形式定性概率

IF 0.9 3区 数学 Q1 LOGIC Review of Symbolic Logic Pub Date : 2020-02-20 DOI:10.1017/s1755020319000480
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
{"title":"形式定性概率","authors":"Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan","doi":"10.1017/s1755020319000480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Choices rarely deal with certainties; and, where assertoric logic and modal logic are insufficient, those seeking to be reasonable turn to one or more things called “probability.” These things typically have a shared mathematical form, which is an arithmetic construct. The construct is often felt to be unsatisfactory for various reasons. A more general construct is that of a preordering, which may even be incomplete, allowing for cases in which there is no known probability relation between two propositions or between two events. Previous discussion of incomplete preorderings has been as if incidental, with researchers focusing upon preorderings for which quantifications are possible. This article presents formal axioms for the more general case. Challenges peculiar to some specific interpretations of the nature of probability are brought to light in the context of these propositions. A qualitative interpretation is offered for probability differences that are often taken to be quantified. A generalization of Bayesian updating is defended without dependence upon coherence. Qualitative hypothesis testing is offered as a possible alternative in cases for which quantitative hypothesis testing is shown to be unsuitable.\n","PeriodicalId":49628,"journal":{"name":"Review of Symbolic Logic","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Formal Qualitative Probability\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1755020319000480\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Choices rarely deal with certainties; and, where assertoric logic and modal logic are insufficient, those seeking to be reasonable turn to one or more things called “probability.” These things typically have a shared mathematical form, which is an arithmetic construct. The construct is often felt to be unsatisfactory for various reasons. A more general construct is that of a preordering, which may even be incomplete, allowing for cases in which there is no known probability relation between two propositions or between two events. Previous discussion of incomplete preorderings has been as if incidental, with researchers focusing upon preorderings for which quantifications are possible. This article presents formal axioms for the more general case. Challenges peculiar to some specific interpretations of the nature of probability are brought to light in the context of these propositions. A qualitative interpretation is offered for probability differences that are often taken to be quantified. A generalization of Bayesian updating is defended without dependence upon coherence. Qualitative hypothesis testing is offered as a possible alternative in cases for which quantitative hypothesis testing is shown to be unsuitable.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":49628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Symbolic Logic\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Symbolic Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755020319000480\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LOGIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Symbolic Logic","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755020319000480","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LOGIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

选择很少涉及确定性;而且,在断言逻辑和模态逻辑不足的地方,那些寻求合理的人转向一个或多个被称为“概率”的东西。这些东西通常有一个共同的数学形式,这是一个算术结构。由于各种原因,这种结构常常不能令人满意。一个更一般的结构是预先排序,它甚至可能是不完整的,允许两个命题或两个事件之间没有已知概率关系的情况。先前关于不完全预排序的讨论似乎是偶然的,研究人员关注的是可能量化的预排序。本文为更一般的情况提供了形式公理。在这些命题的背景下,对概率本质的某些特定解释所特有的挑战被揭示出来。对于通常被量化的概率差异,提供了一种定性解释。在不依赖于相干性的情况下,对贝叶斯更新的概括进行了辩护。定性假设检验是提供作为一个可能的替代情况下,定量假设检验被证明是不合适的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Formal Qualitative Probability
Choices rarely deal with certainties; and, where assertoric logic and modal logic are insufficient, those seeking to be reasonable turn to one or more things called “probability.” These things typically have a shared mathematical form, which is an arithmetic construct. The construct is often felt to be unsatisfactory for various reasons. A more general construct is that of a preordering, which may even be incomplete, allowing for cases in which there is no known probability relation between two propositions or between two events. Previous discussion of incomplete preorderings has been as if incidental, with researchers focusing upon preorderings for which quantifications are possible. This article presents formal axioms for the more general case. Challenges peculiar to some specific interpretations of the nature of probability are brought to light in the context of these propositions. A qualitative interpretation is offered for probability differences that are often taken to be quantified. A generalization of Bayesian updating is defended without dependence upon coherence. Qualitative hypothesis testing is offered as a possible alternative in cases for which quantitative hypothesis testing is shown to be unsuitable.
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
Review of Symbolic Logic
Review of Symbolic Logic 数学-数学
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Review of Symbolic Logic is designed to cultivate research on the borders of logic, philosophy, and the sciences, and to support substantive interactions between these disciplines. The journal welcomes submissions in any of the following areas, broadly construed: - The general study of logical systems and their semantics,including non-classical logics and algebraic logic; - Philosophical logic and formal epistemology, including interactions with decision theory and game theory; - The history, philosophy, and methodology of logic and mathematics, including the history of philosophy of logic and mathematics; - Applications of logic to the sciences, such as computer science, cognitive science, and linguistics; and logical results addressing foundational issues in the sciences.
期刊最新文献
Ontological Purity for Formal Proofs Non-Factive Kolmogorov Conditionalization An algebraic proof of completeness for monadic fuzzy predicate logic mMTL Decidable fragments of the Quantified argument calculus ALGEBRAIC SEMANTICS FOR RELATIVE TRUTH, AWARENESS, AND POSSIBILITY
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1