tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3093890173712337163.comments2012-07-16T19:36:57.359+02:00Plausible Reasoningjplnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3093890173712337163.post-66292288700018579412012-07-16T19:36:57.359+02:002012-07-16T19:36:57.359+02:00Thanks!
By Yudkowsky's introduction, do you ...Thanks! <br /><br />By Yudkowsky's introduction, do you mean "An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes' Theorem"?<br /><br />I started reading Cox, he mentions a book by Venn "Logic of Chance", have you read it?<br /><br />Also, I see a lot of praise for "Science of Logic" by Jaynes, what do you think about it?Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3093890173712337163.post-58137776441126973452012-07-16T07:07:57.584+02:002012-07-16T07:07:57.584+02:00@Michael: Use multiple sources. For starters I wou...@Michael: Use multiple sources. For starters I would recommend the book "The Algebra of Probable Inference" by Richard T. Cox. Short, clear and to the point. Other than that, to pique your interest, read Eliezer Yudkowsky's introduction (though it is kind of biased, like the articles on this blog). Then get a standard college textbook, compare the approach (which will likely be slanted toward "frequentist" rather than "Bayesian"), and go through the exercises.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3093890173712337163.post-39446181078375657482012-07-16T06:44:35.279+02:002012-07-16T06:44:35.279+02:00How do you recommend learning probability theory? ...How do you recommend learning probability theory? <br /><br />My goal is to work on AI. My math level is basic college calculus and linear algebra. <br /><br />Should I just get a college textbook on probability theory and work through the exercises?Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3093890173712337163.post-57097270154522311402009-09-21T01:07:27.449+02:002009-09-21T01:07:27.449+02:00Anonymous: Terms should be defined in a way which ...Anonymous: Terms should be defined in a way which makes them both useful and consistent with what has been already defined and well understood. Not making zero probability synonymous with impossibility just leads to the sort of linguistic sloppiness that this post is about.<br /><br />There are also other occassions on which mathematicians confuse themselves and innocent bystanders with careless language. For example, when trying to wrap their heads around the notion of infinite sets when they really mean generating processes with comfortably finite descriptions. It's a sort of "ontological poison" for the mind. Some even go mad through overdosing it.jplhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12101058989598856696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3093890173712337163.post-5903835534327939702009-09-20T01:19:18.837+02:002009-09-20T01:19:18.837+02:00Your first assertion that zero probability is syno...Your first assertion that zero probability is synonymous with impossibility is incorrect. Learn some measure theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3093890173712337163.post-62643848909714009832008-11-02T21:17:00.000+01:002008-11-02T21:17:00.000+01:00I agree with your reasoning completely. Once again...I agree with your reasoning completely. Once again, probability theory would be much simpler if taught as "an extension to logic".<BR/><BR/>Keep it up!<BR/>- Karlkrukowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02045796732071392830noreply@blogger.com