3 ms·
It seems strange that they don't use a rational type, those are much easier for "normal" people to reason about. What you want would maybe be better as probabi
by swiley 6y ago
It seems strange that they don't use a rational type, those are much easier for "normal" people to reason about.
What you want would maybe be better as probability distributions (maybe parameterized with rational numbers)
- TeMPOraL 6y agoProbability distributions are a related concepts, and I'd love to work with them as first-class objects. But just carrying the confidence intervals around would be a huge win; even ignoring the underlying distribution, it matters whether your result is 1.23 ± 0.0001, or 1.23 ± 20.