Re: Use of Three-State Electronic Level to Express Belief

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:54:48 -0700

Bruno

I 'believe" that the switch analogy is valuable in expressing belief,
however, I have trouble making a bridge between this analogy and your
explanation. In this post I will make a feeble attempt to make that bridge.

To avoid confusion between my Switch belief function and the one you
use, let me rename my three state switch belief function from B to S.
So now, what I had expressed in an earlier post as qBp becomes qSp,
where q is the switch control line, p is the input and qSp is the output.

So your Bp becomes my 1Sp and your ~Bp becomes my 0Sp.

Note that pSp is never 0. (the control line and the input line carry the
same information.) This reminds me of the anthropic principle.

Bruno Marchal wrote:

> Just remember that Bp means the machine has print, or prints, or
> will print, sooner or later the proposition p.
> From "Bp is true" you cannot infer that the machine will print Bp,
> only that she
> will print p.

Using the switch analogy and paraphrasing what you said:
If q = 1 (i.e. Bp is true) then you cannot infer that qSp is true (the
machine will print Bp) only that p is known (only that she will pring p)
ie., if the control line is on, you still don't know what is the output
of the switch. However you know that p is known.

Could you pursue this analogy further?

George

>
>
Received on Wed Oct 06 2004 - 14:59:08 PDT