近似的措施

J. Staffel
{"title":"近似的措施","authors":"J. Staffel","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198833710.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The focus of Chapter 3 is the central Bayesian tenet that a thinker’s unconditional credences should be probabilistically coherent. Plausibly, thinkers who don’t have coherent credences can be more or less incoherent, i.e. their credences can diverge from complying with the probability axioms only a little, or quite substantially. We can capture this intuitive idea by representing a thinker’s credence function as a vector, and measuring its distance to the closest probabilistically coherent credence function that is defined over the same set of propositions. The problem that arises in this context is that there are many possible measures we can use to determine the distance from coherence, and those measures can deliver incompatible rankings. I present a representative range of such measures and illustrate the ways in which they differ.","PeriodicalId":446166,"journal":{"name":"Unsettled Thoughts","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Approximation Measures\",\"authors\":\"J. Staffel\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198833710.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The focus of Chapter 3 is the central Bayesian tenet that a thinker’s unconditional credences should be probabilistically coherent. Plausibly, thinkers who don’t have coherent credences can be more or less incoherent, i.e. their credences can diverge from complying with the probability axioms only a little, or quite substantially. We can capture this intuitive idea by representing a thinker’s credence function as a vector, and measuring its distance to the closest probabilistically coherent credence function that is defined over the same set of propositions. The problem that arises in this context is that there are many possible measures we can use to determine the distance from coherence, and those measures can deliver incompatible rankings. I present a representative range of such measures and illustrate the ways in which they differ.\",\"PeriodicalId\":446166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Unsettled Thoughts\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Unsettled Thoughts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198833710.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Unsettled Thoughts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198833710.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

第3章的重点是贝叶斯的核心原则,即思想家的无条件信任应该是概率连贯的。貌似,没有连贯信念的思考者可能或多或少是不连贯的,也就是说,他们的信念与概率公理的一致性可能只有一点点偏差,也可能相当大。我们可以通过将思考者的信任函数表示为一个向量,并测量其与在同一命题集上定义的最接近的概率连贯信任函数的距离来捕捉这个直观的想法。在这种情况下出现的问题是,我们可以使用许多可能的方法来确定与一致性的距离,而这些方法可能会提供不相容的排名。我提出了这些措施的代表性范围,并说明了它们的不同之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Approximation Measures
The focus of Chapter 3 is the central Bayesian tenet that a thinker’s unconditional credences should be probabilistically coherent. Plausibly, thinkers who don’t have coherent credences can be more or less incoherent, i.e. their credences can diverge from complying with the probability axioms only a little, or quite substantially. We can capture this intuitive idea by representing a thinker’s credence function as a vector, and measuring its distance to the closest probabilistically coherent credence function that is defined over the same set of propositions. The problem that arises in this context is that there are many possible measures we can use to determine the distance from coherence, and those measures can deliver incompatible rankings. I present a representative range of such measures and illustrate the ways in which they differ.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信