Confirmation cannot be any evidence for universal theories. None, probabilistic or otherwise. Popper explained this and did the math. If you disagree people provide the math that governs it and explain how it works.
I know math. The problem is that you haven’t provided anything that works, or any criticism of Popper. Basically all your contributions to the discussion are appeals to authority. You don’t argue, you just say “This source is right; read it and concede”. And most of your sources are wikipedia quality… If you won’t say anything I can’t find on google, why talk at all?
There are plenty of explanations of Solomonoff induction out there. You asked for how the math of confirmation works—and that’s the math of universal inductive inference. If you just want an instance of confirmation, see Bayes’s theorem.
It is not an “appeal to authority” to direct you to the maths that answers your query!
It’s called Solomonoff induction—and we’ve known about it for almost 50 years.
Provide the details which address the problem, not a wikipedia link.
It is not my job to teach you maths. Here, use Google.
I know math. The problem is that you haven’t provided anything that works, or any criticism of Popper. Basically all your contributions to the discussion are appeals to authority. You don’t argue, you just say “This source is right; read it and concede”. And most of your sources are wikipedia quality… If you won’t say anything I can’t find on google, why talk at all?
Because one doesn’t generally know where to look?
There are plenty of explanations of Solomonoff induction out there. You asked for how the math of confirmation works—and that’s the math of universal inductive inference. If you just want an instance of confirmation, see Bayes’s theorem.
It is not an “appeal to authority” to direct you to the maths that answers your query!