{"id":8734,"date":"2016-12-06T17:54:48","date_gmt":"2016-12-07T01:54:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=8734"},"modified":"2016-12-06T20:09:32","modified_gmt":"2016-12-07T04:09:32","slug":"nihil-ex-nihilo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=8734","title":{"rendered":"Nihil ex Nihilo<\/span>"},"content":{"rendered":"

In his foundational work on probability,[1]<\/span> Bernard Osgood Koopman would write something of form \u03b1<\/var> \/\u03ba<\/var><\/q> for a suggested observation \u03b1<\/var> in the context of a presumption \u03ba<\/var>. That's not how I proceed, but I don't actively object to his having done so, and he had a reason for it. Though Koopman well understood that real-life rarely offered a basis for completely ordering such things by likelihood, let alone associating them with quantities, he was concerned to explore the cases in which quantification were possible, and he wanted his readers to see something rather like division<\/em> there. Indeed, he would call the left-hand element \u03b1<\/var> a numerator<\/q>, and the right-hand element \u03ba<\/var> the denominator<\/q>.<\/p>

He would further use 0<\/q> to represent that which were impossible<\/em>. This notation is usable, but I think that he got a bit lost because of it. In his presentation of axiomata, Osgood verbally imposes a tacit assumption<\/q> that no denominator were 0. This attempt at assumption disturbs me, not because I think that a denominator could<\/em> be 0, but because it doesn't bear assuming<\/em>. And, as Koopman believed that probability theory were essentially a generalization of logic<\/em> (as do I), I think that he should have seen that the proposition didn't bear assuming. Since Koopman was a logicist<\/span>, the only<\/em> thing that he should associate with a denominator of 0 would be a system of assumptions that entailed a self-contradiction<\/em>; anything<\/em> else is more plausible than that.<\/p>

In formal logic, it is normally accepted that anything<\/em> can follow if one allows a self-contradiction into a system, so that any conclusion as such is uninteresting. If faced by something such as X<\/var> \u2228 (Y<\/var> \u2227 \u00acY<\/var>)<\/span> (ie<\/abbr><\/span> X<\/var> or both Y<\/var> and not-Y<\/var>), one throws away the (Y<\/var> \u2227 \u00acY<\/var>), leaving just the X<\/var>; if faced with a conclusion Y<\/var> \u2227 \u00acY<\/var><\/span> then one throws away whatever forced that awful thing upon one.[2]<\/span> Thus, the formalist approach wouldn't so much forbid<\/em> a denominator of 0 as declare everything that followed from it to be uninteresting<\/em>, of no worth<\/em>. A formal expression that no contradiction is entailed by the presumption \u03ba<\/var> would have the form \u00ac(\u03ba<\/var> \u21d2 [(Y<\/var> \u2227 \u00acY<\/var>)\u2203Y<\/var>])<\/span> but this just dissolves uselessly<\/em> \u00ac(\u00ac\u03ba<\/var> \u2228 [(Y<\/var> \u2227 \u00acY<\/var>)\u2203Y<\/var>])
\u00ac\u00ac\u03ba<\/var> \u2227 \u00ac[(Y<\/var> \u2227 \u00acY<\/var>)\u2203Y<\/var>]
\u03ba<\/var> \u2227 [\u00ac(Y<\/var> \u2227 \u00acY<\/var>)\u2200Y<\/var>]
\u03ba<\/var> \u2227 [(\u00acY<\/var> \u2228 \u00ac\u00acY<\/var>)\u2200Y<\/var>]
\u03ba<\/var> \u2227 [(\u00acY<\/var> \u2228 Y<\/var>)\u2200Y<\/var>]
\u03ba<\/var><\/span> (because (X<\/var> \u21d4 [X<\/var> \u2227 (Y<\/var> \u2228 \u00acY<\/var>)\u2200Y<\/var>])\u2200X<\/var>).<\/p>

In classical<\/em> logic, the principle of non-contradiction<\/span> is seen as the bedrock principle<\/em>, not an assumption<\/em> (tacit or otherwise), because no alternative can<\/em> actually be assumed instead.[3]<\/span>. From that perspective, one should call the absence of 0-valued denominators simply a principle<\/q>.<\/p>

[1]<\/span> Koopman, Bernard Osgood; The Axioms and Algebra of Intuitive Probability<\/q>, The Annals of Mathematics<\/cite>, Series 2 Vol 41 #2, pp 269-292; and The Bases of Probability<\/q>, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society<\/cite>, Vol 46 #10, pp 763-774.<\/p>

[2]<\/span> Indeed, that principle of rejection is the basis of proof by contradiction<\/span>, which method baffles so many people!<\/p>

[3]<\/span> Aristoteles, The Metaphysics<\/cite>, Bk 4, Ch 3, 1005b15-22.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In his foundational work on probability,[1] Bernard Osgood Koopman would write something of form \u03b1 \/\u03ba for a suggested observation \u03b1 in the context of a presumption \u03ba. That's not how I proceed, but I don't actively object to his having done so, and he had a reason for it. Though Koopman well understood that real-life […]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,720,4],"tags":[1450,302,1218,1216,413],"class_list":["post-8734","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-epistemology","category-public","tag-koopman","tag-logic","tag-logicism","tag-plausibility","tag-probability"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8734","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8734"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8734\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8734"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8734"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8734"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}