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!
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!