Regularity and infinitely tossed coins

European Journal for Philosophy of Science 7 (1):97-102 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Timothy Williamson has claimed to prove that regularity must fail even in a nonstandard setting, with a counterexample based on tossing a fair coin infinitely many times. I argue that Williamson’s argument is mistaken, and that a corrected version shows that it is not regularity which fails in the non-standard setting but a fundamental property of shifts in Bernoulli processes.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,459

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-05-13

Downloads
109 (#196,890)

6 months
15 (#215,221)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Colin Howson
Last affiliation: London School of Economics

References found in this work

Probability, Regularity, and Cardinality.Alexander R. Pruss - 2013 - Philosophy of Science 80 (2):231-240.
Infinite Lotteries, Perfectly Thin Darts and Infinitesimals.Alexander R. Pruss - 2012 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):81-89.
Cardinality Arguments Against Regular Probability Measures.Thomas Hofweber - 2014 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 3 (2):166-175.

Add more references