You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Caspian comments on Michael Nielsen explains Judea Pearl's causality - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: gwern 24 January 2012 07:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (15)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Caspian 29 January 2012 12:10:03PM 1 point [-]

If you have a specified causal system you could represent it either way, yes.

Speculating on another reason he may have made the distinction: often he posed problems with specified causal graphs but unspecified functions. So he may have meant that in the problems like these, with one approach you can easily specify some node values as being deterministic functions of other node values, whereas with the other approach you don't (since a specified graph rules out further random influences in one approach but not the other).