No need to say sorry. I appreciate the vigorous debate.
All I’m saying is that such prediction relies on a sample set of more than just Linda. I agree that it’s implied. My nitpick is that the Linda argument is one that’s presented to students of logic to explain this fallacy and that when it’s presented in that context it, like pretty much every example used to study Bayesian statistics, is done so with the reason why that assumption is necessary never being explicitly stated, so students might well come (as I did) to the conclusion that even a mathematical set of one can have a probability, which it just cannot, since a probability is a relationship between elements of a set. I never learned the truth until I took a class that covered set theory, even thought it’s a truth that sits at the very heart of what statistics and probabilities in fact are.
