None of this is made substantially more likely by the addition of explosives to the story.
Sorry, we are discussing if the existence of the explosives is more likely(in contraposition to a skyscraper that has not been the subject of a terrorist attack) given the evidence, not the other way round.
A is explosives. B is 9/11. I already told you P(A) is small, I assume P(B) was small, and I just said that P(B|A) is small. What is small times small over small?
Sorry, we are discussing if the existence of the explosives is more likely(in contraposition to a skyscraper that has not been the subject of a terrorist attack) given the evidence, not the other way round.
Bayes’ Theorem:
A is explosives. B is 9/11. I already told you P(A) is small, I assume P(B) was small, and I just said that P(B|A) is small. What is small times small over small?
Sorry I really had to LOL over this and I don’t see any sense in exerting more effort trying to explain my point again.
You’re wiser than I, if that is your reaction—I’m about done, too.