FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3178363250> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3178363250 abstract "In his review of J M Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability in 1924, Emile Borel made an extraordinary admission. He stated that he was not able to follow what Keynes was doing in Part II of the A Treatise on Probability. Borel’s review, then, as he admitted, is based on an assessment that is, at best, incomplete. Borel further admitted that he understood that this was the most important part of the book for Keynes. This additional frank admission on Borel’s part simply means that Borel’s review, which primarily criticized Keynes’s major claim, that all probabilities can’t be represented by a single numeral between 0 and 1, needed to have been supplemented by some other reviewer who did, in fact, cover Part II of the A Treatise on Probability if a correct overview of Keynes’s book was to be made available for logicians, statisticians, and decision theorists so that they could assess the importance of this book from a historical point of view. Unfortunately, there was no such reviewer, except for the second, camouflaged review of Part II of the A Treatise on Probability done in 1934 by Edwin B Wilson, who deliberately chose to cover up this review by titling it “A Problem of Boole”. Wilson was attempting to cover up the self admitted deficiencies, openly acknowledged by Wilson in private correspondence with F Y Edgeworth, that existed in his first 1923 review of the A Treatise on Probability. Wilson did, however, correctly point out in this correspondence with Edgeworth that F Y Edgeworth was the one person who was the most qualified in the world to review Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability. That contention was correct. Edgeworth’s two reviews, together, are the best reviews of Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability ever made with the possible exception of Bertrand Russell. The only problem was that Edgeworth himself also admitted that he could not follow Part II of the A Treatise on Probability. de Finetti’s 1938 review, based on Borel’s review, also makes no mention of Part II of the A Treatise on Probability. I have already demonstrated that F. Ramsey, in 1922 and 1926, and R. Fisher, in 1923, also showed in their reviews that they had absolutely no understanding of Part II of the A Treatise on Probability”, in my recently published 2016 book, “Reviewing the Reviewers of Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability”, that was originally written in 1986. The failure of academics, especially economists, philosophers, and historians, in the 20th and 21st centuries to read and understand Part II of the A Treatise on Probability, as well as to integrate Part II into an overall, objective assessment of what Keynes had done in the A Treatise on Probability, has led to a historically false assessment of the A Treatise on Probability and failure to comprehend the General Theory. This false assessment claims that Keynes’s logical probability theory is, at best, an ordinal theory that can’t be applied most of the time. Nothing could be further from the truth. Keynes’s theory in Part II is a non additive, non linear, interval valued theory firmly based on the upper and lower probability approach first derived mathematically by G Boole in 1854 in The Laws Of Thought. Boole, in 1854, and not Koopmans in 1940, was the first to provide the foundations in math and logic for an explicit upper and lower probabilities approach. Part II of the A Treatise on Probability is based on hard logical and mathematical analysis that follows directly from Boole. It is not based on mere “views”, “ideas”, “intuitions”, “some hints” or ”suggestions” about the possibility of devising a system of interval valued probability as, for example, argued by Kyburg (see references)." @default.
• W3178363250 created "2021-07-19" @default.
• W3178363250 creator A5066500116 @default.
• W3178363250 date "2017-01-01" @default.
• W3178363250 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W3178363250 title "What Emile Borel, the Great, Famous, French Mathematician, Missed by Skipping Part II of the a Treatise on Probability in His 1924 Review of that Book: The Impact of the Ignorance of Part II of the a Treatise on Probability on Modern Assessments of J M Keynes's Logical Theory of Probability" @default.
• W3178363250 cites W1964999035 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W1965955174 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W1972173463 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W1972998453 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W1978661995 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W1980644685 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2006180124 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2007384848 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2009950540 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2015117365 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2017215485 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2017606431 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2058904839 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2075087125 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2086742483 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2094224044 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2107091259 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2107579321 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2312969294 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2315795831 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2316690834 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2406470551 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2490312540 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2796389980 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2797081009 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W2914451351 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W4211007335 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W4230588984 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W4232949625 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W4234195440 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W4235272098 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W4240347719 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W4243185739 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W4254598091 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W4302399048 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W611359309 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W626142433 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W90314354 @default.
• W3178363250 cites W92815160 @default.
• W3178363250 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3007285" @default.
• W3178363250 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W3178363250 type Work @default.
• W3178363250 sameAs 3178363250 @default.
• W3178363250 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3178363250 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3178363250 hasAuthorship W3178363250A5066500116 @default.
• W3178363250 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W3178363250 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3178363250 hasConcept C144237770 @default.
• W3178363250 hasConcept C2778732403 @default.
• W3178363250 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W3178363250 hasConceptScore W3178363250C111472728 @default.
• W3178363250 hasConceptScore W3178363250C138885662 @default.
• W3178363250 hasConceptScore W3178363250C144237770 @default.
• W3178363250 hasConceptScore W3178363250C2778732403 @default.
• W3178363250 hasConceptScore W3178363250C33923547 @default.
• W3178363250 hasLocation W31783632501 @default.
• W3178363250 hasOpenAccess W3178363250 @default.
• W3178363250 hasPrimaryLocation W31783632501 @default.
• W3178363250 hasRelatedWork W1997301939 @default.
• W3178363250 hasRelatedWork W2070081816 @default.
• W3178363250 hasRelatedWork W2088687968 @default.
• W3178363250 hasRelatedWork W2529307742 @default.
• W3178363250 hasRelatedWork W2547874320 @default.
• W3178363250 hasRelatedWork W2991649046 @default.
• W3178363250 hasRelatedWork W3142116703 @default.
• W3178363250 hasRelatedWork W4283020942 @default.
• W3178363250 hasRelatedWork W4286393225 @default.
• W3178363250 hasRelatedWork W4321351058 @default.
• W3178363250 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3178363250 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3178363250 magId "3178363250" @default.
• W3178363250 workType "article" @default.