Randomized arguments are transferable

Philosophia Mathematica 17 (3):363-368 (2009)
Easwaran has given a definition of transferability and argued that, under this definition, randomized arguments are not transferable. I show that certain aspects of his definition are not suitable for addressing the underlying question of whether or not there is an epistemic distinction between randomized and deductive arguments. Furthermore, I demonstrate that for any suitable definition, randomized arguments are in fact transferable
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/philmat/nkp012
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,667
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
D. Fallis (2000). The Reliability of Randomized Algorithms. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (2):255-271.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Alexander Paseau (2015). Knowledge of Mathematics Without Proof. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (4):775-799.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

15 ( #175,574 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #289,836 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.