« The anthropic principle | Main | Short break »

11 June 2007



"It means whatever money you'd bet you can't justify it."

I'd be very surprised if you could define the winning predicate either. In such a case, who cares if there's no correct amount of money to bet?

Barnaby Dawson

Almost every winning predicate is of this strange form.


Not any useful ones.


Any examples? Although I'm not a mathematician I do feel a little suspicious. What I'm thinking is along the lines of 'can you show that you need to make a decision on choice in probability theory?' I don't understand why you can't just work in the absence of choice. You could investigate whether the odd theorem depends on choice or not, and the differing outcomes in the presence of choice or anti-choice or what have you.

Then it seems like you would know what you were doing better, even if you have to say 'we don't know whether this vast host of theorems depend on choice or not.

The comments to this entry are closed.