Editing 2059: Modified Bayes' Theorem

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 24: Line 24:
  
 
It is a {{w|Linear interpolation|linear-interpolated}} weighted average of the belief from before the calculation and the belief after applying the theorem correctly. This goes smoothly from not believing the calculation at all up to be fully convinced to it.
 
It is a {{w|Linear interpolation|linear-interpolated}} weighted average of the belief from before the calculation and the belief after applying the theorem correctly. This goes smoothly from not believing the calculation at all up to be fully convinced to it.
βˆ’
 
βˆ’
Bayesian statistics is often contrasted with "frequentist" statistics. For a frequentist, ''probability'' is defined as the limit of the relative frequency after a large number of trials. So to a frequentist the notion of "Probability that you are using Bayesian Statistics correctly" is meaningless: One cannot do repeated trials, even in principle.  A Bayesian considers probability to be a quantification of personal belief, and so concepts such as "Probability that you are using Bayesian Statistics correctly" is meaningful. However since the value of such subjective prior probablities cannot be independently determined, the value of P(H|X) cannot be objectively found.
 
  
 
The title text suggests that an additional term should be added for the probability that the Modified Bayes Theorem is correct. But that's ''this'' equation, so it would make the formula self-referential, unless we call the result the Modified Modified Bayes Theorem. It could also result in an infinite regress -- needing another term for the probability that the version with the probability added is correct, and another term for that version, and so on. If the modifications have a limit, then a Modified<sup>&omega;</sup> Bayes Theorem would be the result, but then another term for whether it's correct is needed, leading to the Modified<sup>&omega;+1</sup> Bayes Theorem, and so on through every {{w|ordinal number}}.
 
The title text suggests that an additional term should be added for the probability that the Modified Bayes Theorem is correct. But that's ''this'' equation, so it would make the formula self-referential, unless we call the result the Modified Modified Bayes Theorem. It could also result in an infinite regress -- needing another term for the probability that the version with the probability added is correct, and another term for that version, and so on. If the modifications have a limit, then a Modified<sup>&omega;</sup> Bayes Theorem would be the result, but then another term for whether it's correct is needed, leading to the Modified<sup>&omega;+1</sup> Bayes Theorem, and so on through every {{w|ordinal number}}.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)