Lennart Ackermans
@lennartack.bsky.social
Philosopher of science and formal ethicist @ MCMP Munich. Into causation, Bayesian epistemology, discrimination, economics, social science.
Just accepted by Australasian Philosophical Review: "Factual Difference-Making is Equivalent to a Counterfactual Theory". philsci-archive.pitt.edu/25508/. A commentary to a theory of actual causation by Mario Günther and Holger Andreas.
Factual Difference-Making is Equivalent to a Counterfactual Theory - PhilSci-Archive
philsci-archive.pitt.edu
June 1, 2025 at 2:27 PM
Just accepted by Australasian Philosophical Review: "Factual Difference-Making is Equivalent to a Counterfactual Theory". philsci-archive.pitt.edu/25508/. A commentary to a theory of actual causation by Mario Günther and Holger Andreas.
When reading the literature on the Two-Envelope "Paradox" I got annoyed by how much confusion is created by treating probabilities very informally. Glad to see that my former maths teacher @gill1109.bsky.social agrees! (doi.org/10.1111/anzs...)
February 23, 2025 at 11:08 PM
When reading the literature on the Two-Envelope "Paradox" I got annoyed by how much confusion is created by treating probabilities very informally. Glad to see that my former maths teacher @gill1109.bsky.social agrees! (doi.org/10.1111/anzs...)
Trying to get Deepseek to talk about Xi Jinping proves challenging...
January 29, 2025 at 12:14 AM
Trying to get Deepseek to talk about Xi Jinping proves challenging...
Reposted by Lennart Ackermans
Contrapositives are for cowards. Behold.
![Theorem. If $n$ is an integer and $n^2$ is even, then $n$ is itself even.
Proof. Contrapositives are for cowards, so assume $n$ is an integer and $n^2$ is even. Then $n^2=2k$ for some integer $k$, and thus $n^2-2k=0$. Behold:
\[ n = n + (n^2-2k) = n(n+1)-2k. \]
Both $n(n+1)$ and $2k$ are even, so $n$ is even.
QED.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:4wrxafbsjycxbpjo4e42ht6q/bafkreihucnue4bdyzulcrzddytan5ttdx56rg5ci6cn4vhxw5lebnbdzma@jpeg)
January 22, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Contrapositives are for cowards. Behold.
Good read. But how do we get probabilistic explanation without metaphysical chances? On the below account "The ice cube melted because the chance of this happening was high" becomes "The ice cube melted because my beliefs have certain symmetries leading to a high credence". That can't be right!
January 17, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Good read. But how do we get probabilistic explanation without metaphysical chances? On the below account "The ice cube melted because the chance of this happening was high" becomes "The ice cube melted because my beliefs have certain symmetries leading to a high credence". That can't be right!