Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

pphysch

[flagged]

View on HN

Please don't perpetuate flamewar on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

We've had to ask you this more than once before.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

P(A|B) * P(B) = P(A & B) = P(B|A) * P(A)

(Under the assumption that P(B) > 0 and P(A) > 0 ):

P(A|B) > P(A) iff P(A|B) * P(B) > P(A) * P(B) and so iff P(A & B) > P(A) * P(B) and therefore, by the same reasoning in the other direction,

P(A|B) > P(A) iff P(B|A) > P(B)

(Let A and B be “the CCP is evil” and “the CCP committed [some particular wrongdoing]”)

P(A)=1 is an axiom of mainstream Western thought.

While, uh, no, regardless, that has no bearing on my point, which is that your point claiming that [it is reasonable to treat A as evidence for B, but irrational/religious to treat B as evidence for A], is entirely wrong[1].

[1](... with the possible exception of observing something which one previously had assigned a probability of zero, but, this ideally should only ever happen for things where one at least had a positive probability density, in which case a similar argument should still work. I didn't feel like working out all the details in the case of continuous probability distributions, as it is finicky and in any case is irrelevant to the discrete events you mentioned.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com