 This second response can be developed as follows. While being assigned a higher numerical credence implies being taken as more probable, being assigned the same numerical credence does not really imply being taken as equally probable. That is, (real-valued) numerical credences actually do not have enough structure to represent everything there is in a qualitative ordering of comparative probability, as Hájek (2003) suggests. So, in the Coin Case, the contingent proposition “the coin is fair” is assigned credence 0, the same credence as a logical falsehood is assigned. But it does not mean that those two propositions, one contingent and one self-contradictory, should be taken as equally probable. Instead, the contingent proposition “the coin is fair” should still be taken as more probable than a logical falsehood. That is, the following norm still holds: