= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Arran_Stirton comments on binomial variance problem - 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 (14)
[Actually you can't be dickish/clever that way: The problem isn't underspecified as the goal is to do the best you can with the information you've got. You've got no information/evidence regarding the distribution between classes so your best bet is to treat it as random. From there you can use Bayes theorem, blah blah, etc. etc....]
Or just change the 45% and 65% to 11% and 99%. That makes the correct answer pretty obvious without changing anything important.
Oops, you're right. The variant of the problem I mentioned above got rid of the assumption of binomially distributed boys (equivalently, girls).
The following setup should work, though:
In words, this says that to generate the i-th class, you flip a coin to tell whether it's in program A or program B, conditioned on the program, the proportion of boys is drawn from a program-specific beta distribution, and then the number of boys is drawn from the corresponding binomial distribution. Under the constraints that%20=%200.65)
and %20=%200.45)
, the average proportion of boys matches up with the problem.
However, by taking
or 
small (where 
and 
are adjusted accordingly to maintain the constraint), you can play with the variance so that the observed 55% boys class is more likely under either of the programs. If you had available repeated trials, you might be able to learn 
and 
. In a single trial, you can't be sure that your strategy will do worse than chance.