Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper explores the role of observations and frequencies in justifying typicality measures, indicating their empirical basis.
Mathematical measures are often used to express facts about what is typical — about what the vast majority of cases, in other words, are like. Many different measures can be used to express typicality facts, however. So exactly what justifies choosing one measure over another? In this paper, I propose an empiricist answer to this question. Roughly put, the answer only appeals to observations of frequencies, along with the standard scientific assumption that the results of experiments are not quasi-miraculous, atypical flukes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Isaac Wilhelm (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: