= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tetronian comments on Attempt to explain Bayes without much maths, please review - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (26)
It's certainly possible to use simple Venn Diagrams when explaining Bayes' Theorem, and doing so actually broadens the appeal of your article because it makes it more accessible to visual learners.
Hmm, you're right. And the audience I was thinking of was people who, like myself, tend to visualise these things (though the diagrams in my head are maddeningly vague when I try to capture them).
My deeper pedagogical problem, though, is that equations - any equations, even "2+2=4" is pushing it - generate ugh fields. This is more than a little problematic when explaining mathematical concepts.
That's stunningly beautiful, and much better than what I had found just Googling a little.