PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact


Search


PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 04 July at 18:17 - Around 220000 files indexed.

Show results per page

Results for «indifference»:


Total: 200 results - 0.041 seconds

indifference 100%

Indifference:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/04/01/indifference/

01/04/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

CanIndifferenceVindicateInduction 94%

    Fool Me Once: Can Indifference Vindicate Induction?  Roger White (2015) sketches an ingenious new solution to the problem of induction. It argues on  a priori ​  grounds that the world is more likely to be induction­friendly than induction­unfriendly.  The argument relies primarily on the principle of indifference, and, somewhat surprisingly,  assumes little else. If inductive methods could be vindicated in anything like this way, it would  be quite a groundbreaking result. But there are grounds for pessimism about the envisaged  approach. This paper shows that in the crucial test cases White concentrates on, the principle of  indifference actually renders induction no more accurate than random guessing. It then diagnoses  why the indifference­based argument seems so intuitively compelling, despite being ultimately  unsound.  1 An Indifference­Based Strategy  White begins by imagining that we are “apprentice demons” tasked with devising an  induction­unfriendly world ​  – a world where inductive methods tend to be unreliable. To  simplify, we imagine that there is a single binary variable that we control (such as whether the  sun rises over a series of consecutive days). So, in essence, the task is to construct a binary  sequence such that – if the sequence were revealed one bit at a time – an inductive reasoner  would fare poorly at predicting its future bits. This task, it turns out, is surprisingly difficult. To  see this, it will be instructive to consider several possible strategies for constructing a sequence  that would frustrate an ideal inductive predictor.  Immediately, it is clear that we should avoid uniformly patterned sequences, such as:   00000000000000000000000000000000   or  01010101010101010101010101010101.  ­1­      Sequences like these are quite kind to induction. Our inductive reasoner would quickly latch onto  the obvious patterns these sequences exhibit. A more promising approach, it might seem, is to  build an apparently patternless sequence:  00101010011111000011100010010100  ​ But, importantly, while induction will not be particularly ​ ​ reliable at predicting the terms of this  sequence, it will not be particularly ​unreliable here either. Induction would simply be silent  about what a sequence like this contains. As White puts it, “ In order for... induction to be  applied, our data must contain a salient regularity of a reasonable length” (p. 285). When no  pattern whatsoever can be discerned, presumably, induction is silent. (We will assume that the  inductive predictor is permitted to suspend judgment whenever she wishes.) The original aim  was not to produce an induction­neutral sequence, but to produce a sequence that elicits errors  from induction. So an entirely patternless sequence will not suffice. Instead, the  induction­unfriendly sequence will have to be more devious, building up seeming patterns and  then violating them. As a first pass, we can try this:  00000000000000000000000000000001  Of course, this precise sequence is relatively friendly to induction. While our inductive predictor  will undoubtedly botch her prediction of the final bit, it is clear that she will be able to amass a  long string of successes prior to that point. So, on balance, the above sequence is quite kind to  induction – though not maximally so.   In order to render induction unreliable, we will need to elicit more errors than correct  predictions. We might try to achieve this as follows:  00001111000011110000111100001111  ­2­      The idea here is to offer up just enough of a pattern to warrant an inductive prediction, before  pulling the rug out – and then to repeat the same trick again and again. Of course, this precise  sequence would not necessarily be the way to render induction unreliable: For, even if we did  manage to elicit an error or two from our inductive predictor early on, it seems clear that she  would eventually catch on to the exceptionless higher­order pattern governing the behavior of  the sequence.  The upshot of these observations is not that constructing an induction­unfriendly sequence is  impossible. As White points out, constructing such a sequence should be possible, given any  complete description of how exactly induction works (p. 287). Nonetheless, even if there are a  few special sequences that can frustrate induction, it seems clear that such sequences are fairly  few and far between. In contrast, it is obviously very easy to ​corroborate induction (i.e. to  construct a sequence rendering it thoroughly reliable). So induction is relatively  un­frustrate­able. And it is worth noting that this property is fairly specific to induction. For  example, consider an inferential method based on the gambler’s fallacy, which advises one to  predict whichever outcome has occurred less often, overall. It would be quite easy to frustrate  this method thoroughly (e.g. ​00000000…​).   So far, we have identified a highly suggestive feature of induction. To put things roughly, it  can seem that:   * Over a large number of sequences, induction is thoroughly reliable.   * Over a large number of sequences, induction is silent (and hence, neither reliable nor unreliable).  * Over a very small number of sequences (i.e. those specifically designed to thwart induction),  induction is unreliable (though, even in these cases, induction is still silent much of the time).  ­3­      Viewed from this angle, it can seem reasonable to conclude that there are ​a priori grounds for  confidence that an arbitrary sequence is not induction­unfriendly. After all, there seem to be far  more induction­friendly sequences than induction­unfriendly ones. If we assign equal probability  to every possible sequence, then the probability that an arbitrary sequence will be  induction­friendly is going to be significantly higher than the probability that it will be  induction­unfriendly. So a simple appeal to the principle of indifference seems to generate the  happy verdict that induction can be expected to be more reliable than not, at least in the case of  binary sequences.   Moreover, as White points out, the general strategy is not limited to binary sequences. If we  can show ​a priori that induction over a binary sequence is unlikely to be induction­unfriendly,  then it’s plausible that a similar kind of argument can be used to show that we are justified in  assuming that an arbitrary ​world is not induction­unfriendly. If true, this would serve to fully  vindicate induction.  2 Given Indifference, Induction Is not Reliable   However, there are grounds for pessimism about whether the strategy is successful even in the  simple case of binary sequences. Suppose that, as a special promotion, a casino decided to offer  Fair Roulette. The game involves betting $1 on a particular color – black or red – and then  spinning a wheel, which is entirely half red and half black. If wrong, you lose your dollar; if  right, you get your dollar back and gain another. If it were really true that induction can be  expected to be more reliable than not over binary sequences, it would seem to follow that  induction can serve as a winning strategy, over the long term, in Fair Roulette. After all, multiple  spins of the wheel produce a binary sequence of reds and blacks. And all possible sequences are  ­4­      equally probable. Of course, induction cannot be used to win at Fair Roulette – past occurrences  of red, for example, are not evidence that the next spin is more likely to be red. This suggests that  something is amiss. Indeed, it turns out that no inferential method – whether inductive or  otherwise – can possibly be expected to be reliable at predicting unseen bits of a binary  sequence, if the principle of indifference is assumed. This can be shown as follows.  Let ​S be an unknown binary sequence of length ​n. ​S is to be revealed one bit at a time,  starting with the first.   S: ​? ? ? ? ? ? … ?​ ​:​S    n bits  Let ​f be an arbitrary predictive function that takes as input any initial subsequence of ​S and  outputs a prediction for the next bit: ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘suspend judgment’.   A  predictive  function’s  accuracy  is measured as follows: +1 for each correct prediction; ­1 for  each  incorrect  prediction;  0  each  time ‘suspend judgment’ occurs. (So the maximum accuracy of  a  function  is  ​n;  the  minimum  score  is  –​n.)  Given  a  probability  distribution  over  all  possible  sequences,  the  ​expected  accuracy  of  a  predictive  function  is  the  average  of  its  possible  scores  weighted by their respective probabilities.  Claim: ​If we assume indifference (i.e. if we assign equal probability to every possible sequence), then  – no matter what ​S is – each of​ f’s predictions​ will be expected to contribute 0 to ​f’s accuracy. And, as  a consequence of this, ​f has 0 expected accuracy more generally.  Proof: ​For some initial subsequences, ​f will output ‘suspend judgment’. The contribution of such  predictions will inevitably be 0. So we need consider only those cases where ​f makes a firm  prediction (i.e. ‘0’ or ‘1’; not ‘suspend judgment’).  Let ​K be a ​k­length initial subsequence for which ​f makes a firm prediction about the bit in   ­5­ 

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/02/19/canindifferencevindicateinduction/

19/02/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

FoolMeOnce 93%

Can Indifference Vindicate Induction?

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/02/19/foolmeonce/

19/02/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

Baylor Lawsuit3 88%

1) deliberate indifference and clearly unreasonable acts and omissions that created a hostile educational environment for students before a sexual assault by a fellow student by conduct and policies making a student more vulnerable to sexual assault itself;

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/06/21/baylor-lawsuit3/

21/06/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

heterosexualism lugones 86%

So, on the one hand, I am interested in investigating the intersection of race, class, gender, and sexuality in a way that enables me to understand the indifference that persists in much feminist analysis.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/08/08/heterosexualism-lugones/

08/08/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

10 Must Read Books for College Goers 77%

9) The Stranger by Albert Camus The novel is about a person s indifference to his society marks him as a stranger to his environment.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/06/27/10-must-read-books-for-college-goers/

27/06/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

Is It Time to GO BACK to Burn Heating Oil 75%

The data also shows that heating oil prices are very close to the indifference point at which the cost of a unit of energy from heating oil is the same as the cost of a unit of energy from wood pellets.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/02/11/is-it-time-to-go-back-to-burn-heating-oil/

11/02/2015 www.pdf-archive.com

principle of insufficient reason 72%

Collins’ indifference principle Ben Wallis 2010 Jul 30 In June of 2009, Wiley-Blackwell published The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, an impressive collection of ten carefully-crafted Christian apologetic treatises.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/01/22/principle-of-insufficient-reason/

22/01/2011 www.pdf-archive.com

padrepedro 02 eng 69%

29 June/ 12 July 2010  memory of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul    Presbyter Fr. Pedro Luiz Anacleto dos Santos Junior  Tel. +30 6988 975 751  Email : padrepedroelucia@gmail.com        To:  His Eminence Metropolitan (G.O.C.)  Kyr kyr Kirykos.      Your Eminence,        It  is  to  my  great  sorrow  to  note  that  until  now  You  have  not  answered  my  letter  from  28  Feb.  (O.C.)/  13  Mar.  (N.C.),  which  shows  Your  Eminence’s indifference and contempt towards my humbleness.      For which reasons You display such indifference, the Lord knows.      Since, however, the themes and problems, which I set forth in my above‐ mentioned letter to You, arise in Your letter to my humbleness and touch upon  issues concerning the Faith of the Orthodox Church handed down and sealed by  the  Holy  Fathers  and  because  Your  teachings,  positions,  views  and  actions  deviate  from  this,  for  this  reason,  I  am  obligated  to  not  silence  myself,  but  to  mention and clarify the below:      1.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2014/09/23/padrepedro-02-eng/

23/09/2014 www.pdf-archive.com

7 Signs That Her Sex Drive Is Slowly Dying 66%

Her Tone of Voice and Behavior Shows Indifference Not all women are good at hiding their disinterest and dying libido.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/04/05/7-signs-that-her-sex-drive-is-slowly-dying/

05/04/2013 www.pdf-archive.com

Has Humanity Become Numb to Cruelty 65%

devoid of humane feelings.” And digging deeper, “Humane” is described by Merriam-Webster as “marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals.” Google.com defines Cruelty as, “Callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering” and “behavior that causes physical or mental harm to another… whether intentionally or not.” So, combining these definitions we can fully define a cruel person as:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/02/27/has-humanity-become-numb-to-cruelty/

27/02/2018 www.pdf-archive.com

25 way to avoid being hired 63%

25 WAYS TO AVOID BEING HIRED  1.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/08/01/25-way-to-avoid-being-hired/

01/08/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

mobile strike cheats1615 62%

Most gamers play games to keep themselves deflected from indifference.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/03/02/mobile-strike-cheats1615/

02/03/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

March4 Mascha 62%

Michelle Nicole Boyer-Kelly March 04, 2016 Teaching Self-Reflection Date:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/05/02/march4-mascha/

02/05/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

carllsson 62%

Nowtopia:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/03/20/carllsson/

20/03/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

2251 w11 ms 21 61%

indifference or opposition from their partner, struggling against their own gender socialisation.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/06/11/2251-w11-ms-21/

11/06/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

casino wiz1878 61%

At the free sites, while they can register with compensated sites to enjoy for fun and in addition acquire some dough in the same period, consumers can enjoy to get reduce indifference.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/01/05/casino-wiz1878/

05/01/2015 www.pdf-archive.com

watch fairy tail1658 61%

With these two things in possession, nobody will have any instant of indifference ever again.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/12/07/watch-fairy-tail1658/

07/12/2015 www.pdf-archive.com