Supplement to Inductive Logic
Proof of the Falsification Theorem
Likelihood Ratio Convergence Theorem 1—The Falsification
Theorem:
Suppose the evidence stream cn contains precisely m
experiments or observations on which hj is not fully
outcome-compatible with hi. And suppose that the
Independent Evidence Conditions hold for evidence stream
cn with respect to each of these hypotheses. Furthermore, suppose
there is a lower bound δ>0 such that for each ck on
which hj is not fully outcome-compatible with hi,
—i.e., hi (together with b⋅ck) says, via a likelihood with value no smaller than δ, that one of the outcomes will occur that hj says cannot occur). Then,
P[∨{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]P[en∣hi⋅b⋅cn]=0}∣hi⋅b⋅cn]=P∨{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]=0}∣hi⋅b⋅cn]≥1−(1−δ)m,which approaches 1 for large m.
Proof
First notice that according to the supposition of the theorem, for each of the m experiments or observations ck on which hj is not fully outcome-compatible with hi we have
(1−δ)≥P∨{oku:P[oku∣hj⋅b⋅ck]>0}∣hi⋅b⋅ck]=∑{oku∈Ok:P[oku∣hj⋅b⋅ck]>0}P[oku∣hi⋅b⋅ck].And for each of the other ck in the evidence stream cn—i.e., for each of the ck on which hj is fully outcome-compatible with hi,
P[∨{oku:P[oku∣hj⋅b⋅ck]>0}∣hi⋅b⋅ck]=1.Then, we may iteratively decompose
P[∨{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]>0}∣hi⋅b⋅cn]into its components as follows:
P[∨{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]>0}∣hi⋅b⋅cn]=∑{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]>0}P[en∣hi⋅b⋅cn]=∑{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn⋅cn−1⋅en−1]×P[en−1∣hi⋅b⋅cn⋅cn−1]>0}P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn⋅cn−1⋅en−1]×P[en−1∣hi⋅b⋅cn⋅cn−1]=∑{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]×P[en−1∣hi⋅b⋅cn−1]>0}P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]×P[en−1∣hi⋅b⋅cn−1]=∑{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]>0&P[en−1∣hi⋅b⋅cn−1]>0}P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]×P[en−1∣hi⋅b⋅cn−1]=∑{en−1:P[en−1∣hj⋅b⋅cn−1]>0}∑{onu∈On:P[onu∣hj⋅b⋅cn]>0}P[onu∣hi⋅b⋅cn]×P[en−1∣hi⋅b⋅cn−1]=∑{en−1:P[en−1∣hj⋅b⋅cn−1]>0}P[∨{onu:P[onu∣hj⋅b⋅cn]>0}∣hi⋅b⋅cn]×P[en−1∣hi⋅b⋅cn−1]≤(1−γ)×∑{en−1:P[en−1∣hj⋅b⋅cn−1]>0}P[en−1∣hi⋅b⋅cn−1],if cn is an observation on which hj is not fully outcome-compatible with hi
or, alternatively,
=∑{en−1:P[en−1∣hj⋅b⋅cn−1]>0}P[en−1∣hi⋅b⋅cn−1],if cn is an observation on which hj is fully outcome-compatible with hi.
Now, continuing this process of decomposing terms of form
∑{ek:P[ek∣hj⋅b⋅ck]>0}P[ek∣hi⋅b⋅ck](in each disjunct of the ‘or’ above, using the same decomposition process shown in the six lines preceding that disjunction), and realizing that according to the supposition of the theorem, this decomposition leads to terms of the form of the first disjunct exactly m times, we get
⋮≤m∏k=1(1−γ)=(1−γ)m.So,
P[∨{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]=0}∣hi⋅b⋅cn]=1−P[∨{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]>0}∣hi⋅b⋅cn]≥1−(1−γ)m.We also have,
P[∨{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]P[en∣hi⋅b⋅cn]=0}∣hi⋅b⋅cn]P[∨{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]=0}∣hi⋅b⋅cn],because
P[∨{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]P[en∣hi⋅b⋅cn]>0}∣hi⋅b⋅cn]=∑{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]/P[en∣hi⋅b⋅cn]>0}P[en∣hi⋅b⋅cn]=∑{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]>0&P[en∣hi⋅b⋅cn]>0}P[en∣hi⋅b⋅cn]=∑{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]>0}P[en∣hi⋅b⋅cn]=P∨{en:P[en∣hj⋅b⋅cn]>0}∣hi⋅b⋅cn].