3 ms·
> Or consider that "what is probability?" does not have a good answer. I have read this awnser¹, and it certainly looks good. Perhaps even kind of obvious. h
by loup-vaillant 12y ago
> Or consider that "what is probability?" does not have a good answer.
I have read this awnser¹, and it certainly looks good. Perhaps even kind of obvious.
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf
- loup-vaillant 12y agoMaybe I should explain. One cannot reasonably say that "what is a probability?" doesn't have a good answer without having read at least the first two chapters of "Probability Theory: the Logic of Science". I don't want to enter a Frequentist/Bayesian debate, where I'm right and the Frequentists are insane. But the views presented on this book didn't really surprise or enlighten me¹. Instead, I was more like "of course, why the fuss?" Many of the claims in this book really did felt obvious. "What is a probability?" does have a good answer. Anyone saying otherwise should probably look at it, and explain why it's not good. I personally don't expect strong counter-arguments. (And if one throws me the problem of priors again, I'll crush him under the sheer weight of the hidden priors we can find in Frequentist methods.) [1] With one big exception: the consistency proofs. I didn't know we could derive Probability Theory from so few axioms.