably be worthless.

If you need convincing of this you can attempt to become an probability researcher and attempt to solve problems for companies with only a lay person's knowledge about the the system you are trying to solve a problem for and see how successful you are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 19:46:46 2018 No.9495101 >>9495084 >You know where. if you think I'm wrong then refute my post. There's an absence of evidence for anything you've posted that resembling a "refutation" (note that this is not evidence of absence).

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 19:51:13 2018 No.9495119 >>9495091 If you think that what my post has stated is wrong then refute it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 19:52:31 2018 No.9495126 >>9495101 here's the evidence >>9494697 if you think that this post fails to answer and refute your point then demonstrate so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 19:53:39 2018 No.9495129 >>9495119 >If you think that what my post has stated is wrong then refute it. Probability researchers can't solve problems for companies with only a lay person's knowledge about the the system they are trying to solve a problem for.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:03:28 2018 No.9495183

>>9495129
What you're describing isn't researching probability, that's simply using probability in an applied setting. Researching probability would mean deriving theorems from axioms and other theorems. in probability the axioms are chosen by the mathematician and so fully specified thus do not require specialist knowledge. You already possess all the knowledge necessary to derive probability.

the fact that a field of mathematics can be used in an applied setting does not make the field applied. If this were the case then arithmetic, alegbraic topology and linear algebra would all be applied branches of mathematics . We know that they are not applied branches of mathematics therefore the fact that a branch of mathematics can be used in an applied setting does not make that branch of mathematics applied.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:06:15 2018 No.9495199 >>9495183 >What you're describing isn't researching probability Then what you're describing isn't researching operations research.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:09:58 2018 No.9495221 >>9492813 You are saying that a statement about absence of evidence doesn't apply when evidence cannot be absent. That's simply irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:11:23 2018 No.9495227 >>9495183 >Researching probability would mean deriving theorems from axioms and other theorems Why can't this be done in an applied setting?

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:15:00 2018 No.9495240

>>9495199
yes it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research

the difference that you do not seem to grasp is that you can make progress in probability in a vacuum , the same with all fields of pure mathematics. you simply choose axioms then you can derive all the other theorems with logic.

Specialist knowledge is required in operational research because you cannot do operational research without specialized knowledge because the study is fundamentally linked with solving real world problems in companies, armies, road systems, etc. and you need to actually know about the real world and those systems and behaviour in order to model them suitably and find the best or a very good solution for the problem they are having.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:16:56 2018 No.9495249

>>9493108
>The truth value of a proposition is independent of the evidence.
I don't see how that's relevant. Evidence is something which when known increases the probability of something else being true. That is all one needs to interpret the phrase "the absence of evidence is (not) evidence of absence."

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:17:32 2018 No.9495251

>>9495227
because without specialist insight your model and attempt to solve the problem would probably be worthless.

If you need convincing of this you can attempt to become an operational researcher and attempt to solve problems for companies with only a lay person's knowledge about the the system you are trying to solve a problem for and see how successful you are. see also>>9495240

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:19:54 2018 No.9495261 >>9495240 >you cannot do operational research without specialized knowledge Of course you can, for example: http://faculty.georgetown.edu/vrj2/EvaluatingQuantileAssessments.pdf

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:24:34 2018 No.9495289 >>9494382 If having evidence supporting the claim is possible, then there cannot be an absence of evidence supporting the claim and against the claim, since the lack of one is the presence of the other. So your interpretation is basically useless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:26:24 2018 No.9495305 >>9495289 >If having evidence supporting the claim is possible, then there cannot be an absence of evidence supporting the claim and against the claim, since the lack of one is the presence of the other. How does that follow?

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:30:15 2018 No.9495316

>>9495305
See the proof in OP, which specifically proves that the (absence of evidence supporting x) = (evidence against x) if evidence supporting x is possible.

Your criticism of this was that the phrase is actually referring to the (absence of evidence supporting x) and (the absence of evidence against x). But these cannot be true at the same time, by the above. The only time it cannot be true is when evidence is literally impossible, which renders the phrase quite inapplicable to most of the situations where it is applied. It also makes it redundant, since you could simply say "the absence of evidence is not evidence."

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:30:23 2018 No.9495317

>>9495261
>http://faculty.georgetown.edu/vrj2/EvaluatingQuantileAssessments.pdf
although printed in a operations research journal the paper you have posted is about methods estimating probabilities and distributions from data in the real world which is the study of statistics which is an applied branch of mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:31:03 2018 No.9495319 >>9495317 What specialized knowledge is required?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:31:58 2018 No.9495323 >>9495316 >(absence of evidence supporting x) = (evidence against x) This is a meaningless notion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:33:21 2018 No.9495327 >>9495316 >when evidence is literally impossible What does this mean?

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:34:54 2018 No.9495332

>>9492512
OP I've posted this proof several times on /sci/, which always baits this troll >>9492560 who uses faulty semantics.

Try this:

Let E be the presence of evidence for X such that

P(X|E) > P(X)
P(~X|E) < P(~X)
P(E|~X) < P(E)
P(~E|~X) < P(~E)
P(~X|~E) < P(~X)

Therefore ~E is the presence of evidence for ~X. Since absence is the negation of presence, the absence of evidence for X is evidence of absence of X.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:35:40 2018 No.9495335 >>9495332 >Since absence is the negation of presence Logical negation is not a good representation of what "absence" means.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:36:14 2018 No.9495338 >>9495332 >the absence of evidence for X is evidence of absence of X. This is a non-sequitur.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:36:19 2018 No.9495340 >>9495323 How is it meaningless? You made the distinction between evidence for and against x: >Both e and e' are evidence. e is evidence that supports the claim, e' is evidence that disproves it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:36:45 2018 No.9495344 >>9495340 >How is it meaningless? What meaning can you ascribe to such an equality?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:37:17 2018 No.9495347 >>9495340 >You I did not post that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:37:29 2018 No.9495348 >>9495335 Absence is defined as the negation of presence. You are making a ridiculous argument just to argue.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:38:20 2018 No.9495353 >>9495348 >Absence is defined as the negation of presence. You are making a ridiculous argument just to argue. Here, have a read: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/71783/evidence-of-absence-absence-of-evidence/

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:38:32 2018 No.9495354 >>9495327 It mean that p(e) = 0 >>9495338 To what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:39:20 2018 No.9495357 >>9495354 >To what? What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:39:34 2018 No.9495359 >>9495347 Then butt out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:40:37 2018 No.9495362 >>9495354 >It mean that p(e) = 0 But then p(~e)=1 implies that evidence is in fact, possible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:41:04 2018 No.9495363 >>9495353 First of all, there's no argument for the assertion that negation is not a good representation. Second, this is a non-sequitur since there is no assertion that the negation of presence is not absence.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:42:03 2018 No.9495369

>>9495363
>there's no argument for the assertion that negation is not a good representation.
In essence, the author is committing the very fallacy he's denying. He's assuming that the phrase "absence of evidence" ought to be modeled mathematically as a construction that actually models presence of evidence to the contrary.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:45:17 2018 No.9495385

>>9495363
>Second, this is a non-sequitur since there is no assertion that the negation of presence is not absence.
Logical negation is not a good representation of what "absence" means, if we haven't found e then the probability of x given the absence of e would be (under the faulty interpretation) P(x|e'). But then after finding e, our new probability is P(x|e',e)=0 (an absurdity).

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:45:36 2018 No.9495387

>>9495319
further characteristics of pure mathematics and applied mathematics are that
progress in fields of applied mathematics is measured by success in being able to solve real world problems better than before whereas progress in fields of pure mathematics can be measured in terms of proving new theorems and results which need not have anything to do with the real world.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:47:54 2018 No.9495397

>>9495387
>further characteristics of pure mathematics and applied mathematics are that
>progress in fields of applied mathematics is measured by success in being able to solve real world problems better than before whereas progress in fields of pure mathematics can be measured in terms of proving new theorems and results which need not have anything to do with the real world.
What specialized knowledge is required?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:48:50 2018 No.9495399 >>9495332 P(~E\|~X) < P(~E) P(~X\|~E) < P(~X) should be P(~E\|~X) > P(~E) P(~X\|~E) > P(~X)

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:52:12 2018 No.9495411

>>9495385
>Anon I'm going to have to fail you, you've been absent every class of Logic 101
>Nonsense professor, just because I was not present at class doesn't mean I was absent
>You know what anon, I won't fail you for being absent. I'll fail you for not understanding what negation means.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:52:15 2018 No.9495412 >>9495332 >the absence of evidence for X is evidence of absence of X. In fact, all your manipulations show is that the complement of evidence for X is evidence for the complement of X, not that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:52:46 2018 No.9495414

>>9495411
>>Anon I'm going to have to fail you, you've been absent every class of Logic 101
>>Nonsense professor, just because I was not present at class doesn't mean I was absent
>>You know what anon, I won't fail you for being absent. I'll fail you for not understanding what negation means.
Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:53:52 2018 No.9495419 >>9495411 >>Anon I'm going to have to fail you, you've been absent every class of Logic 101 There's an absence of evidence that I was absent every class (note that this is not evidence of evidence).

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:56:17 2018 No.9495429 >>9495362 ~E is only evidence if P(E) > 0

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 20:58:28 2018 No.9495440

>>9495397
specialised knowledge being required is a characteristic rather than a strict requirement.
development of the tools or techniques for a field of applied maths can be done without knowing specific things about the systems they will be applied to , however if the results of those investigations or theorems are of benefit to solving real world problems better than before then the field of applied mathematics will not be considered to have progressed.

This is contrast to a field of pure mathematics where proving a new theorem or result in the field can be considered progress even if it has nothing to do with the real world.

proving a property about a class of infinite random processes that cannot exist in the real world or be used to model any real world processes would be considered an advancement of probability whereas proving a property about the simplex algorithm that provides no insites of how to improve that algorithm or how it may be used more effectively and which never improves the ability to solve real world operational research problems would not be considered progressing the field of operational research.

This is why probability is a branch of pure mathematics and operational research is a branch of applied mathematics.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:02:06 2018 No.9495455

>>9495440
>specialised knowledge being required is a characteristic rather than a strict requirement.
>development of the tools or techniques for a field of applied maths can be done without knowing specific things about the systems they will be applied to , however if the results of those investigations or theorems are of benefit to solving real world problems better than before then the field of applied mathematics will not be considered to have progressed.
>This is contrast to a field of pure mathematics where proving a new theorem or result in the field can be considered progress even if it has nothing to do with the real world.
>proving a property about a class of infinite random processes that cannot exist in the real world or be used to model any real world processes would be considered an advancement of probability whereas proving a property about the simplex algorithm that provides no insites of how to improve that algorithm or how it may be used more effectively and which never improves the ability to solve real world operational research problems would not be considered progressing the field of operational research.
>This is why probability is a branch of pure mathematics and operational research is a branch of applied mathematics.
I still don't follow, what specialized knowledge is needed for that paper?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:03:37 2018 No.9495460 >>9495455 It doesn't matter whether specialised knowledge is required or not for that paper since it has been explained why probability is a branch of pure mathematics anyway.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:04:42 2018 No.9495467 >>9495440 >specialised knowledge being required is a characteristic rather than a strict requirement. Then your claim of probability not being applied mathematics despite meeting the rest of your own definition is debunked.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:07:24 2018 No.9495480 >>9492512 There's a reason why no one uses the Bayesian "philosophy" in practice.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:08:06 2018 No.9495486

>>9495369
>He's assuming that the phrase "absence of evidence" ought to be modeled mathematically as a construction that actually models presence of evidence to the contrary.
Again this just conflates evidence for x and evidence against x when the argument clearly delineates the two.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:10:25 2018 No.9495495 >>9495385 >But then after finding e, our new probability is P(x\|e',e)=0 (an absurdity). No it would just be P(E). What a retarded argument.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:11:08 2018 No.9495500 >>9495495 >No it would just be P(E). Why would it the probability of evidence?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:11:55 2018 No.9495503 >>9495486 >Again this just conflates evidence for x and evidence against x when the argument clearly delineates the two. The problem is that the argument in the OP conflates "presence" and "absence".

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:12:44 2018 No.9495507 >>9495419 There's an absence of evidence that you were present (your name does not appear on the attendance lists), which is the same as evidence that you were absent. Your argument is demonstrably absurd.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:13:07 2018 No.9495510 >>9495507 >absence of evidence....which is the same as evidence that you were absent Proof?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:13:46 2018 No.9495512 >>9495480 Everyone does.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:14:16 2018 No.9495513 >>9495507 >his/her school for brainlets takes attendance No wonder you believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence, it sounds like you're still in daycare.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:14:57 2018 No.9495516 >>9495500 P(x\|e) >>9495503 No, it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:16:03 2018 No.9495521 >>9495510 See >>9495332 and the definition of absence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:17:09 2018 No.9495524 >>9495512 >Everyone does. Speak for yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:17:57 2018 No.9495528 >>9495524 >There's a reason why no one uses the Bayesian "philosophy" in practice. Speak for yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:18:01 2018 No.9495529 >>9495521 >See >>9495332 and the definition of absence. That's not a proof, or even a "proof".

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:18:59 2018 No.9495538 >>9495529 It's a proof. You appear upset.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:19:21 2018 No.9495543 >>9495467 you should read >>9495440 and you will gain understanding of why probability is a field of pure mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:19:35 2018 No.9495545 >>9495538 >It's a proof. Could you represent your argument symbolically? It seems very muddled

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:20:05 2018 No.9495548 >>9495516 >P(x\|e) Why has e' disappeared?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:20:36 2018 No.9495550 >>9495516 >No, it doesn't. The issue is the illogical assumption that the phrase "absence of evidence" ought to be modeled mathematically as a construction that actually models presence of evidence to the contrary.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:20:53 2018 No.9495553 >>9495548 Because e' is not given.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:22:53 2018 No.9495564 >>9495553 >Because e' is not given. Then the updated probability does not change.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:23:43 2018 No.9495569

>>9495550
There is no other way to interpret the phrase which allows it to be applied in realistic situations without being redundant. You are just retreading arguments that have already been shown to lead to absurd conclusions. Your inability to either confront the argument or let go indicates an emotional immaturity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:25:21 2018 No.9495577 >>9495564 Of course the probability changes when new information is present. The probability of a coin having landed on heads given it has not landed on heads is different from the probability of a coin having landed on heads given it landed on heads.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:26:54 2018 No.9495587

>>9495577
>Of course the probability changes when new information is present.
If e' was not given then e must have been given (since as you said, it's not possible for evidence against and evidence for to both be absent), hence the probability does not change.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:28:41 2018 No.9495596

>>9495569
>You are just retreading arguments that have already been shown to lead to absurd conclusions.
The only absurd conclusion is that the phrase "absence of evidence" ought to be modeled mathematically as a construction that actually models presence of evidence to the contrary.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:29:27 2018 No.9495598 >>9495587 >If the "the coin did not land on heads" is not given then "the coin did land on heads" must have been given. Therefore the probability that the coin landed on heads did not change. Does that make sense?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:30:42 2018 No.9495606 >>9495596 >The only absurd conclusion Wrong. See >>9495316 and >>9495507 for the absurd conclusions your arguments lead to.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:32:02 2018 No.9495614 >>9495598 >Does that make sense? No, which is why absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:33:45 2018 No.9495624 >>9495614 >No So you admit your argument makes no sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:34:13 2018 No.9495627 >>9495624 >So you admit your argument makes no sense. This is your argument (since as you said, it's not possible for evidence against and evidence for to both be absent).

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:36:09 2018 No.9495636

>>9495627
No, it's your argument: "If e' was not given then e must have been given (since as you said, it's not possible for evidence against and evidence for to both be absent), hence the probability does not change."

> (since as you said, it's not possible for evidence against and evidence for to both be absent)
It is possible, if the presence of evidence for or against is impossible. But this is not applicable to most situations and makes the phrase redundant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:37:57 2018 No.9495649 >>9495636 >It is possible, if the presence of evidence for or against is impossible. Wrong, see >>9495429

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:39:33 2018 No.9495658 >>9495649 That agrees with my statement. Are you having trouble reading?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:42:51 2018 No.9495671 >>9495658 If E is impossible then E is not evidence, and so as you said, it's not possible for evidence against and evidence for to both be absent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:42:52 2018 No.9495672 >>9495649 If evidence for X is impossible, P(E) = 0 and P(~X) is not evidence against X. Therefore it is possible to have an absence of both evidence for and evidence against. I'm not sure what is hard about this for you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:43:38 2018 No.9495676 >>9495672 >P(~X) is not evidence against X This is a meaningless notion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:44:44 2018 No.9495679 >>9495671 >If E is impossible then E is not evidence E is defined as evidence. But if you want to argue that an absence of evidence for and against is impossible, that's fine by me, since you argued that is the correct interpretation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:45:45 2018 No.9495680 >>9495679 >E is defined as evidence. Which is why if e' was not given then e must have been given (since as you said, it's not possible for evidence against and evidence for to both be absent), hence the probability does not change.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:45:46 2018 No.9495681 >>9495676 Should be ~E is not evidence against X

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:46:16 2018 No.9495682 >>9495679 >But if you want to argue that an absence of evidence for and against is impossible I wouldn't say I'm "arguing" that per se, I'm just showing how that leads to a mathematical absurdity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:47:17 2018 No.9495686 >>9495680 >Which is why if e' was not given then e must have been given I did not argue against this. >hence the probability does not change. That doesn't follow. See >>9495598

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:48:19 2018 No.9495692 >>9495682 Well you failed to do that, so pick one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:48:23 2018 No.9495693 >>9495686 >That doesn't follow. If e was given, then the updated probability does not change since there was no new information.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:49:54 2018 No.9495701 >>9495681 >Should be ~E is not evidence against X Then you haven't shown that there is both an absence of evidence for and evidence against.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:50:24 2018 No.9495702 >>9495692 >Well you failed to do that, so pick one. see >>9495587

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:50:55 2018 No.9495703

>>9495693
>If e was given, then the updated probability does not change since there was no new information.
So either you're saying that going from no supporting evidence to having supporting evidence doesn't change the probability, or you have no idea what we're talking about. Either way, you're just posting nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:52:15 2018 No.9495705 >>9495701 >Then you haven't shown that there is both an absence of evidence for and evidence against. I don't need to show that, I just said it was possible since the former does not imply the negation of the latter.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:53:17 2018 No.9495709 >>9495702 See >>9495686

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:53:30 2018 No.9495710

>>9495703
>So either you're saying that going from no supporting evidence to having supporting evidence doesn't change the probability
If you don't have evidence for, then you must have evidence against since as you said it's not possible for evidence against and evidence for to both be absent. So the prior probability was P(X| e'), and once you go from having no supporting evidence to having supporting evidence you update to P(X|e' and e), an absurdity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:54:14 2018 No.9495711 >>9495705 >I don't need to show that, I just said it was possible since the former does not imply the negation of the latter. There's an absence of evidence that it is possible (note that this is not evidence of absence).

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:55:38 2018 No.9495720

>>9492707
>if we haven't found e then the probability of x given the absence of e is P(x|e'). But then after finding e, our new probability is P(x|e',e)=0.
you can resolve this either by more carefully deciding what the absence of the evidence means so that it is impossible for e' and e to both happen
or by instead constructing the probability P(x' | e' at time t0 , e at time t1) which would be non-zero and probably reduce to P(x'|e) in many circumstances

or you can codify that a calculation of P(x'|e') is only valid as an instantaneous snapshot of the probability when the system is in that particular instantaneous state since the system could be evolving.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:55:45 2018 No.9495721 >>9495710 >you update to P(X\|e' and e) No, you update to P(X\|e). e makes e' no longer true. Again, the only way someone could make this argument is if they're retarded or pretending to be retarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 21:59:37 2018 No.9495738 >>9495711 Evidence doesn't apply, it's not empirical. If P(E) = 0 = P(~E), then both must be absent. An example of this would be an all powerful god that erases all evidence for or against its own existence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:00:00 2018 No.9495739 >>9495738 >If P(E) = 0 = P(~E) Impossible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:01:13 2018 No.9495744 >>9495739 Using your definition of ~E as evidence against.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:01:59 2018 No.9495746 >>9495744 >Using your definition of ~E as evidence against. If P(E)=0 then P(~E)=1.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:03:05 2018 No.9495748 >>9495721 >No, you update to P(X\|e) Then e' was not a prior, and so since as you said it's not possible for evidence against and evidence for to both be absent, e must have been prior, and so the new probability does not change.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:03:31 2018 No.9495751 >>9495746 Evidence against is not the negation of evidence for.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:03:55 2018 No.9495754 >>9495751 >Evidence against is not the negation of evidence for. Did you misread my post? I'm not sure what it has to do with it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:04:33 2018 No.9495756 >>9495748 >Then e' was not a prior, It was a prior, now it's not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:05:35 2018 No.9495766 >>9495754 Did you read >>9495744 ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:06:09 2018 No.9495771 >>9495756 >It was a prior, now it's not. Then e must have been a prior, since as you said it's not possible for evidence against and evidence for to both be absent, and so the probability does not change.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:06:40 2018 No.9495774 >>9495766 >Did you read >>9495744 ? I never provided any definition of ~E, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:07:08 2018 No.9495777 >>9495771 >Then e must have been a prior It wasn't a prior, now it is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:08:17 2018 No.9495780 >>9495774 You: "Both e and e' are evidence. e is evidence that supports the claim, e' is evidence that disproves it."

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:08:22 2018 No.9495781 >>9495777 >It wasn't a prior, now it is. Then e' was a prior, since as you said it's not possible for evidence against and evidence for to both be absent, and so we have the mathematical absurdity P(X\|e and e').

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:08:52 2018 No.9495783 >>9495780 >You: "Both e and e' are evidence. e is evidence that supports the claim, e' is evidence that disproves it." You're putting words in my mouth.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:09:21 2018 No.9495785

>>9495412
the complement of evidence for X is the same as absence of evidence for X.

You seem to think that Absence of evidence means the same thing as total ignorance about the state of evidence.

a consideration of a real life problem will help persuade you that this is not true.

Consider x = "the president exists today"
evidence e for x is "I saw a picture of the president taken today"
absence of x = "the president does not exist today"
absence of the evidence " I have not seen a picture of the president taken today"

NOTE that the absence of evidence is not total ignorance of the possible evidence. You do definitely know that you have not seen a picture of the president today.

when evidence for something is absent you know that it is absent. you are not totally ignorant as to whether the evidence for is present or absent.

However note well that the information gained from the absence of evidence in this case, you not having seen a picture of the president taken today, is very limited and unimportant and thus serves as extremely weak evidence of the absence of the president existing today which makes it only a tiny tiny amount more likely to be true when it is given that you have not seen a picture of the president taken today.

These are the kinds of situations carl sagan is talking about, where absence of evidence is actually extremely weak evidence of absence. E.g. an absence of evidence so far for extra terrastrials is very weak evidence for there being no extra terrestrials in the universe.

see? it all works out and fits.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:09:33 2018 No.9495788 >>9495781 See >>9495777 >>9495783 >You're putting words in my mouth. How ironic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:10:24 2018 No.9495792 >>9495788 >How ironic. You literally just made up a sentence that I did not write, nowhere have I attributed a misquote to you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:10:57 2018 No.9495796 >>9495785 >the complement of evidence for X is the same as absence of evidence for X. No, the complement of evidence for X is evidence for the complement of X.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:12:15 2018 No.9495799 >>9495792 Then I am using an interpretation of symbols which you did not use. I am not making up arguments to put in your mouth as you do to me.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:12:52 2018 No.9495801

>>9495785
>NOTE that the absence of evidence is not total ignorance of the possible evidence. You do definitely know that you have not seen a picture of the president today.
Then P("the president does not exist today" | " I have not seen a picture of the president taken today") is not greater than P("the president does not exist today").

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:13:23 2018 No.9495806 >>9495799 >Then I am using an interpretation of symbols which you did not use I refuse to use interpretations that lead to mathematical absurdities.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:14:56 2018 No.9495838 >>9495806 Then P(evidence for) = 0 = P(evidence against), fucking hell.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:15:14 2018 No.9495840 >>9495838 >fucking hell. Do you need to swear?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:15:45 2018 No.9495841 >>9495838 >P(evidence for) = 0 = P(evidence against) This is a meaningless notion. Could you represent your argument symbolically? It seems very muddled

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:18:49 2018 No.9495852

>>9495785
>the complement of evidence for X is the same as absence of evidence for X.
>You seem to think that Absence of evidence means the same thing as total ignorance about the state of evidence.
>a consideration of a real life problem will help persuade you that this is not true.
>Consider x = "the president exists today"
>evidence e for x is "I saw a picture of the president taken today"
>absence of x = "the president does not exist today"
>absence of the evidence " I have not seen a picture of the president taken today"
>NOTE that the absence of evidence is not total ignorance of the possible evidence. You do definitely know that you have not seen a picture of the president today.
>when evidence for something is absent you know that it is absent. you are not totally ignorant as to whether the evidence for is present or absent.
>However note well that the information gained from the absence of evidence in this case, you not having seen a picture of the president taken today, is very limited and unimportant and thus serves as extremely weak evidence of the absence of the president existing today which makes it only a tiny tiny amount more likely to be true when it is given that you have not seen a picture of the president taken today.
>These are the kinds of situations carl sagan is talking about, where absence of evidence is actually extremely weak evidence of absence. E.g. an absence of evidence so far for extra terrastrials is very weak evidence for there being no extra terrestrials in the universe.
>see? it all works out and fits.
Could you define a simple, concrete probability space instead of writing a wall of text? What you have does not support the faulty notion that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:27:26 2018 No.9495880

>>9495796
yes, that is true as well thanks to my >>9492512
and >>9495332' proofs

It is indeed the case that the absence of evidence for x is the complement of evidence for x which is also evidence for the complement of x.

>>9495801
>>9495801
yes it is, however it would only be by a very small amount. the proof is >>9492512

>>9495852
the wall of text is merely illustrating the proof with an actual example. the proof is >>9492512 and >>9495332 (basically the same)

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:34:36 2018 No.9495904

So let's review the troll's arguments

>Absence cannot be modeled as negation
Absence is defined as the negation of presence, otherwise one could argue that they were not absent from class just because they weren't present in class.

>The absence of evidence means absence of evidence for and against X
This is impossible according to the definition of evidence, which makes the absence of one the presence of the other.

>Finding evidence doesn't change the prior.
This is just counterfactual nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:38:04 2018 No.9495917 >>9495904 >So let's review the troll's arguments I'm not a "troll".

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:38:38 2018 No.9495919 >>9495904 It's pretty amazing that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" meme has not been killed in pop-science culture already. It literally only requires two formulas. conditional probability and bayes theorem to prove.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:40:10 2018 No.9495924 >>9495904 >>Finding evidence doesn't change the prior. Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:41:25 2018 No.9495926 >>9495904 >This is impossible according to the definition of evidence, which makes the absence of one the presence of the other. Which is why the updated probability does not actually change, and so evidence is in fact not being modeled.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:41:55 2018 No.9495930

>>9495904
>>Absence cannot be modeled as negation
>Absence is defined as the negation of presence, otherwise one could argue that they were not absent from class just because they weren't present in class.
The issue is the illogical assumption that the phrase "absence of evidence" ought to be modeled mathematically as a construction that actually models presence of evidence to the contrary.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:43:11 2018 No.9495935 >>9495917 >I'm not a "troll". >Do you need to swear? >This is a meaningless notion. Could you represent your argument symbolically? It seems very muddled Yup, it's a troll.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:45:14 2018 No.9495939

>>9495935
Swearing does not help your "argument", and the vast majority of what you write is dishonest rhetoric which is why I have repeatedly suggested a symbolic argument. I can't think of why you wouldn't represent such a short "proof" symbolically other than either a) you have tried and realized it is flawed (as the rest of us have noticed) or b) you don't know what a symbolic argument is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:47:40 2018 No.9495942 >>9495926 >Which is why the updated probability does not actually change, and so evidence is in fact not being modeled. Doesn't follow. >>9495930 Already addressed. >>9495939 Not an argument. Troll.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:50:35 2018 No.9495955 >>9495942 >Doesn't follow. Already addressed. >Already addressed. Not an argument. >Not an argument. See above.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:52:38 2018 No.9495961 >>9495955 >Already addressed. >Not an argument. Lies.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:55:38 2018 No.9495974

>>9495930
it is not that you are assuming that absence of evidence for something means presence of evidence to the contrary of that something.

you are simply interpreting absence of evidence for something to mean the negation of that evidence , which is logical and sensible and happens via proof to be evidence for the contrary of that something.

It is logical for 3 reasons.
1. the maxim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" actually takes "evidence of absence" to mean "evidence of the complement or negation of the thing"
so the word absence should be interpreted the same earlier for "absence of evidence" .

2. if the "absence of evidence" in fact meant " total ignorance about the state of evidence" then the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence would be trivially true and not worth stating.

3. when evidence is absent, you know that it is absent. this is a different state of being from "I am totally ignorant as to whether there is evidence or not" .
so you should not interpret absence of evidence to mean not knowing anything about he the evidence.

take for example
Consider x = "the president exists today"
evidence e for x is "I saw a picture of the president taken today"
absence of x = "the president does not exist today"
absence of the evidence is surely " I have not seen a picture of the president taken today" not " I don't know whether or not I have seen a picture of the president today".

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:56:11 2018 No.9495975

>>9495974
>it is not that you are assuming that absence of evidence for something means presence of evidence to the contrary of that something.
>you are simply interpreting absence of evidence for something to mean the negation of that evidence , which is logical and sensible and happens via proof to be evidence for the contrary of that something.
>It is logical for 3 reasons.
>1. the maxim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" actually takes "evidence of absence" to mean "evidence of the complement or negation of the thing"
>so the word absence should be interpreted the same earlier for "absence of evidence" .
>2. if the "absence of evidence" in fact meant " total ignorance about the state of evidence" then the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence would be trivially true and not worth stating.
>3. when evidence is absent, you know that it is absent. this is a different state of being from "I am totally ignorant as to whether there is evidence or not" .
>so you should not interpret absence of evidence to mean not knowing anything about he the evidence.
>take for example
>Consider x = "the president exists today"
>evidence e for x is "I saw a picture of the president taken today"
>absence of x = "the president does not exist today"
>absence of the evidence is surely " I have not seen a picture of the president taken today" not " I don't know whether or not I have seen a picture of the president today".
Could you define a simple, concrete probability space instead of writing a wall of text? What you have does not support the faulty notion that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 22:58:25 2018 No.9495981 >>9495975 if what I have written is wrong then you should be able to show why it is wrong. You're refusing because you know that you can't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 23:16:16 2018 No.9496029 >>9495981 >if what I have written is wrong then you should be able to show why it is wrong. >You're refusing because you know that you can't. Could you represent your argument symbolically? It seems very muddled

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 23:19:10 2018 No.9496041 >>9496029 Remember, this guy^ is "not a troll"

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 23:22:28 2018 No.9496051 >>9496041 >Remember, this guy^ is "not a troll" I'm not a "guy".

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 23:32:11 2018 No.9496088

>>9496029
sequences mathematical symbols end up being parsed out to english sentences like I have written.

You're just looking for excuses not to have to respond to arguments demonstrating that things you've said are wrong.

By being refusing to answer you're demonstrating that you're incapable of defending your position and are simply trying to save face.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 23:36:47 2018 No.9496107 >>9496088 >sequences mathematical symbols end up being parsed out to english sentences like I have written. Feel free to do so.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 23:37:24 2018 No.9496112

>>9496088
>You're just looking for excuses not to have to respond to arguments demonstrating that things you've said are wrong.
No, you're just looking for excuses not to have to represent your argument symbolically which would demonstrate that everything you've said is wrong.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 23:37:56 2018 No.9496114

>>9496088
>By being refusing to answer you're demonstrating that you're incapable of defending your position and are simply trying to save face.
By refusing to represent your argument symbolically you're demonstrating that you're incapable of defending your position and are simply trying to save face.

Anonymous Tue Feb 6 23:44:34 2018 No.9496137

>>9496112
>you're just looking for excuses not to have to represent your argument symbolically
the fact that you have been happy to respond to and yourself provide arguments written in english until this point and are only just now demanding that the argument be written in mathematical symbols shows how disingenuous you are.

>which would demonstrate that everything you've said is wrong.
that's a bold claim. the onus is on you to prove it

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 6 23:53:54 2018 No.9496166 If there's no proof of something's existence one day and then the next day proof is discovered does the thing that didn't exist before suddenly come into existence? you should spend all that time and energy on something less nonsensical

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:00:16 2018 No.9496173 >>9496166 >proof >didn't exist What does this have to do with evidence?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:00:25 2018 No.9496174 >>9496137 >that's a bold claim. the onus is on you to prove it The burden of proof is on you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:02:17 2018 No.9496179 >>9496137 >the fact that you have been happy to respond to and yourself provide arguments written in english until this point and are only just now demanding that the argument be written in mathematical symbols shows how disingenuous you are. How so?

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:21:01 2018 No.9496227

>>9496174
No it isn't. You claimed everything I said was wrong. If that's true then why don't you prove it?
Otherwise you're again showing that you're wrong and incapable of winning the argument.

>>9496179
because if it were a problem to have a logical argument with english sentences rather than strings of mathematical symbols then you would not have engaged in it yourself.

I've provided you with several arguments for why what you've said is incorrect >>9495974
and all you've done is try to weasel out of addressing those arguments while claiming tht those arguments are wrong without justification.

All you're doing is showing your weakness and the fact that you know that you're wrong but hoping to continue arguing anyway to save face.

again. if >>9495974 is wrong then you ought to be able to prove it.
If you can't or try to make excuses not to then you lose.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:24:44 2018 No.9496240 >>9496227 >You claimed everything I said was wrong. "represent your argument symbolically which would demonstrate that everything you've said is wrong."

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:32:30 2018 No.9496261

>>9496240
>which would demonstrate that everything you've said is wrong."

therefore you are implicitly claiming that my everything I've said is wrong. because representing my argument symbolically would only demonstrate that everything Ive said is wrong if everything I said was indeed wrong.

So you have made a claim that everything I have said is wrong so the burden of proof is on you to show that everything I have said is wrong.

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:33:51 2018 No.9496266

>>9496261
>So you have made a claim that everything I have said is wrong so the burden of proof is on you to show that everything I have said is wrong.
Yes, represent your argument symbolically and it will demonstrate that everything you've said is wrong.

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:44:50 2018 No.9496282

>>9496266
once again you're claiming I'm wrong without justifying it or showing how my argument is wrong and thus showing the rest of us that you're too mentally feeble to demonstrate that I'm wrong.

If I was wrong you'd be able to show that to be the case but you have failed to do that despite being challenged to multiple times.

Looks like you're happy losing

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:45:44 2018 No.9496286 >>9496282 >If I was wrong you'd be able to show that to be the case Yes, represent your argument symbolically and it will demonstrate that everything you've said is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:53:12 2018 No.9496309 >>9496286 yes, that's the claim that you're making that you've been challenged to demonstrate but have been unable to do so thus far.

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:54:16 2018 No.9496316

>>9496309
>yes, that's the claim that you're making that you've been challenged to demonstrate but have been unable to do so thus far.
I'm just waiting for you to represent your argument symbolically; it will demonstrate that everything you've said is wrong.

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 00:58:30 2018 No.9496323

I'm sure I'm too late to join this to make a difference, but:

absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The key word is EVIDENCE of absence, and weak evidence at that. You should not base semi-important decisions on absence of evidence.

Also, evidence is different from proof as not even a court decision is determined by one piece of evidence.

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 01:02:47 2018 No.9496329

>>9496316
why are you waiting for me when you are the one making the claim and thus the burden of proof is on you?

The reason is because you are unable to prove that what I said is wrong because it is not wrong.

If I was wrong you'd be able to show that to be the case but you have failed to do that despite being challenged to multiple times.

it seems that you're ok with losing the argument as long as you have some feeble facade to try and save face behind.

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 01:04:01 2018 No.9496332

>>9496329
>why are you waiting for me when you are the one making the claim and thus the burden of proof is on you?
My claim is that if you represent your argument symbolically; it will demonstrate that everything you've said is wrong. Hence the burden of proof is on you.

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 01:13:21 2018 No.9496346

>>9496332
hahaha this is the limit of your tiny residual amount of intellectual honesty. This is how you fully show people that you have lost and are desperate and willing to throw away all credibility and integrity.

>My claim is that if you represent your argument symbolically; it will demonstrate that everything you've said is wrong. Hence the burden of proof is on you.
this is a complete non-sequitur.

You've made a claim that I am wrong and a claim that this can be shown through representing the argument symbolically. Why would either of those claims reverse the burden for proof from the claimer to the person that the claims are being made in opposition toward?
The answer is they do not. They're normal claims subject to the burden of proof lying with the person who made the claims as normal.

If I was wrong you'd be able to show that to be the case but you have failed to do that despite making that claim without justification and despite being challenged to justify the claim and show that I am wrong multiple times.

lol you're such a loser. at this point any microscopic doubt about you being correct or having intellectual integrity has evaporated.

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 01:15:50 2018 No.9496354

>>9496346
>Why would either of those claims reverse the burden for proof from the claimer to the person that the claims are being made in opposition toward?
Given "If X then Y", if you would like Y then you satisfy X. In this case, Y= " it will demonstrate that everything you've said is wrong" and X="you represent your argument symbolically".

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 01:25:40 2018 No.9496376

>>9496354
lol and you're still repeating your claims that I'm wrong and that this can be shown by representing my argument symbolically but you still haven't provided any argument or justification for either of these things despite being challenged to.

since all you're doing is repeating the same empty claims that you refuse to justify that means that you give up and are mentally incapable of demonstrating my argument wrong.

Well done on losing

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 01:30:37 2018 No.9496384 >>9496376 >you still haven't provided any argument or justification for either of these things despite being challenged to. None is needed. If you represent your argument symbolically; it will demonstrate that everything you've said is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 01:31:09 2018 No.9496386 >>9496376 Since all you're doing is repeating the same empty claims that you refuse to represent symbolically that means that you give up and are mentally incapable of demonstrating my argument wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 01:56:01 2018 No.9496451 >>9496173 what are you an autist? ok pretend I said "evidence" in the place of "proof"

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 08:20:31 2018 No.9497079 >>9496451 Then your question doesn't make sense as mere evidence doesn't determine existence. Rather it determines the likelihood of existence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 09:11:17 2018 No.9497154 >>9497079 >Rather it determines the likelihood of existence. This is not true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 09:17:21 2018 No.9497168 >applying result 1 again P(x'\|e') > P(x') Here you're assuming e' is evidence for x' i.e. what you're trying to prove. Try again once you graduated from high school.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 09:22:14 2018 No.9497180 File: 22 KB, 485x443, brainIet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >the absolute state of Bayesians

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 09:23:12 2018 No.9497183 >>9492512 This is why most reputable statisticians reject Bayes "theorem".

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 09:46:26 2018 No.9497239

>>9497168
no I'm not. all I'm doing is multiplying both sides by minus 1 then adding 1.

At no point is it assumed that e' is evidence for x'. what is shown is that if e is evidence for x then e' is evidence for x'
the assumption is that e is evidence for x and that the probability of all the events involved are non-zero.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 10:50:57 2018 No.9497383 >>9497154 It is true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 17:17:41 2018 No.9498500 >>9497383 >It is true. It's only true if you take it as an axiom, otherwise it's false.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 18:03:43 2018 No.9498625 >>9498500 >Bachelors are only unmarried by axiom If you want to call a definition an axiom.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 18:08:47 2018 No.9498635 >>9498625 >>Bachelors are only unmarried by axiom Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 23:18:36 2018 No.9499257 >>9492512 I don't want to read 250 posts, can someone give me a quick rundown of this thread? "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a pretty uncontroversial notion in academic circles.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 23:37:17 2018 No.9499293 >>9499257 See >>9495332 and >>9495904

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 7 23:46:59 2018 No.9499312 >>9499293 >See >>9495332 It seems bizarre to model an event E as "the presence of evidence for X" instead of just "evidence", this linguistic mishap seems to be the source of OP's confusion.

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 23:50:07 2018 No.9499318

>>9499312
OP modeled the event e as evidence, So you're wrong. Did you even read the OP?

Modeling evidence as the event is apparently too vague for the troll in this thread since they insist the absence of that evidence is not the negation of the event. That is why I defined the event as the presence of evidence. Evidence by itself is not really an event.

Anonymous Wed Feb 7 23:56:56 2018 No.9499334

>>9499318
>OP modeled the event e as evidence, So you're wrong.
I quoted >>9495332, where that poster (as I quoted) modeled model the event E as "the presence of evidence for X". By inserting this "presence" here where it does not really belong, the conclusion derived by interpreting "absence" as the negation of this poor choice of words follows haphazardly.

>Modeling evidence as the event is apparently too vague for the troll in this thread since they insist the absence of that evidence is not the negation of the event.
It's not clear what distinction is being made between the probability of X given an absence of evidence (P(X)) and the probability of X given the complement of an event known to be evidence for E (P(X|~E)).

>Evidence by itself is not really an event.
Everything in the probability space is an event, otherwise P(X|E) is not well-defined.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 00:26:24 2018 No.9499412

>>9499334
>I quoted >>9495332 #, where that poster (as I quoted) modeled model the event E as "the presence of evidence for X"
Yes and then you criticized OP for that when OP did not do that. That's what you're quoting, so you seem to be having trouble reading.

>By inserting this "presence" here where it does not really belong
Again, evidence is not an event. Something has to be *happening* to be an event. Obviously what is meant by "evidence" is that evidence exists, or
Is present. Otherwise the phrase would refer to "non-evidence" rather than the "absence of evidence."

>It's not clear what distinction is being made between the probability of X given an absence of evidence (P(X))
P(X) is the probability of X, which includes the probability of X given evidence. So it's not equivalent to the probability of X given an absence of evidence. Of you are going to describe a conditional probability, give it a condition.

>Everything in the probability space is an event, otherwise P(X|E) is not well-defined.
"Evidence" is not in the probability space side it's not an event. "Evidence" in this context is not true or false, its present or absent. Its presence is true of false.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 00:36:34 2018 No.9499431 >>9499412 >"Evidence" is not in the probability space side it's not an event. Then P(E) is not defined.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 01:06:25 2018 No.9499480

>>9499412
>Again, evidence is not an event. Something has to be *happening* to be an event. Obviously what is meant by "evidence" is that evidence exists, or
>Is present. Otherwise the phrase would refer to "non-evidence" rather than the "absence of evidence."
>"Evidence" is not in the probability space side it's not an event. "Evidence" in this context is not true or false, its present or absent. Its presence is true of false.
Have you ever taken a probability class or opened a probability textbook?

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 07:17:42 2018 No.9499787

>>9499412
>Again, evidence is not an event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability
>In probability theory, conditional probability is a measure of the probability of an event given that (by assumption, presumption, assertion or evidence) another event has occurred.
>event

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 08:37:30 2018 No.9499871

>>9499431
See >>9495332

>>9499480
Yes. Have you?

>>9499787
I don't see how that responds to anything I said. An event being given by evidence [which would have to mean that a) the evidence actually exists and b) the evidence *proves* the event happened] does not mean that evidence itself is the event. In the context of this thread, evidence existing is itself the event. An event has to be an *outcome* rather than an object. Anyone who took probability theory would know this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 14:02:40 2018 No.9500377 >>9499871 >See >>9495332 P(E) is not defined if E is not an event.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 14:04:24 2018 No.9500382 >>9499871 >I don't see how that responds to anything I said. Conditional probability is defined in terms of two events, so P(X\|E) makes no sense if E is not an event.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 14:08:09 2018 No.9500399

>>9499871
>An event being given by evidence [which would have to mean that a) the evidence actually exists and b) the evidence *proves* the event happened] does not mean that evidence itself is the event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference#Formal_explanation
>the evidence E

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 14:14:12 2018 No.9500423 >>9499871 Define P(A) for a non-event A.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 14:21:37 2018 No.9500444

>>9499871
>An event being given by evidence [which would have to mean that a) the evidence actually exists and b) the evidence *proves* the event happened] does not mean that evidence itself is the event. In the context of this thread, evidence existing is itself the event. An event has to be an *outcome* rather than an object.
You haven't actually said anything here.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 14:54:56 2018 No.9500544

>>9499871
>An event has to be an *outcome* rather than an object.
I don't know what you mean by "object", but the first part of this is completely wrong. Events are sets of outcomes, not outcomes themselves. You should read the definition of a probability space before spouting such nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 15:26:11 2018 No.9500624 >>9499871 >An event being given by evidence This is a meaningless notion, the event is the evidence, there's no distinction between the two so it makes no sense to say "being given by".

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 16:58:47 2018 No.9500850

>>9500377
E is defined as an event in that post. Try reading.

>>9500399
That doesn't respond to what you're quoting. If evidence is given that means the evidence exists, is present. Evidence as an event means evidence being present. You have yet to refute this, you just keep spamming faulty semantics and non-responses like >>9500444

>>9500423
Why would I have to do that when I just said that it must be an event? This is just low-effort obvious trolling.

>I don't know what you mean by "object"
Evidence as a non-event, i.e. evidence without something happening, is simply an "object."

>Events are sets of outcomes, not outcomes themselves.
And again you fail to understand or respond to the point. A set of outcomes can only be made up of outcomes, not objects.

>>9500624
This notion is simply a reposition of what you posted:

>In probability theory, conditional probability is a measure of the probability of an event given that (by assumption, presumption, assertion or evidence) another event has occurred.

Why are you posting "meaningless notions?"

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:03:24 2018 No.9500863 >>9500850 >Evidence as a non-event No such thing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:05:36 2018 No.9500872 >>9500850 >This notion is simply a reposition of what you posted: There's a distinction between "probability of an event given another event" and "event being given by evidence". The latter is meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:06:20 2018 No.9500876 >>9500850 >E is defined as an event in that post. Which is why ""Evidence" is not in the probability space side it's not an event" is incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:07:02 2018 No.9500879 >>9500850 >If evidence is given that means the evidence exists, is present. Evidence as an event means evidence being present. Could you represent your argument symbolically? It seems very muddled

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:07:33 2018 No.9500880 >>9500850 >Why would I have to do that when I just said that it must be an event? see >>9499412 >"Evidence" is not in the probability space side it's not an event

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:08:20 2018 No.9500883

>>9500850
>And again you fail to understand or respond to the point. A set of outcomes can only be made up of outcomes,
There's clearly no point being made when you do not even know the definition of a probability space. I suggest you have a read before carrying on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:08:29 2018 No.9500884 >>9500863 So then you agree the event "evidence" means the presence of evidence. Good.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:10:00 2018 No.9500887 >>9500884 > the event "evidence" This is a meaningless notion (since the evidence is the event, your statement is redundant).

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:13:58 2018 No.9500893 >>9500884 >So then you agree the event "evidence" means the presence of evidence. Good. Can you reformulate what you were trying to say in proper English?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:14:37 2018 No.9500894 >>9500850 >And again you fail to understand or respond to the point. A set of outcomes can only be made up of outcomes, not objects. Then why would you make the absurd claim that "an event has to be an outcome"?

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:16:43 2018 No.9500901

>>9500872
There is no distinction according to your own source. It says that a conditional event is given by assumption, assertion or evidence that another event has occurred:

>In probability theory, conditional probability is a measure of the probability of an event given that (by assumption, presumption, assertion or evidence) another event has occurred.
>an event given that (by assumption, presumption, assertion or evidence) another event has occurred.

Why are you denying what's written by your own source? You really are pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:17:51 2018 No.9500904 >>9500901 >Why are you denying what's written by your own source? Can you point to where in that source it says "event being given by evidence"?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:22:06 2018 No.9500916 >>9500884 >So then you agree the event "evidence" means the presence of evidence. Good. How does this follow from there being no such thing as "evidence as a non-event"?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:28:47 2018 No.9500934 >>9500876 If "evidence" means that evidence is present then it is. If it does not mean that evidence is present then it's clearly not an event since its not happening. This is the point you keep dancing around and trying to avoid.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:31:07 2018 No.9500936 >>9500880 "Evidence" is not referring to my definition. Taking quotes out of context is dishonest.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:33:57 2018 No.9500943 >>9500934 >If "evidence" means that evidence is present then it is. This is a meaningless notion. >If it does not mean that evidence is present then it's clearly not an event since its not happening. Then P(E) is not defined (since E is not an event).

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:36:38 2018 No.9500949 >>9500936 >"Evidence" is not referring to my definition. What is it referring to?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:37:57 2018 No.9500953 >>9500934 >If "evidence" means that evidence is present Why would it mean that? "Dog" doesn't mean "dog is present", "man" doesn't mean "man is present", in fact I can't think of any word that implies its own presence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:49:29 2018 No.9500981 >>9500887 I don't see how referring to the event being called "evidence" makes it redundant or meaningless. You are just trying to avoid responding to the point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:50:32 2018 No.9500983 >>9500893 That is proper English.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:50:35 2018 No.9500984

>>9500981
>I don't see how referring to the event being called "evidence" makes it redundant or meaningless.
Because the evidence is the event, you may as well be saying
>the event "event"

>You are just trying to avoid responding to the point.
What point?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:51:25 2018 No.9500987 >>9500983 >That is proper English. Redundancy and meaninglessness is not proper English.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:53:37 2018 No.9500995 >>9500983 Why did you make the absurd claim that "an event has to be an outcome"?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:56:26 2018 No.9501004 >>9500894 Change it to an event is a set of outcomes and the point is exactly the same.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:59:29 2018 No.9501014

>>9501004
>Change it to an event is a set of outcomes and the point is exactly the same.
An outcome is not the same as a set of outcomes, this would imply that [math] S \subset P(S) [/math], a mathematical absurdity. I strongly suggest you read the definition of a probability space before attempting to discuss probability.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 17:59:32 2018 No.9501015 >>9500904 Can you explain why you can't parse what's being said? >an event given that (by assumption, presumption, assertion or evidence) another event has occurred. I'm curious what you think the parenthetical is referring to if not "event given by"

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:01:55 2018 No.9501024 >>9500916 It follows from the discussion preceding it. "Evidence which is neither present nor absent" is not an event.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:02:43 2018 No.9501027

>>9501015
>Can you explain why you can't parse what's being said?
Because you claim that "event being given by evidence" is written in my own source when it appears nowhere in said source, feel free to do a Control+F search to confirm for yourself.

>I'm curious what you think the parenthetical is referring to if not "event given by"
The parenthetical is referring to the event E in P(X|E).

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:04:12 2018 No.9501033

>>9501024
>It follows from the discussion preceding it. "Evidence which is neither present nor absent" is not an event.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. There is no such as evidence as a non-event; this doesn't imply anything regarding whether "Evidence which is neither present nor absent" is an event or not.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:34:24 2018 No.9501122 >>9500949 It's referring to some hypothetical definition that you would need to claim to say that the negation of evidence is not the absence of that evidence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:35:26 2018 No.9501126 >>9500943 >This is a meaningless notion. This is a lie.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:37:39 2018 No.9501131 >>9500953 >Why would it mean that? "Dog" doesn't mean "dog is present" It does if you want to use "dog" as a condition. Why are you pretending to be retarded?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:38:41 2018 No.9501138 >>9500987 That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:42:58 2018 No.9501149 >>9500984 >Because the evidence is the event, you may as well be saying >the event "event" Your conception of evidence is not an event, since you deny that it implies presence. >What point? See above.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:44:06 2018 No.9501153 >>9500995 Why do you deny that evidence has to be present to be an event?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:45:12 2018 No.9501157 >>9501014 >An outcome is not the same as a set of outcomes, I didn't say they're the same, I said the point is the same. Why are you pretending to be retarded?

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:54:51 2018 No.9501184

>>9501027
>Because you claim that "event being given by evidence" is written in my own source when it appears nowhere in said source, feel free to do a Control+F search to confirm for yourself.
I already showed you where it was written. Why are you making the absurd claim that it's not there just because it's not written the exact same way?

>The parenthetical is referring to the event E in P(X|E).
So the parenthetical "given by... evidence" is referring to an event being given by evidence. So you admit the notion "event being given by evidence" is not meaningless and you were simply being obtuse.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:55:13 2018 No.9501186 >>9501153 >Why do you deny that evidence has to be present to be an event? What do you mean by "be present"? Evidence is an event by definition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:55:58 2018 No.9501191 >>9501131 >It does if you want to use "dog" as a condition. What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:56:29 2018 No.9501194 >>9501138 >That has nothing to do with what I wrote. Everything you wrote was meaningless and redundant, so yes it does.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:57:01 2018 No.9501195 >>9501149 >Your conception of evidence is not an event As I've already stated, evidence is always an event. Can you point to where I claimed otherwise?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:57:45 2018 No.9501199 >>9501157 >I didn't say they're the same, I said the point is the same. The original point was meaningless because what you wrote was a mathematical absurdity, so if the point is the same then you still haven't made any meaningful statement.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:58:15 2018 No.9501200 >>9501184 >I already showed you where it was written. Where? I did a control+F and couldn't find it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 18:58:46 2018 No.9501201 >>9501184 >the notion "event being given by evidence" This is a meaningless notion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:00:07 2018 No.9501209 >>9501184 >So the parenthetical "given by... evidence" There is no such parenthetical. Please re-read what you're attempting to misquote before making such absurd statements.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:09:04 2018 No.9501230

>>9501033
>There is no such as evidence as a non-event
And an event is a set of outcomes.
Therefore by your own argument evidence must refer to an outcome or outcomes. Is evidence being neither present nor absent an outcome or outcomes? No. Therefore evidence must be present or absent.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:12:10 2018 No.9501233 >>9501191 I mean that the condition "dog" would have to mean a dog is present, otherwise it makes no sense. Why would the absence of a dog be called "dog?"

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:12:58 2018 No.9501236

>>9501230
>Is evidence being neither present nor absent an outcome or outcomes?
It depends on the sample space of the probability space.

> No.
Why not? It's trivial to construct a probability space where "evidence being neither present nor absent" is an outcome.

>Therefore evidence must be present or absent.
Why?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:13:28 2018 No.9501237 >>9501233 >I mean that the condition "dog" would have to mean a dog is present Why? >Why would the absence of a dog be called "dog?" I'm not sure why "dog" would refer to either of these notions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:13:58 2018 No.9501238 >>9501194 See >>9500981 and >>9501149

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:15:05 2018 No.9501240 >>9501195 You claimed that evidence does not imply presence, which leads to an absurdity which cannot be called an event.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:16:41 2018 No.9501243 >>9501199 >The original point was meaningless because what you wrote was a mathematical absurdity Proof?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:17:42 2018 No.9501246 >>9501200 See the sentence after the one you're quoting.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:18:32 2018 No.9501247 >>9501240 >You claimed that evidence does not imply presence Evidence is simply an element of the sigma algebra, what implication could follow from an element?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:19:03 2018 No.9501248 >>9501243 >Proof? see >>9501014

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:19:33 2018 No.9501251 >>9501246 >See the sentence after the one you're quoting. Where? I did a control+F and couldn't find it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:20:53 2018 No.9501255 >>9501201 See >>9501027 where you admit "given by evidence" refers to an event.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:22:01 2018 No.9501258 >>9501255 >See >>9501027 (You) where you admit "given by evidence" refers to an event. Where did I admit that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:29:54 2018 No.9501269 >>9501209 That is what the parenthetical means, which you admit by saying >The parenthetical is referring to the event E in P(X\|E). Which is the given event. So once again we see that you are attempting to avoid the point.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:31:40 2018 No.9501274

>>9501269
>That is what the parenthetical means, which you admit by saying
>>The parenthetical is referring to the event E in P(X|E).
Why does saying "The parenthetical is referring to the event E in P(X|E)." mean that the parenthetical means "given by... evidence"? That's an absurdity.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:35:22 2018 No.9501283

>>9501236
>It depends on the sample space of the probability space.
No it doesn't because a sample space cannot contain an absurdity, it only contains possible outcomes. What experiment produces "evidence which is neither present nor absent"?

>Why not? It's trivial to construct a probability space where "evidence being neither present nor absent" is an outcome.
Then do so.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:38:43 2018 No.9501293 >>9501237 >Why? Because the absence of a dog is not a dog. >I'm not sure why "dog" would refer to either of these notions. I'm not sure what you think a "dog" which is neither present nor absent is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:40:01 2018 No.9501295 >>9501251 See >>9501184

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:42:49 2018 No.9501300 >>9501247 It being an element of a sigma algebra is not sufficient to call it an event.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:43:53 2018 No.9501301

>>9501283
>No it doesn't because a sample space cannot contain an absurdity
What does it mean to "contain an absurdity"? The sample space is simply a set of outcomes. If you would read the definition of a probability space as I have strongly suggested repeatedly, you would know that any non-empty set can serve as a sample space.

>What experiment produces "evidence which is neither present nor absent"?
See below.

>Then do so.
[math] \Omega = \{\text{evidence which is neither present nor absent}\} [/math]
[math] \mathcal{F} = \{\Omega, \emptyset\}[/math]
[math] P(\Omega)=1, P( \emptyset)=0[/math]

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:44:13 2018 No.9501302 >>9501248 That does not effect my original point, so you lied yet again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:44:29 2018 No.9501303 >>9501300 >It being an element of a sigma algebra is not sufficient to call it an event. Within the context of a probability space, yes it is sufficient.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:45:28 2018 No.9501306 >>9501302 >That does not effect my original point, so you lied yet again. Lied about what?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:45:59 2018 No.9501308 >>9501293 >Because the absence of a dog is not a dog. Of course, and neither is the presence of a dog.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:46:30 2018 No.9501312 >>9501293 >I'm not sure what you think a "dog" which is neither present nor absent is. A dog.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:47:14 2018 No.9501315 >>9501295 >See >>9501184 I still don't see it, can you quote the part that says "event being given by evidence"? My control+F can't seem to find it either.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:47:21 2018 No.9501316 >>9501258 E is the event given, and the parenthetical is "by... evidence". Therefore you admit that the event is given by evidence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:48:23 2018 No.9501317 >>9501316 >Therefore you admit that the event is given by evidence. This is a non-sequitur.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:49:41 2018 No.9501321

>>9501274
>Why does saying "The parenthetical is referring to the event E in P(X|E)." mean that the parenthetical means "given by... evidence"
Because it is referring to the event which is given. Are you incapable of parsing a simple sentence including a parenthetical or not?

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:52:04 2018 No.9501326

>>9501321
>Because it is referring to the event which is given.
Yes, the parenthetical refers to the event E which is given in the expression P(X|E). Why does that mean the parenthetical means "given by... evidence"?

> Are you incapable of parsing a simple sentence including a parenthetical or not?
No.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:56:20 2018 No.9501333

>>9501301
>What does it mean to "contain an absurdity"? The sample space is simply a set of outcomes.
Exactly, and no experiment produces this. It's not an outcome.

> you would know that any non-empty set can serve as a sample space.
Utterly wrong. Only sets containing possible outcomes, not any non-empty set.

>See below.
I see a non-empty set, not a sample space.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:56:39 2018 No.9501334 >>9501333 >Exactly, and no experiment produces this. It's not an outcome. See >>9501301

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:58:07 2018 No.9501335

>>9501333
>Only sets containing possible outcomes, not any non-empty set.
Wrong.

Any non-empty set [math] \Omega [/math] can generate a probability space, see >>9501301 (simply replace the specific choice of [math] \Omega [/math] with an arbitrary non-empty set, and the axioms of a probability space are still satisfied).

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 19:58:38 2018 No.9501337 >>9501333 >I see a non-empty set, not a sample space. They are one and the same, I strongly suggest reading the definition of a probability space.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:05:47 2018 No.9501355 >>9501303 Regardless of context, either it is an element of a set or not. Is this sufficient to call it an event? No, because it must be a possible outcome of an experiment.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:07:40 2018 No.9501359 >>9501306 You lied about my original point being meaningless because of a mathematical absurdity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:09:06 2018 No.9501364 >>9501359 >You lied about my original point being meaningless because of a mathematical absurdity. It is meaningless because it implied [math] S \subset P(S) [/math], a mathematical impossibility.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:09:11 2018 No.9501365 >>9501308 A dog is not an event. The presence of a dog is the event being referred to as "dog."

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:10:21 2018 No.9501371 >>9501312 That's not an event.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:10:26 2018 No.9501372 >>9501355 >Is this sufficient to call it an event? Yes. I strongly suggest reading the definition of a probability space.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:11:16 2018 No.9501376 >>9501365 >A dog is not an event. In which probability space?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:12:20 2018 No.9501377 >>9501371 >That's not an event. In which probability space?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:13:26 2018 No.9501380 >>9501365 >The presence of a dog is the event being referred to as "dog." Why refer to the event by something other than the event's name?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:14:51 2018 No.9501383 >>9501315 See >>9501295

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:15:29 2018 No.9501384 >>9501383 >See >>9501295 I still don't see it, can you quote the part that says "event being given by evidence"? My control+F can't seem to find it either.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:15:54 2018 No.9501388 >>9501317 This is what you claimed was a meaningless notion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:16:04 2018 No.9501389 >>9501365 >A dog is not an event. This is a meaningless notion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:16:42 2018 No.9501391 >>9501388 >This is what you claimed was a meaningless notion. Yes, it is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:18:18 2018 No.9501398 >>9501365 >A dog is not an event. This is analogous to making the claim "{2} is not a subset", i.e. a meaningless notion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:18:49 2018 No.9501399 >>9501326 >Why does that mean the parenthetical means "given by... evidence"? Because the parenthetical is referring to the event being given, by evidence. >No. Good, so you know the sentence is referring to an event being given by evidence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:20:46 2018 No.9501402 >>9501334 >See >>9501301 # There's no experiment in that post.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:21:54 2018 No.9501405 >>9501399 >Because the parenthetical is referring to the event being given, by evidence. Why is it referring to that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:26:06 2018 No.9501413 >>9501402 >There's no experiment in that post. What's missing?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:26:37 2018 No.9501415 >>9501399 >Good, so you know the sentence is referring to an event being given by evidence. Why is it referring to that?

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:27:08 2018 No.9501416

>>9501335
Wrong.

>In probability theory, the sample space[nb 1] of an experiment or random trial is the set of all possible outcomes or results of that experiment.

>In probability theory, a probability space or a probability triple {\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {F}},P)} (\Omega ,{\mathcal {F}},P) is a mathematical construct that models a real-world process (or “experiment”) consisting of states that occur randomly. A probability space is constructed with a specific kind of situation or experiment in mind.

You cannot conjure probability spaces out of nonsense while pretending to be taking about evidence in a phrase applied to reality. Your argument fails on the most fundamental level of both probability theory and the premise of this thread. You lose, good day sir.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:29:00 2018 No.9501420 >>9501416 >You lose, good day sir. I'm not a "sir".

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:29:31 2018 No.9501423 >>9501416 >You cannot conjure probability spaces out of nonsense while pretending to be taking about evidence in a phrase applied to reality. Which part of the probability space I defined does not fit the definition of probability space?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:31:26 2018 No.9501430 >>9501416 >You cannot conjure probability spaces out of nonsense while pretending to be taking about evidence in a phrase applied to reality. Probability space and evidence are mathematical constructs, reality has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:32:34 2018 No.9501434

>>9501416
>Your argument fails on the most fundamental level of both probability theory and the premise of this thread
You have yet to provide any refutation based on probability theory, which isn't a surprise since you've repeatedly appeared to even be unaware of the definition of a probability space.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 8 20:40:15 2018 No.9501451 >>9501416 >You cannot conjure probability spaces out of nonsense while pretending to be taking about evidence in a phrase applied to reality. Then why are you applying probability theory to a phrase applied to reality?

Anonymous Thu Feb 8 21:36:47 2018 No.9501553

>>9501416
>You cannot conjure probability spaces out of nonsense while pretending to be taking about evidence in a phrase applied to reality.
What part of the experiment doesn't apply to reality? Just consider rolling a one sided die labeled "evidence which is neither present nor absent".

Anonymous Fri Feb 9 05:58:50 2018 No.9502247

>>9492512
>guys I've proven that...
yeah stop right there. IF you had proven ANYTHING of value (assuming your proof is correct, I haven't even glanced at a pixel of it to save mental toil power) you WOULDN'T go ahead and post it here of all places, you fucking mong. Just some inbred NEET who'll never publish anything. A whole life of nothing, you'd kick it tomorrow and no one would be phased.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math