you may know this guy

P(A|B) = = P(A & B) / P(B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)

P(B|A) * P(A) is reckoned on the right-hand side of the equation, and is sort of equivalent to "A implies B" when its value is close to P(B) (i.e., the closer the ratio of P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) is to one, the closer it is to true logical implication)

P(A|B) on the left-hand side asks, what is the probability of A given B, implying that the event B has been observed

so putting these pieces together, we've got

A implies B
B
therefore, A

hm, Bayes' theorem is a lot like affirming the consequent isn't it?

maybe I'll go easier on this fallacy in the future, ha

they are but they're comparable

No. Material implication operator is a binary relationship between propositions with truth values.


The probability of P(A) is such that A is an event. It does not have truth values