>>11934329>If we know an event has already occurred then it's already a conditional.great, I think we are on the same page then.
We know our first pick was a gold ball, since that is clearly stated in the OP image.
Because of this, we have to condition on this information.
>Simply being passed in the past tense doesn't mean we know it occured.I do not understand what you are saying here.
It is not about tense at all, it is about whether you have the information or not so that you can restrict your statespace.
>It even gives an example of a die already having been rolled and then asks for the probability of A given B. So A is not a condition even though it's in the past.
This is correct.
The information you condition on does not necessarily have anything to do with tenses.
It has everything to do with whether it is information you have.
>>11934333>Where?the page number listed in the table of contents for conditional probability.
The page is very likely that exact page.
>>11934333>And thinking that anything phrased in the past tense is a conditional is extremely wrong.I have never said this (though another anon might have)
often, but not always, a past tense indicates that something has happened which might give you extra information, though.
But it is perfectly possible for a past tense to not give you any information which can reduce your state space.
It is also perfectly possible for a present or future tense to construct a hypothetical situation in which you have been granted information you can use to reduce your state space (and thus update your probabilities, conditional on this information you have been granted).
