= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Cyan comments on Are calibration and rational decisions mutually exclusive? (Part one) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (19)
I don't get it.
I admit my math background is limited to upper-division undergraduate, and I admit I could have tried harder to make sense of the jargon, but after reading this a few times, I really just don't get what your point is, or even what kind of thing your point is supposed to be.
The short short version of this part of the argument reads:
What Bayesians call calibration, frequentists call valid confidence coverage. Bayesian posterior probability intervals do not have valid confidence coverage in general; priors that can guarantee it do not exist.