Talk:Possibility theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Unlike probability theory which is based on signal-signal measure,
What does the above mean? I've taught probability theory at four different universities, MIT among them, and I can't make heads or tails out of the above. Michael Hardy 23:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This still needs cleanup, but there was considerable confusion with Dempster Shafer theory of evidence.
Minh
Please don't write things like
Correct notation is
Similarly, use backslahses in \inf, \sup, \det, \cos, \log, \exp, \lim, etc. Not only does this prevent italicization and provide proper spacing, but also in some cases makes subscripts appear directly under the operator rather than under and to the right. Michael Hardy 19:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, checked. But shouldn't we use the same notation everywhere: either Π or 
?
Minh
I am not sure I am understanding the following:
- It follows that, like probability, the possibility measure is determined by its behavior on singletons.
It does not seem true. If we consider as probability space the Lebesgue measure in [0,1], every singleton has probability 0. The probability of any interval cannot be written as the sum of the probabilities of the singletons contained in it, because it is uncountable. User:zeycus 13:45, 06 May 2006 (UTC)
- With any continuous probability distribution (of which the normal distribution---the one associated with the "bell-shaped curve"---is the most well known) every singleton has probability zero, and that does not determine the probability distribution---not even close. I have qualified the statement in the article. Michael Hardy 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ok, now that it is specified to hold only in the finite and countable cases I agree with the claim. User:zeycus 18:35, 07 May 2006 (UTC)
