G. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just had a
flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian,
maybe I was channeling).
Yeah man, you can get flashbacks
You should have injected them with an emergency hit of information theory.
Instant clarity.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
On 27 Jun 2013 02:08, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
> > On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > I was blocking on the term "logic
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> Although there are no appeals, I do strenuously object to this judgement.
> The default assumption is the default because it is
> usually accurate. Unless you believe that my brother and I are not in
> control of the theagoranundead Gmail account, something
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just had a
> > flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian,
> > maybe I was channeling).
>
> Yeah man, you can get f
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just had a
flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian,
maybe I was channeling).
Yeah man, you can get flashbacks from that sort of thing. Or so I've
heard, I
On 26/06/2013 8:20 AM, omd wrote:
Although there are no appeals, I do strenuously object to this
judgement. The default assumption is the default because it is usually
accurate. Unless you believe that my brother and I are not in control of
the theagoranundead Gmail account, something which I c
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Fool wrote:
>
> Goethe's arguments:
>
>> Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes
>> along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical. In a
>> mathematical sense, one could say that it was "equally likely or
>> unlikely" that o
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
> Furthermore I fail to see how even the mathematician's (thought it was
> supposed to be logician's) version of the argument is sound. The reference to
> the "principle of indifference" instead makes it sound like some sort of
> Bayesian reasoning. But let me put
Quite right Dan. While I applaud the spirit of omd's attempt to win by
paradox, we are very far from being in a position to say that we cannot
determine whether The UNDEAD is player. We haven't even tried to collect
any of the possibly relevant evidence yet!
On 26 June 2013 11:22, Fool wrote:
>
On 25/06/2013 4:34 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The UNDEAD wrote:
I do not register. I propose repealing rule 327.
Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't
want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :)
I invoke judgement on the
10 matches
Mail list logo
