I do not wish to dispute the correctness of your observations of the data;
however, the validity of your conclusion is the same as the argument that
since most humans in the world have dark hair (e.g. China, India, Africa,
Latin America), it is therefore likely that Swedes have dark hair.
>>Fortunately, the Rev. Thomas Bayes (d. 1761) realized,
>>in a theorem that now bears his name, that in considering how new
>>information affects prior probabilities, one must look at the relative
>>probabilities.
[...]
>>The word QEOS is definite with some prior probability, P(D), which may
>>be estimated from examining the literature. We are interested in
>>assessing the probability that this word is definite given the new
>information >that it is (A)narthrous and (P)recedes the verb, or in a
>mathematical notation,
>>P(D|AP).
>
>The information you cite here is not new information. It was included in
>my parameters.
"New information" is a term of art in probability theory, and it has a
specific meaning in the application of Bayes Theorem. In this example,
the fact that QEOS in Jn1:1c is anarthrous and precedes the verb is "new
information" based on way the conditional probability in the initial
statement of the problem was set up. Since the rest of your response
appears predicated on a different understanding of this technical term,
I will eschew the customary point-by-point (and interminable) rebuttal.
Stephen Carlson
-- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35