What Conditional Probability Could Not Be.¶
Hájek, A. (2003). What Conditional Probability Could Not Be. Synthese, 137(3), 273-323.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Probability
- 6. Interpretation: the numbers are assigned a meaning — long-run frequency, rational degree of belief, physical propensity, or a mixed account — and that meaning fixes how the claims are tested, used, and updated, the plurality of admissible readings Hájek (2003) catalogs as the unresolved philosophical core of probability.
This sourceCompanion to Hájek's standard survey of probability interpretations (frequentist, subjectivist, propensity, logical, classical); argues that no single account of conditional probability is adequate to all uses, exhibiting the plurality and unresolved philosophical core of probability semantics.
- 6. Interpretation: the numbers are assigned a meaning — long-run frequency, rational degree of belief, physical propensity, or a mixed account — and that meaning fixes how the claims are tested, used, and updated, the plurality of admissible readings Hájek (2003) catalogs as the unresolved philosophical core of probability.
- Uncertainty
- of aleatoric (irreducible) and epistemic (reducible) uncertainty, and Hájek's treatment of multiple interpretations of probability
This sourceCompanion to Hájek's standard survey of probability interpretations (frequentist, subjectivist, propensity, logical, classical); argues that no single account of conditional probability is adequate to all uses, exhibiting the plurality and unresolved philosophical core of probability semantics.
- of aleatoric (irreducible) and epistemic (reducible) uncertainty, and Hájek's treatment of multiple interpretations of probability
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:ff1397a9999d · see in the full table