Abstract
ABSTRACTThis second part of my reply to Davidson (2015) discusses mathematical and statistical matters using a simple model of ergodicity whose properties do not match many of those asserted by ENE. It responds to Davidson's counterarguments against pre-infinity indeterminacy, examines the works of Billingsley, Uffink, and Malinvaud as cited by Davidson, and then turns to important methodological issues. As in Part 1 of my reply, Davidson's rejoinder helps make the critique stronger, deeper, and more relevant.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
