Essay talk:On a Remark by Robert J. Marks and William A. Dembski

I just had to crack a smile with the "so obviously..." bit. You had me following it almost fine just up until there! postate 12:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I try to reduce the frequency of my obvious insights - e.g., by calling them elementary :-)


 * But in this case, it's just what we expect from a probability measure: the probability for choosing a (pure) strategy should be non-negative:
 * $$q_{(n_1,\,n_2,\,\ldots,\,n_K)} \ge 0\; \forall (n_1,\,n_2,\,\ldots,\,n_K)\in\Omega_K$$
 * and the sum of all probabilities should be one:
 * $$\sum_{(n_1,\,n_2,\,\ldots,\,n_K) \in \Omega_K} q_{(n_1,\,n_2,\,\ldots,\,n_K)} =1 $$
 * What could be seen as surprising are the indices: not the usual numbers $$1,2,\ldots$$, but n-tuples.
 * 12:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just seeing ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, to be honest. Scarlet A.pngbomination 15:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Erratum (Theirs, not mine...)
As a reaction to the ideas of this essay, Robert J. Marks and William A. Dembski put a new erratum in their paper, which can be found in the current state here (pdf) - and my reaction to this here.

08:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Spot the difference
Can you spot the difference between these two screencaps of the home-page of the EvoLab? Indeed, a couple of days ago, there was a link to the subpage errata - which has conveniently disappeared of the last five days. I'm flattered. 14:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)