= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
garethrees comments on Updating, part 1: When can you change your mind? The binary model - 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 (153)
The Wikipedia page explains how a frequentist can get the answer ⅓, but it doesn't explain how a Bayesian can get that answer. That's what's missing.
I'm still hoping for a reference for "the Bayesian rules of forgetting". If these rules exist, then we can check to see if they give the answer ⅓ in the Sleeping Beauty case. That would go a long way to convincing a naive Bayesian.
I do not think it is missing - since a Bayesian can ask themselves at what odds they would accept a bet on the coin coming up heads - just as easily as any other agent can.
What is missing is an account involving Bayesian forgetting. It's missing because that is a way of solving the problem which makes little practical sense.
Now, it might be an interesting exercise to explore the rules of Bayesian forgetting - but I don't think it can be claimed that that is needed to solve this problem - even from a Bayesian perspective. Bayesians have more tools available to them than just Bayes' Law.
FWIW, Bayesian forgetting looks somewhat managable. Bayes' Law is a reversible calculation - so you can just un-apply it.