/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14730730
Not sure how this translates to 66% probability, but regardless your reasoning is fallacious. Remember you a priori know you have already picked one gold ball, so if you want to arrive at the solution through quantitative analysis (not sure what to call your method) you need to list all options using the a priori knowledge which you do only half-way. If you want to know more about this google 'Bayesian Probability'.

Consider Jeannie Mai's description of how she "Got [Her] HUSTLE" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_a1yvbB818

Now, consider Bayesian Inference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference#:~:text=Bayesian%20inference%20is%20a%20method,and%20especially%20in%20mathematical%20statistics.)

Now, to me, it seemed like she just described how she used Bayes' Rule to advance her position, and this should be included as an example of applied mathematical theory (specifically probabilistic) theory to real-world problems.

If I'm wrong, I want to know why.

>>10646842
If you have a problem with ML, take it up with Bayes, asshole

>tfw bayesian

its fun watching you plebs squabble over induction

>Presbyterian minister
>Also developed one of the most important theorems in probability theory
How did people like this exist? How come now the most we can hope for is PhD-level education to study infinitesimally specific, nigh-irrelevant phenomena?

Hey /sci/, what is Bayes' Theorem, and why are there a bunch of people obsessed with it?

I looked it up to see that it's a Probability Theorem, but I still don't understand it and why it's such a big deal. Could you elucidate the subject for me?