AnnaGilmour

Sorted by New

# Wiki Contributions

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

I find the term useful. I think it is what a lot of the media has done. Since Amanda and Raffaele are in discussion and named in the theory, there must be something to it and they have equal weights of measure for concern as the third suspect, Rudy. When in fact, they are very lightweight and the (heavy) weight should be attributed to the method by which they became suspects. The term helps me to say "Oh that's what is going on." Like komponisto said, a whole category of error. (Not to mention all the contexts apart from this specific case, the topic at hand, indeed.)

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Therefore, I offered 0 in the spirit of Goedel's completeness theorem, yes, at the expense of consistency. Consistency will yield a perpetual motion situation. Completeness is required and can be appropriately reached through reasoning, logic, objectivity, etc. Something can only consistent OR complete. Not both.

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

I am also pointing out that is a question pertaining to applied situation with a limited scope - the decision to convict or exonerate. For all intents and purposes, relative "knowing" is permissible in a legal case, since we are dealing with human events and activities of a finite nature - a court decision is a discrete (not continuous) matter. After a certain point, probabilties have to turn into decisions.

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

The thing that I am trying to point out is that I believe Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly included in the class called "suspects".

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

The concept of limits is a great way to look at this. A limit is a thing unto its own, a complex statement indicating, confirmed as much as is humanly possible.

Another notion is what Goedel brings to the table. His contribution of something being consistent or complete is relevant.

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Were there any fatal wounds that she could not have inflicted?

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Well, it is quite fascinating that no one gets a 0 probability. Just to ask, does Meredith get a 0 probability? I will move past understanding the exclusion of 0. I just want to make sure I understand. Anyway, when I say 0, I understand it to mean functionally 0, which is the same as .0000000001, which is also functionally 0, correct? Thank you for you patience.

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Is it possible to show that it would be impossible for them to have been participants making it 0? Is there anyone in the world in that class - of 0? Trying to understand the parameters of "probability".

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

In other words, his psychological profile and actions leading up to the murder do not indicate that he was above board and immune from a violent attack, especially an attack with a knife. He was also known around town to go too far in the direction toward harassment of females around town at the clubs and so forth. He was also known to do various drugs including aggression-increasing drugs such as cocaine. He was known to break and enter and steal, and that he carried a ten inch knife "for protection" (his words). It could be argued then that it was a matter of brief time for him to break and enter, steal, and encounter someone indoors in the process as was arguably such in the situation with Meredith, and "defend" himself when caught or interrupted. This is the case that I would start to make as for a high prior.

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

It is true that a high probability of a prior is not necessary for probability of guilt.

It is also true, however, that it doesn't mean that he didn't have a high prior. I could drop it to .3 though. With the actions in the previous weeks, a case could be made that he was in an escalating pattern of behavior, which is why I gave him a .5 prior.