>>11471302This picture is stupid because it confuses absence of any evidence and absence of A, when A is evidence.
I wanna do it properly.
Let be a probability space.
is a good definition for A is evidence of B.
Now "Absence of evidence for B" is really the statement:
.
.
If the latter statement was ever true, then would be evidence for B which contradicts the previous.
Therefore absence of evidence for B implies which then implies that A and B must be independent for A not equal to B.
But then if we get
so only trivial cases are possible anymore.
Basically absence of evidence doesnt happen because then the negation tends to be evidence
If tje latter
is equivalent to absence of evidence.
In particular A and B being independent for all A that arent B is absence of evidence for B.
