4 ms·

I don't really understand why what you said disagrees with what your parent said?

• ramanujan 17y ago
  Perhaps I read too quickly -- when he said: > All that probability shorthand can be unambiguously translated to formal definitions quite easily. But doing so would be analogous to writing a complex program in assembly One possible interpretation (probably, in retrospect, the right one) is that he meant that Whitehead/Russell style axiomatization of probability was in theory possible, but would not be of much value. I read it initially (likely wrongly in retrospect) as saying that translating the equations into an unambiguous formal computer readable definition would be intractable and/or only of theoretical interest.