4 ms·
Curious about this. > It's how you can prove all non-Bayesian models are irrational Can you expand or link? > Error bars and spreads are already outside the
by et2o 8y ago
Curious about this.
> It's how you can prove all non-Bayesian models are irrational
Can you expand or link?
> Error bars and spreads are already outside the Bayesian paradigm, which demands a single number
Not following at all. What do you mean?
- ikeboy 8y agohttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/supplement2.html https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/sup... >Not following at all. What do you mean? One assumption is that given a bet, you must choose to take a side of it. If you won't bet for something at X%, you must bet against it at 1-X%.
- et2o 8y agoAh, interesting link. I think I ran into some confusion since 'rational' and 'Bayesian' are somewhat overloaded terms. When I think of Bayesian analysis, I always think of Bayesian models which attempt to model uncertainty and always have a posterior distribution (spread) of outcomes. For example, in the Dutch Book page, instead of having a point-prior (P=0.51 (delta on P=0.51?)), each degree of belief could have some (different) distribution which could yield a posterior with a distribution and change the math here.