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.

gwern comments on XKCD - Frequentist vs. Bayesians - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: brilee 09 November 2012 05:25AM

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

Comments (89)

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

Comment author: gwern 09 November 2012 06:32:35PM 1 point [-]

I don't think one would simply ignore the dice, and what data is the frequentist drawing upon in the comic which specifies the null?

Comment author: noen 09 November 2012 08:16:41PM *  -2 points [-]

How about "the probability of our sun going nova is zero and 36 times zero is still zero"?

Although... continuing with the XKCD theme if you divide by zero perhaps that would increase the odds. ;)

Comment author: Cyan 09 November 2012 08:22:50PM 1 point [-]

Since the sun going nova is not a random event, strict frequentists deny that there is a probability to associate with it.

Comment author: noen 09 November 2012 11:56:30PM 0 points [-]

Among candidate stars for going nova I would think you could treat it as a random event. But Sol is not a candidate and so doesn't even make it into the sample set. So it's a very badly constructed setup. It's like looking for a needle in 200 million haystacks but restricting yourself only to those haystacks you already know it cannot be in. Or do I have that wrong.

Comment author: Cyan 10 November 2012 02:52:28AM 0 points [-]

I'm going to try the Socratic method...

Is a coin flip a random event?

Comment author: [deleted] 10 November 2012 03:30:34AM 1 point [-]

taboo random event.

it's deterministic, but you don't know how it will come out.