Re: [jboske] Lojban is fxxxed

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Jorge Llambias wrote:

>
> la xod cusku di'e
>
> >No, I meant rather that for a set of n beliefs, your total uncertainty U =
> >1/n Sum u(n). The "paradox" denotes the irrational mindset where U > 0,
> >yet Sum u(n) = 0.
>
> You're defining the uncertainty of a set of beliefs as the
> average of their uncertainties? Shouldn't you take at least the
> maximum?


But the certainty must obey the same properties. And U + C = 1.


> In any case, logic does not tell you how the uncertainty
> of the set is related to the uncertainty of each member.
> Your definition is one possible choice of "uncertainty".
>
> {ko'a krici le du'u broda ije ko'a krici le du'u brode}
> does not logically entail {ko'a krici le du'u ge broda
> gi brode}.


It does only for rational people. Otherwise you must work out the theory
that shows why {the relationship between the chance of beliefs being
wrong} is different than any other probabilistic situation.



-- 
// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();