Essay talk:On a Remark by Robert J. Marks and William A. Dembski
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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:
- and the sum of all probabilities should be one:
- What could be seen as surprising are the indices: not the usual numbers , but n-tuples.
- larronsicut fur in nocte 12:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm just seeing ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, to be honest. bomination 15:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Erratum (Theirs, not mine...)[edit]
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.
larronsicut fur in nocte 08:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Spot the difference[edit]
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. larronsicut fur in nocte 14:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)