Difference between revisions of "Talk:2059: Modified Bayes' Theorem"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Removed paragraph that makes no sense.)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
But there is more wrong right now. Look at a typical Wikipedia article, the Math-extension should be used for formulas but not in the floating text. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 
But there is more wrong right now. Look at a typical Wikipedia article, the Math-extension should be used for formulas but not in the floating text. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 
: Credit for a good explanation though. It made perfect sense to me, even though I didn't understand it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.42|162.158.167.42]] 04:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 
: Credit for a good explanation though. It made perfect sense to me, even though I didn't understand it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.42|162.158.167.42]] 04:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 +
 +
I removed this, because it makes no sense:
 +
 +
: As an equation, the rewritten form makes no sense. <math>P(H \mid X) = P(H)(1-P(C)) + P(H \mid X)P(C)</math> is strangely self-referential and reduces to the piecewise equation <math>\begin{cases}P(H \mid X) = P(H) & P(C) \neq 1 \\ 0 = 0 & P(C) = 1 \end{cases}</math>. However, the Modified Bayes Theorem includes an extra variable not listed in the conditioning, so a person with an AI background might understand that Randal was trying to write an expression for updating <math>P(H \mid X)</math> with knowledge of <math>C</math> i.e. <math>P(H \mid X,C)</math>, the belief in the hypothesis given the observation <math>X</math> and the confidence that you were applying Bayes' theorem correctly <math>C</math>, for which the expression <math>P(H \mid X,C) = P(H)(1-P(C)) + P(H \mid X)P(C)</math> makes some intuitive sense.
 +
 +
Between removing it and posting here, I think that I've figured out what it's saying.  But it comes down to criticizing a mistake made in an earlier edit by the same editor, so I'll just fix that mistake instead.
 +
 +
—[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 13:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:03, 16 October 2018

Right now the layout is awful:

"If P(C)=1 the..."
should look like this:
"If P(C)=1 the..."

But there is more wrong right now. Look at a typical Wikipedia article, the Math-extension should be used for formulas but not in the floating text. --Dgbrt (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Credit for a good explanation though. It made perfect sense to me, even though I didn't understand it. 162.158.167.42 04:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed this, because it makes no sense:

As an equation, the rewritten form makes no sense. P(H \mid X) = P(H)(1-P(C)) + P(H \mid X)P(C) is strangely self-referential and reduces to the piecewise equation \begin{cases}P(H \mid X) = P(H) & P(C) \neq 1 \\ 0 = 0 & P(C) = 1 \end{cases}. However, the Modified Bayes Theorem includes an extra variable not listed in the conditioning, so a person with an AI background might understand that Randal was trying to write an expression for updating P(H \mid X) with knowledge of C i.e. P(H \mid X,C), the belief in the hypothesis given the observation X and the confidence that you were applying Bayes' theorem correctly C, for which the expression P(H \mid X,C) = P(H)(1-P(C)) + P(H \mid X)P(C) makes some intuitive sense.

Between removing it and posting here, I think that I've figured out what it's saying. But it comes down to criticizing a mistake made in an earlier edit by the same editor, so I'll just fix that mistake instead.

TobyBartels (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)