Re: A paradox? Why not?

[James McLean <jmclean@CHEM.UCSD.EDU>]

John Denker wrote:
> Richardson's paradox is interesting and important because
>  ...
>  2) it and its corollaries disprove several dangerous notions e.g.:
>     a) "the" observed probability of past events is a good predictor of
> "the" probability of future events, and

At the risk of displaying my stupidity...
How does this paradox map onto something which is related to past vs.
future probability (presumably using the same probability measure)?

--
--James McLean
jmclean@chem.ucsd.edu
post doc, UC San Diego, Chemistry
moving to SUNY Geneseo Physics this fall