20 Jul '11 04:59>
If probability is based on empirical assumptions , how valid is it ?
Originally posted by kaminskyIt depends on the context. As long as the empirical assumptions are fully stated, the probability calculation itself is entirely valid. If the assumptions turn out to be wrong, then the results too will be wrong.
If probability is based on empirical assumptions , how valid is it ?
Originally posted by kaminskyI interpret "valid" to mean internally consistent, that is a correct application of reasoning.
If probability is based on empirical assumptions , how valid is it ?
Originally posted by finneganDo you let in North Irish?
I interpret "valid" to mean internally consistent, that is a correct application of reasoning.
Maybe however you mean - what weight can I attach to a probability when I know that it is based on empirical assumptions? To some degree that depends what weight you are willing to attach to the assumptions, which ought to be stated. Anyway, more likely your ...[text shortened]... cy. It may give a misleading result because it is based only on members of the Ireland Clan.
Originally posted by kaminskyThere are two kinds of probability: empirical probability and theoretical probability. The theoretical probability of rolling a die and getting a 5 is 1/6.
If probability is based on empirical assumptions , how valid is it ?
Originally posted by kaminskyThat's why that part of it is stated as an assumption and is not part of the mathematics.
Im not a mathmatician, but it does not seem very mathmatical to rely on assumed observations of events.
Originally posted by kaminskyTry explaining mathematics in terms of logic.
Both empirical and theoretical probability assumptions seem flawed since they rely on inductive logic , because something has happened before, it will happen again. Im not a mathmatician, but it does not seem very mathmatical to rely on assumed observations of events . The internal maths of probability maybe faultless, its the first principles I'm questioning.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra...reaching for Principia Mathematica... I may be some time...
Try explaining mathematics in terms of logic.
Originally posted by kaminskyWha...?
Both empirical and theoretical probability assumptions seem flawed since they rely on inductive logic , because something has happened before, it will happen again. Im not a mathmatician, but it does not seem very mathmatical to rely on assumed observations of events . The internal maths of probability maybe faultless, its the first principles I'm questioning.
Originally posted by kaminskyA random process is one in which all possible outcomes have equal probability of occurring. There is such a thing, at least conceptually. Like tossing a coin or rolling a die. Though, if a coin or die is not constructed "perfectly," it will tend to favor one side over others.
If I can put my question in some context , it might help since Im not mathmatician and it might not be clear what I mean . A visit to the London science museum ,where an exhibit about ERNIE ,the random number generator ,states that the numbers generated could actualy never be truly random,coincides with me reading Einsteins statement that god does'nt play ed experimentally in the real world to see if it fits.
I hope this makes things more clear .