Re: Me and David C. Ullrich

On 12 Oct 2005 15:36:20 -0700, "Elmo" <elmoritz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>Randy Poe wrote:
>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>> > "Elmo" <elmoritz@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >
>> > > We can say:
>> > > 1.Two coins were flipped. We know because our statement told us so.
>> > > 2.All we know about the coin flip, we learned from the statement.
>> > > 3.We know that TT did not happen.
>> > > 4.We know that HH happened, and the statement was made, or, HT happened
>> > > and the statement was made, or, TH happened and the statement was made.
>> > > 5.Two coins were tossed is a statement of fact.
>> > > 6."At least one is a head" is a conditional statement.
>> >
>> > I have held my tongue until now, but in what reasonable sense is "at
>> > least one is a head" a conditional statement? It is no less factual
>> > than "two coins were tossed."
>> >
>> > Utterly bizarre.
>> >
>> > Conditional statements are statements of the form: If X then Y. Or Y,
>> > given X. Or Y only if X. Or....
>> >
>> > "At least one is a head" is not a stinking conditional statement.
>>
>> Eldon has been obsessing about this probability calculation
>> for years.
>>
>> See, for instance, this page from 1998:
>> http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/boys.html
>>
>> I think his answer would be something like "You don't know
>> the conditions under which the person would tell you that
>> at least one is a head. In the case HT/TH, they might
>> be equally likely to say that one is a tail."
>>
>> He has severe problems with the idea of "given" and insists
>> on constructing elaborate behavioral scenarios involving
>> the means by which you obtain the information that at
>> least one is a head.
>>
>> - Randy
>
>Randy, I have no problem with "given". I have a problem with people who
>see the term "at least one" and rush to the formula for "given at least
>one."
>
>I've quit this question several times, but people send me emails about
>it, and I get going again. I spend a lot of time hanging around
>airports, with internet access. Through the process, I've gotten to be
>the world's foremost authority on this question. If you think I don't
>understand this question, read and understand what I've written on it.

Um. Even you should realize that this last bit is just silly.
The reason people think you don't understand this question is
exactly _because_ of the things you've written about it!

I mean really, why else would people come to that conclusion?
(Correctly or not...)

>Eldon


************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Me and David C. Ullrich
    ... Randy Poe wrote: ... >> least one is a head" a conditional statement? ... > at least one is a head. ... I spend a lot of time hanging around ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Me and David C. Ullrich
    ... > Eldon, the timing is implied by what you wrote: ... > "On this forum I have argued the question, ... > least one of the coins is a head. ...
    (sci.math)