At 2:39 PM -0800 3/28/02, Hal Finney wrote:
>Bill Jefferys, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, writes:
>> >> Ockham's razor is a consequence of probability theory, if you look at
>> > > things from a Bayesian POV, as I do.
>>
>> This is well known in Bayesian circles as the Bayesian Ockham's
>> Razor. A s
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 01:27:18PM -0500, Bill Jefferys wrote:
> I think that if this is the issue then we are looking at different
> interpretations of "predictive power", as I said. My POV is Bayesian.
> I am not thinking in terms of what you can say about ensembles of
> universes, but about
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 29 07:58:20 2002
> Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:58:29 -0800
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:57:49 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Bill Jefferys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Optimal Prediction
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL P
Sorry, I mis-edited that message. Here it is cleaned up for clarity:
Bill Jefferys writes, quoting Hal Finney:
> >But not always. You give the example of a strongly biased coin being
> >a simpler hypothesis than a fair coin. I don't think that is what
> >most people mean by "simpler". If anyt
At 9:20 AM -0800 3/29/02, Hal Finney wrote:
>That's true, but even so, a coin with a .95 chance of coming up heads
>and a .05 chance of coming up tails is "simpler" by your definition
>than a fair coin, right? Even though the parameter is not adjustable,
>the presence of an ad hoc value like .95
Bill Jefferys wrote:
> At 9:20 AM -0800 3/29/02, Hal Finney wrote:
>
> >That's true, but even so, a coin with a .95 chance of coming up heads
> >and a .05 chance of coming up tails is "simpler" by your definition
> >than a fair coin, right? Even though the parameter is not adjustable,
> >the pres
6 matches
Mail list logo
