Beyond the Platonic definition, there are various real-world _domains_ that are well-modeled by (mathematical) probability: long-run frequencies, subjective certainty, betting odds, quantum events, etc.
-
-
Show this thread
-
This suggests that questions like the following are ill-posed and not worth arguing over:https://twitter.com/3blue1brown/status/1074415844715782144 …
Show this thread -
This doesn't mean that we can't advocate for Bayesianism. I think science should use more Bayesian methods (because it concerns our subjective beliefs about the world). It's just that there isn't One True Way, definitionally speaking.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not a fan of basing a field around a definition because it requires the field to have the right definition up front, when usually it's the other way round.
-
This is a good take
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Link to Gelman post?
-
https://andrewgelman.com/2018/12/26/what-is-probability/ … It’s not much more than my summary unfortunately :P
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This is how it’s taught in math depts afaik... sigma algebras and things. But when I audited a class set up this way, the prof listed some philosophically distinct foundational alts: one was viewing it as an empirical discipline based on experiments rather than axioms
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
great. somewhat tangential, don't we need intuition? no 1 thinks in equations, right? how do the 3 axioms translate to application? been thinking about this as a major weakness in heavily mathy fields. learn multipage theorms but can't explain the concept to a child
-
seems the intuition leads to the bayesian/frequentist split...
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.