Holy cow, this is quite the tour de force! Really beautifully written too. (Also I'm feeling pretty vindicated by it. Some of those markets were hella contentious.)
Re: the non-standard case ('variant NNN'), I don't see why P(I given C_N) = 0 when both P(C_N given I) and P(I) are non-zero infinitesimals. But I read this section quickly and haven't followed Bartha and Hitchcock's construction, so I think I'm missing something.
Re: the countably additive case, I might mention that a 1989 letter from David Lewis to John Leslie (reprinted in Lewis's Philosophical Letters, vol. 2, pp. 481-2) gives a nice explanation of the trouble with the 1/2 (or 9/10: Lewis discusses the Shooting Room version) answer, where he makes the same connection with the two-envelope paradox.
Holy cow, this is quite the tour de force! Really beautifully written too. (Also I'm feeling pretty vindicated by it. Some of those markets were hella contentious.)
Very nice!
Re: the non-standard case ('variant NNN'), I don't see why P(I given C_N) = 0 when both P(C_N given I) and P(I) are non-zero infinitesimals. But I read this section quickly and haven't followed Bartha and Hitchcock's construction, so I think I'm missing something.
Re: the countably additive case, I might mention that a 1989 letter from David Lewis to John Leslie (reprinted in Lewis's Philosophical Letters, vol. 2, pp. 481-2) gives a nice explanation of the trouble with the 1/2 (or 9/10: Lewis discusses the Shooting Room version) answer, where he makes the same connection with the two-envelope paradox.