Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/2001
Appears in Collections:Law and Philosophy Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Bets and Boundaries: Assigning Probabilities to Imprecisely Specified Events
Authors: Milne, Peter
Contact Email: peter.milne@stir.ac.uk
Keywords: probability
conditional probability
rough set theory
tolerance relations
proximity
Issue Date: Dec-2008
Publisher: Springer
Citation: Milne P (2008) Bets and Boundaries: Assigning Probabilities to Imprecisely Specified Events, Studia Logica, 90 (3), pp. 425-453.
Abstract: Uncertainty and vagueness/imprecision are not the same: one can be certain about events described using vague predicates and about imprecisely specified events, just as one can be uncertain about precisely specified events. Exactly because of this, a question arises about how one ought to assign probabilities to imprecisely specified events in the case when no possible available evidence will eradicate the imprecision (because, say, of the limits of accuracy of a measuring device). Modelling imprecision by rough sets over an approximation space presents an especially tractable case to help get one’s bearings. Two solutions present themselves: the first takes as upper and lower probabilities of the event X the (exact) probabilities assigned X’s upper and lower rough-set approximations; the second, motivated both by formal considerations and by a simple betting argument, is to treat X’s rough-set approximation as a conditional event and assign to it a point-valued (conditional) probability. With rough sets over an approximation space we get a lot of good behaviour. For example, in the first construction mentioned the lower probabilities are n- monotone, for every n ∈ N+. When we examine other models of approximation/ imprecision/vagueness, and in particular, proximity spaces, we lose a lot of that good behaviour. In the literature there is not (even) agreement on the definition of upper and lower approximations for events (subsets) in the underlying domain. Betting considerations suggest one choice and, again, ways to assign upper and lower and point-valued probabilities, but nothing wor
Type: Journal Article
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/2001
DOI Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11225-008-9160-3
Rights: Copyright Springer 2008; The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author; you can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.
Affiliation: Philosophy

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Bets and boundaries.pdf362.78 kBAdobe PDFUnder Embargo until 31/12/2999     Request a copy

Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependant on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.

This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.