2 ms·
It's a reasonable gut feeling to not generalize from n=1, but the numerical evidence - with either a Bayesian or frequentist approach - is actually quite strong
by tedsanders 9y ago
It's a reasonable gut feeling to not generalize from n=1, but the numerical evidence - with either a Bayesian or frequentist approach - is actually quite strong and statistically significant. Math here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16655081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16655081
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y agoThat's not right. You're setting your expectation for N = 100m miles, then updating it for N = 3 million miles? That's like saying: "I rolled this red d20 twenty times before I rolled a 1, whereas I rolled a 1 the first time on this blue d20, so the red d20 is obviously better and I'm rolling all my saves on it". Or, I don't know- "I rolled three 1s on this d20 in twenty rolls so it's obviously not a fair d20".
- tedsanders 9y agoCan you clarify? What do you believe to be wrong and why? If you have a strong prior the dice are equivalent, then yes, the rolls shouldn't change your mind. If you have a prior that the dice are weighted in an unknown way, then yes, the rolls really should change your mind.