= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Log-odds (or logits) - 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 (18)
Yeah, I was definitely thinking about that. The mathematician in me won out in the end.
It occurs to me that a lot of people have probably thought about this, and they have alternately used base 2, base e, and base 10. Unless we get the entire LW community to standardize on one base, we won't be able to coherently communicate with one another using log-probabilities, and therefore log-probabilities will stay relegated to the dustbin.
base 2 - advantages, we can talk about N bytes' worth of evidences.
base e - mathematician's base
base 10 - common layperson can understand it, advantages with the 9's and 0's.
Actually, I think you're right, log base 10 is probably better. If others agree, I'll rewrite the article in base 10.
Wouldn't it be easier to talk about N bytes worth of evidence in base 256? Bits of evidence seems the more useful metric!