Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %
From: Goran Dhemmeog (hcraeser731_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: Goran Dhemmeog: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: Aleks Jakulin: "Re: Discriminant analysis - Normality assumption"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: 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 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Jul 2004 22:33:29 -0700
I will admit my mistake if you can argue that by producing the
derivation of the formula. The Bayes' formula can be seen in
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BayesTheorem.html (equation 3 is in the
conditional form needed here).
It is conceivably possible that Unwin has made a small mistake in his
book -Unwin is a physicist, not a statistician. Never the less, what
Unwin gives is proof of the form: "I am thinking about a magic number
7. This is a magic number because I am first thinking about 2, then I
am thinking about 3 and the again 2. Behold! the sum of these numbers
is 7!"
- Next message: Goran Dhemmeog: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: Aleks Jakulin: "Re: Discriminant analysis - Normality assumption"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: 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 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
