現代数学の系譜工学物理雑談古典ガロア理論も読む75

[過去ﾛｸﾞ] 現代数学の系譜工学物理雑談古典ガロア理論も読む75 (1002ﾚｽ)
上下前次1-新
通常表示 512ﾊﾞｲﾄ分割ﾚｽ栞
抽出解除ﾚｽ栞

このｽﾚｯﾄﾞは過去ﾛｸﾞ倉庫に格納されています｡
次ｽﾚ検索歴削→次ｽﾚ栞削→次ｽﾚ過去ﾛｸﾞﾒﾆｭｰ

509: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 古典ガロア理論も読む ◆e.a0E5TtKE  [sage] 2019/08/20(火) 07:18:49.77 ID:FmpY0/8E

>>505＆>>470
おサルは、我田引水、勝手解釈、自己に都合よく誤読・誤解する名人ですな
さすがは、サイコパスです

細かいところは略すが

(引用開始)
Pruss、
"Symmetry and Brown-Freiling Refutation of the Continuum Hypothesis"
にて曰く
(引用終り)

(>>301より)
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/151286/probabilities-in-a-riddle-involving-axiom-of-choice
Probabilities in a riddle involving axiom of choice Dec 9 '13
　(抜粋)
（Alexander Pruss氏）
A quick way to see that the conglomerability assumption is going to be dubious is to consider the analogy of the Brown-Freiling argument against the Continuum Hypothesis (see here for a discussion).
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/3/3/636

だけど、http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/3/3/636 は、著者 Paul Bartha氏で
”Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada”
Pruss氏自身の論文ではないよ（＾＾

>"the probability Pr(p < q) is undefined, rather than 0."
>「確率Pr(p < q)は0でなくむしろ未定」
>これが全て　スレ主の主張「確率０」はPrussによっても否定されたｗ

そのPr(p < q) は、時枝とは無関係の確率計算ですよ

おサルは、我田引水、勝手解釈、自己に都合よく誤読・誤解する名人ですな
さすがは、サイコパスですｗ（＾＾；

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1565872684/509

702: 現代数学の系譜 雑談 古典ガロア理論も読む ◆e.a0E5TtKE  [sage] 2019/08/23(金) 17:34:43.77 ID:1bhuzzzJ

>>695 追加

やっぱ、この手の話は、和文だけでは足りないね
英文に当たらないと

そのときに、en.wikipediaは便利だね
ja.wikipediaから入って、左の「他言語版」”English”で、取りあえずの情報は得られる

そこから、さらに英文キーワードを得て、”ぐぐ”れば良い、必要な人はね（＾＾
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability)
(抜粋)
Recent developments
In his 2007 paper, "Bertrand’s Paradox and the Principle of Indifference",[7] Nicholas Shackel affirms that after more than a century the paradox remains unresolved, and continues to stand in refutation of the principle of indifference.
Also, in his 2013 paper, "Bertrand’s paradox revisited: Why Bertrand’s ‘solutions’ are all inapplicable",[8] Darrell P. Rowbottom shows that Bertrand’s proposed solutions are all inapplicable to his own question, so that the paradox would be much harder to solve than previously anticipated.

Shackel[7] emphasizes that two different approaches have been generally adopted so far in trying to solve Bertrand's paradox: those where a distinction between non-equivalent problems was considered, and those where the problem was assumed to be a well-posed one.
Shackel cites Louis Marinoff[9] as a typical representative of the distinction strategy, and Edwin Jaynes[3] as a typical representative of the well-posing strategy.

つづく

http://rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1565872684/702

上下前次1-新書関写板覧索設栞歴

ｽﾚ情報赤ﾚｽ抽出画像ﾚｽ抽出歴の未読ｽﾚ

ぬこの手ぬこTOP 3.218s*