Re:Statisticians want to abandon science’s standard measure ...
by hervature on Friday September 06, 2019 @04:01PM
(#20899367)
> Otherwise there's no way to even consider getting a grasp of what P(H) would be.
That's called picking a prior. Usually, pick the prior that maximizes the entropy on the given interval (zero prior knowledge).
For those reading and confused. Computing:
p(H|x) = p(x|H)p(H)/p(x)
requires p(H) which the parent is suggesting is impossible to grasp.
If we want to know the probability that a coin is biased, we can assign probabilities to each hypothesis. For some people, p(bias=1/2)=1 (Dirac distribution), others might argue that p(bias=x)=1 for x in [0,1] (uniform distribution). Others might argue its some Beta function centered around 1/2. I believe what the parent is suggesting is that choosing which original belief we have in the system is a matter of philosophy, not computation.
That's called picking a prior. Usually, pick the prior that maximizes the entropy on the given interval (zero prior knowledge).
For those reading and confused. Computing: p(H|x) = p(x|H)p(H)/p(x)
requires p(H) which the parent is suggesting is impossible to grasp.
If we want to know the probability that a coin is biased, we can assign probabilities to each hypothesis. For some people, p(bias=1/2)=1 (Dirac distribution), others might argue that p(bias=x)=1 for x in [0,1] (uniform distribution). Others might argue its some Beta function centered around 1/2. I believe what the parent is suggesting is that choosing which original belief we have in the system is a matter of philosophy, not computation.