4 ms·

You just provided a valid interpretation for q. So what’s the problem here? I don’t understand why you’re arguing that q must be 0 or 1, which is nonsense. I d

You just provided a valid interpretation for q. So what’s the problem here? I don’t understand why you’re arguing that q must be 0 or 1, which is nonsense. I don’t object to your comments about the absence of a working paper. You need to do better than just quoting passages from Wikipedia if you want to understand what that means. You’re accusing me of not understanding the Dutch book argument. Do you have any reason for this, or is it just a baseless accusation?

nanis 8y ago
> You just provided a valid interpretation for q. So what’s the problem here? Isn't it obvious that interpretation does not apply in this situation? > You’re accusing me of not understanding the Dutch book argument. It is not an accusation. It is a statement. The Dutch book argument is basically a "no arbitrage" or "no free lunch" argument. Isn't it obvious then that it cannot be used to justify anything where no money is at stake and no bet regarding the outcome can ever be resolved? PS: This will be my last comment in this thread because I get the distinct feeling that I am talking to Eliza instead of a human being.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > Isn't it obvious that interpretation does not apply in this situation? Why not? > It is not an accusation. It is a statement. It is an accusation. It is also a false statement. > Isn't it obvious then that it cannot be used to justify anything where no money is at stake and no bet regarding the outcome can ever be resolved? This is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. It's like saying the expected value of a dice roll doesn't exist because no roll ever equals 3.5, or the average of any number of trials is not necessarily 3.5. It's claiming a counterfactual is false because its antecedent is false. > PS: This will be my last comment in this thread because I get the distinct feeling that I am talking to Eliza instead of a human being. You're welcome to run away with your tail between your legs after making baseless accusations and misunderstanding the concept of probability.
  - nanis 8y ago
    > You're welcome to run away with your tail between your legs ... LOL!

nanis 8y ago

> You just provided a valid interpretation for q. So what’s the problem here? Isn't it obvious that interpretation does not apply in this situation? > You’re accusing me of not understanding the Dutch book argument. It is not an accusation. It is a statement. The Dutch book argument is basically a "no arbitrage" or "no free lunch" argument. Isn't it obvious then that it cannot be used to justify anything where no money is at stake and no bet regarding the outcome can ever be resolved? PS: This will be my last comment in this thread because I get the distinct feeling that I am talking to Eliza instead of a human being.

antidesitter 8y ago
> Isn't it obvious that interpretation does not apply in this situation? Why not? > It is not an accusation. It is a statement. It is an accusation. It is also a false statement. > Isn't it obvious then that it cannot be used to justify anything where no money is at stake and no bet regarding the outcome can ever be resolved? This is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. It's like saying the expected value of a dice roll doesn't exist because no roll ever equals 3.5, or the average of any number of trials is not necessarily 3.5. It's claiming a counterfactual is false because its antecedent is false. > PS: This will be my last comment in this thread because I get the distinct feeling that I am talking to Eliza instead of a human being. You're welcome to run away with your tail between your legs after making baseless accusations and misunderstanding the concept of probability.
- nanis 8y ago
  > You're welcome to run away with your tail between your legs ... LOL!