4 ms·
Bayesianism
- daveguy 10y agoAmusing, but if you add up an infinite number of infinitely small quantities what do you get?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nerdponx 10y agoI know this one! An integral!
- daveguy 10y agoHaha. Good point. Of course, integration requires a continuous function. I expect it would be very difficult to validate that assumption over the field of hypothesis probabilities. An integral is the function of doing that. Whether or not you can get a valid answer depends on the domain.
- plafl 10y agoWhy should all events have non-zero probability? So that you don't divide by zero when applying Bayes theorem? Why would you condition on a zero probability event to start with? I find all the arguments between bayesianism/frequentist quite boring. If you want to use a prior go ahead, if not, good for you. Whatever. PD: I actually love SMBC
- radu_floricica 10y agoI'm assuming it's simple common sense. After all, a Boltzmann brain is always a possibility.
- pc2g4d 10y agoThis really doesn't make sense. He's treating all possible theories as if they're disjoint events in a single random variable, but most of them would be better modeled jointly as separate variables, most pairs of which would be considered either independent or conditionally independent. It seems to me like this leads the math in a very different direction, one where even infinite theories don't drive any probabilities toward an asymptotic zero. So, what was the author's point? That Bayesian statistics are irrational? Or that they can be misinterpreted and misapplied in ridiculous ways?
- banach 10y agoIt's OK he's just taking a nap.