Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %
From: Goran Dhemmeog (hcraeser731_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: Pii: "Re: Comparing fits"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: Henry: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Jul 2004 05:48:25 -0700
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<reVNc.205545$XM6.185249@attbi_s53>...
>
> P(bef) * D
> P(aft) = ---------------------------- (*)
> P(bef) * D + 100 - P(bef)
>
> where P(bef) = the prior probability (percent)
> P(aft) = the posterior probability (decimal)
> D = the liklihood ratio
Whatever the other probabilities are the Bayes' formula is of the form
P(aft) = f[D]*P(bef), where f[D] is some function dependent on the
evidence D. Therefore the equation (*), is not the Bayes' formula.
Actually George could have just said that he thinks the probability of
his nonesense is one, and cut the other stuff. The stuff under the
first line, even if correct, is just hand waving that does not
constitute any further proof. Except that we have a demonstration of
an incorrect use of the Bayes' formula, which proves that...
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: Pii: "Re: Comparing fits"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: Henry: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|