This comment seems to be generated by a large language model with prompt ‘Find anything that could be pointed out as wrong or incomplete in this article’.
1. No, the Bayesian inversion mention is not about p-value in any way. 2. This sounds as raising the standards for claiming anything, but without any alternative provided; fine, let’s agree that peer review is not enough, then what is? 3. Yes, consistency of ZFC IS a scientific consensus at the time. No, the article doesn’t claim that logic depends on ZFC—quite the opposite, ZFC depends on logic, or logic can be thought of as the bottom level of ZFC. 4. The experiment in the anti-example should not test the inference in any way, it is invoked only to test the conclusion. 5. Sounds as an addition to the provided information, not as something that contradicts it. 6. MDL is almost equivalent to Kolmogorov complexity, and AIC and BIC are purely numeric mechanics which are actually weaker than Kolmogorov complexity. Nowhere this article does claim it is aimed to help you select a real mathematical model for something. 7. Interesting point, but I cannot see how it invalidates anything said in the article. Disagreements between philosophers seem more of a personal issue. 8. This would have been a valid criticism if there were no paragraphs except number 4 in the article, but the rest of the text captures everything else quite exhaustively.
This comment seems to be generated by a large language model with prompt ‘Find anything that could be pointed out as wrong or incomplete in this article’.
1. No, the Bayesian inversion mention is not about p-value in any way.
2. This sounds as raising the standards for claiming anything, but without any alternative provided; fine, let’s agree that peer review is not enough, then what is?
3. Yes, consistency of ZFC IS a scientific consensus at the time. No, the article doesn’t claim that logic depends on ZFC—quite the opposite, ZFC depends on logic, or logic can be thought of as the bottom level of ZFC.
4. The experiment in the anti-example should not test the inference in any way, it is invoked only to test the conclusion.
5. Sounds as an addition to the provided information, not as something that contradicts it.
6. MDL is almost equivalent to Kolmogorov complexity, and AIC and BIC are purely numeric mechanics which are actually weaker than Kolmogorov complexity. Nowhere this article does claim it is aimed to help you select a real mathematical model for something.
7. Interesting point, but I cannot see how it invalidates anything said in the article. Disagreements between philosophers seem more of a personal issue.
8. This would have been a valid criticism if there were no paragraphs except number 4 in the article, but the rest of the text captures everything else quite exhaustively.