Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> Jacques Mallah wrote:
> > Just one problem with that: it doesn't make any
> > damn sense. Measure is measure. On the other
> hand if
> > by "measure relative to themselves" you mean some
> > measure *ratio*, the important thing to realize is
> > that measure ratios don't play the role of measure
> > (foe effective probabilities) unless the
> denominator is the same fixed constant for all.
>
> Provided the same denominator is used for all
> observations by a particular observer. Different
> observers may have different denominators
Hell NO, that makes no sense at all if you want
the measure ratios in question to be proportional to
(and thus play the role of) measure itself.
=====
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com
Received on Mon Apr 17 2000 - 17:26:09 PDT