It cannot be stated with >99% certainty that members of the Bush Administration did not have definite prior information of the events of 9/11 or played a role in it.
Untangling the multiple negatives, this says that there is at most a 1% chance that the administration had foreknowledge or involvement. Is that what you intended?
I think Teerth’s second statement is mathematically equivalent to their original statement (modulo strict versus non-strict inequality), and Richard’s untangling is incorrect.
Let A be the proposition that members of the Bush Administration had definite prior information of the events of 9/11 or played a role in it. Let P(X) denote the credence in a proposition X.
The original statement was as follows:
It is false that P(¬A) > 99%.
Equivalently, P(¬A) ≤ 99%
Equivalently, P(A) > 1%.
Almost equivalently, “there is at least a 1% chance of foreknowledge or involvement”
It cannot be stated with >99% certainty that members of the Bush Administration did not have definite prior information of the events of 9/11 or played a role in it.
Untangling the multiple negatives, this says that there is at most a 1% chance that the administration had foreknowledge or involvement. Is that what you intended?
No. Actually I meant to say that there is atleast 1% chance of foreknowledge or involvement.
What’s your actual credence of it being true?
~1/3
I think Teerth’s second statement is mathematically equivalent to their original statement (modulo strict versus non-strict inequality), and Richard’s untangling is incorrect.
Let A be the proposition that members of the Bush Administration had definite prior information of the events of 9/11 or played a role in it. Let P(X) denote the credence in a proposition X.
The original statement was as follows:
It is false that P(¬A) > 99%.
Equivalently, P(¬A) ≤ 99%
Equivalently, P(A) > 1%.
Almost equivalently, “there is at least a 1% chance of foreknowledge or involvement”