3 ms·
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/supplement2.html https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/sup... >Not following at all
by ikeboy 8y ago
https://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.