>>126
>>”Mervyn Stoneのパラドックス”
>折角紹介されたことだし

検索してみた
下記あってる？（＾＾
（wikiはヒットしなかったな 残念）

(google検索)
math "Mervyn" Stone "paradox" wiki
検索結果 2つ紹介
1）
WUCC & BINARY VACUUM PARADOX THEORY
Facebook · GENERAL RELATIVITY & QUANTUM MECHANICS
コメント 4 件 · 6 か月前
Mervyn Stone (1961), "The Opinion Pool," Annals of Mathematical ... " ... and that disposes of Russell's paradox." Ludwig Wittgenstein In ...

(google検索)
Mervyn Stone (1961), "The Opinion Pool," Annals of Math
AI による概要
The Opinion Pool" published in The Annals of Mathematical Statistics (Volume 32, Issue 4, pages 1339–1342) is a foundational work in probabilistic belief aggregation. It introduces mathematical frameworks for combining multiple expert subjective probability distributions into a single, collective probability assessment.

2）
https://xianblog.wordpress.com/tag/costas-goutis/
Costas Goutis | Xi'an's Og
2019/02/08 — ... Mervyn Stone [whom I met when visiting UCL in 1992 since he was ... paradox. With a much less clear notion of “un-Bayesian priors” as ...
(抜粋)
As a reading suggestion for my (last) OxWaSP Bayesian course at Oxford, I included the classic 1973 Marginalisation paradoxes by Phil Dawid, Mervyn Stone [whom I met when visiting UCL in 1992 since he was sharing an office with my friend Costas Goutis], and Jim Zidek. Paper that also appears in my (recent) slides as an exercise. And has been discussed many times on this ‘Og.
Reading the paper in the train to Oxford was quite pleasant, with a few discoveries like an interesting pike at Fraser’s structural (crypto-fiducial?!) distributions that “do not need Bayesian improper priors to fall into the same paradoxes”. And a most fascinating if surprising inclusion of the Box-Müller random generator in an argument, something of a precursor to perfect sampling (?). And a clear declaration that (right-Haar) invariant priors are at the source of the resolution of the paradox. With a much less clear notion of “un-Bayesian priors” as those leading to a paradox. Especially when the authors exhibit a red herring where the paradox cannot disappear, no matter what the prior is. Rich discussion (with none of the current 400 word length constraint), including the suggestion of neutral points, namely those that do identify a posterior, whatever that means. Funny conclusion, as well: