Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The answer to the first question is 2 / 3 , as is shown correctly by the "simple" solutions. But the answer to the second question is now different: the conditional probability the car is behind door 1 or door 2 given the host has opened door 3 (the door on the right) is 1 / 2 .
The foundation of the uncertainty reduction theory stems from the information theory, originated by Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver. [2] Shannon and Weaver suggests, when people interact initially, uncertainties exist especially when the probability for alternatives in a situation is high and the probability of them occurring is equally high. [6]
An antecedent is the first half of a hypothetical proposition, whenever the if-clause precedes the then-clause. In some contexts the antecedent is called the protasis. [1] Examples: If , then . This is a nonlogical formulation of a hypothetical proposition. In this case, the antecedent is P, and the consequent is Q.
Another example is: If I am President of the United States, then I can veto Congress. I am not President. Therefore, I cannot veto Congress. [This is a case of the fallacy denying the antecedent as written because it matches the formal symbolic schema at beginning. The form is taken without regard to the content of the language.]
The ante-in antecedent means 'before; in front of'. Thus, when a pro-form precedes its antecedent, the antecedent is not literally an antecedent, but rather it is a postcedent, post-meaning 'after; behind'. The following examples, wherein the pro-forms are bolded and their postcedents are underlined, illustrate this distinction: a.
A mixed hypothetical syllogism has two premises: one conditional statement and one statement that either affirms or denies the antecedent or consequent of that conditional statement. For example, If P, then Q. P. ∴ Q. In this example, the first premise is a conditional statement in which "P" is the antecedent and "Q" is the consequent.
The second premise is an assertion that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is the case. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be the case as well. An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens: If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work. Today is Tuesday.
In economics, Knightian uncertainty is a lack of any quantifiable knowledge about some possible occurrence, as opposed to the presence of quantifiable risk (e.g., that in statistical noise or a parameter's confidence interval). The concept acknowledges some fundamental degree of ignorance, a limit to knowledge, and an essential unpredictability ...