Constant2 comments on Probability is in the Mind - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (186)
The competent frequentist would presumably not be befuddled by these supposed paradoxes. Since he would not be befuddled (or so I am fairly certain), the "paradoxes" fail to prove the superiority of the Bayesian approach. Frankly, the treatment of these "paradoxes" in terms of repeated experiments seems to straightforward that I don't know how you can possibly think there's a problem.
Say you have a circle. On this circle you draw the inscribed equilateral triangle.
Simple, right?
Okay. For a random chord in this circle, what is the probability that the chord is longer than the side in the triangle?
So, to choose a random chord, there are three obvious methods:
WHAT NOW?!
The solution is to choose the distribution of chords that lets us be maximally indifferent/ignorant. I.e. the one that is both scale, translation and rotation invariant (i.e. invariant under Affine transformations). The second solution has those properties.
Wikipedia article