[borisp]

Sorry to rehash an old thread, but upon reawakening my interest in 2+2, this thread arose...

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, Jaynes (not Jensen) is the creator of the maximum entropy principle which, together with the indifference principle, form two of the fundamental ideas in his version of logical probability.

[/ QUOTE ]
busted

[ QUOTE ]
The larger philosophical picture of logical probability is certainly up for debate -- a debate which is not generally the playground of mathematicians --

[/ QUOTE ]
That's because we are quick to recognize the inconsistency of your assumptions.

[ QUOTE ]
but the mathematical side of his work and ideas is well-represented in the mathematical community, as a quick search of MathSciNet will reveal.

[/ QUOTE ]

ummmm....yea...Mr Professor champion...the articles that appear on MathSciNet are to be read with a grain of salt...certainly they told you that in professor school?

[ QUOTE ]

Second, I have quite a bit of experience teaching many courses ranging from freshman calculus to graduate level courses on stochastic integration and differential equations. I am a professor of mathematics and, in particular, a probabilist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Holy [censored]. I bet you would be amazed at the applicants your random no-name university accepts. Furthermore, what do your students say on their evaluation forms?

[ QUOTE ]
You, on the other hand, I would wager, are (at best) an arrogant graduate student who thinks he knows everything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet you do not even understand the difference between the mathematics of probability and the philosophical interpretations of probability. You made your ignorance of this distinction, as well as your arrogance, evident in your third post in SMP.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is where I draw the line. I am not ignorant with regard to probability and the philosophical interpretations of probability; I simply choose to reject the latter based on an investigation of the foundations of the theory.