<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Cox's Theorem and the Jaynesian Interpretation of Probability · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1507.06597/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1507.06597/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Cox's Theorem and the Jaynesian Interpretation of Probability — mentioned by kgwgk</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10321327</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1507.06597:10321327</guid><pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2015 21:05:53 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s interesting that starting from the principles he states in section 1.7 the rules of probability can be derived. This formulation is from http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.06597 (where it is shown that the measure-theoretical approach is just an special case): (Representation) Degrees of plausibility pl(A|B) can be identified as unique real numbers p ∈ R; and (Qualitative Correspondence With Common Sense; Logical Internal Consistency) This has three sub-Principles: – If there is more than one path to a correct conclusion, all such paths must lead to the same plausibility result; – In assessing…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1507.06597/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.ST</category></item></channel></rss>
