Talk:Pseudocount: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
←Created page with 'Why is the rule of succession "a bit of a fudge"?' |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WPStatistics}}. Tag: |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
|||
{{WikiProject Statistics|importance=low}} |
|||
}} |
|||
Why is the rule of succession "a bit of a fudge"? |
Why is the rule of succession "a bit of a fudge"? |
||
:Because its justification is heuristic, and has no theoretical basis whatsoever. Will that do for you? [[User:81.102.133.198|81.102.133.198]] 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The rule of succession says that if you have a uniform prior on [0, 1] for a frequency parameter p, with the independent probability of a success on each trial being p, then the probability of a success after s successes and n total trials is (s+1)/(n+2). The proof is given on the [[Rule of Succession]] page. Sure, you don't always have a uniform prior, but I hardly see how this is "no theoretical basis whatsoever." <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.94.217.197|72.94.217.197]] ([[User talk:72.94.217.197|talk]]) 07:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The statement "Neither approach is completely satisfactory and both are a bit of a fudge" should be removed as it's expressing a point of view. As far as I'm concerned, Laplace's rule is very satisfactory in practice and I'll go on using it, just as I'll go on using uniform priors. I know this is only a subjective belief but that's what probability's all about. ;-) |
|||
I'll remove the statement but if anyone feels strongly about it, let them reinstate it. |
|||
--[[User:84.9.85.135|84.9.85.135]] 10:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:46, 8 February 2024
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Why is the rule of succession "a bit of a fudge"?
- Because its justification is heuristic, and has no theoretical basis whatsoever. Will that do for you? 81.102.133.198 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The rule of succession says that if you have a uniform prior on [0, 1] for a frequency parameter p, with the independent probability of a success on each trial being p, then the probability of a success after s successes and n total trials is (s+1)/(n+2). The proof is given on the Rule of Succession page. Sure, you don't always have a uniform prior, but I hardly see how this is "no theoretical basis whatsoever." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.217.197 (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The statement "Neither approach is completely satisfactory and both are a bit of a fudge" should be removed as it's expressing a point of view. As far as I'm concerned, Laplace's rule is very satisfactory in practice and I'll go on using it, just as I'll go on using uniform priors. I know this is only a subjective belief but that's what probability's all about. ;-)
I'll remove the statement but if anyone feels strongly about it, let them reinstate it.