Re: Programming is the Engineering Discipline of the Science that is Mathematics
Date: 10 Jun 2006 01:04:23 -0700
Message-ID: <1149926663.743280.70290_at_g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> vc wrote:
In order to give vc a specific equation reference to stare
at, I had to pull out my copy of
"Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" by E. T. Jaynes
Reminded of what an excellent book it is (even though sadly
Jaynes died before completing it), I started reading the
first few chapters again. I ran across this statement by
Jaynes:
"Aristotelian deductive logic is the limiting form of our
rules for plausible reasoning, as the robot becomes more
certain of its conclusions."
[snip VI crap]
This is nearly an exact paraphrase of my original comment which vc vociferously and ignorantly attacked. Chapter 2 of the book also contains derivations nearly identical to those I have posted here that vc called "mindless playing with formulas". So at least I'm in good company, vc, you vociferous ignoramus.
Bob Badour, you mentioned in this thread that you "feel
cheated that [your] education failed to teach [you] enough
useful statistics". I don't know how much time you have to
study these days but I would like to recommend Jaynes' book
and also for an introduction focusing on practical use:
"Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial" D. S. Sivia
I think you will find that learning probability theory from
the Cox perspective will radically improve and simplify your
understanding of both statistics and probability theory. The
same advice goes for anyone out there in a similar situation.
Reading the first few chapters of both Sivia and Jaynes as
well as Jaynes' appendix "Other Approaches To Probability
Theory" makes for a great start.
After reading those you will think "why the frak didn't they
teach me this in school."
PS. Let me also take this opportunity to correct a typo in
my previous post before the VI has a mental orgasm.
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> No but you claimed "P(p1 and p2) is not equal P(p1)*P(p1)
> in general" which is of course pointing to the possibility
> of p1 and p2 being dependent which is of course equivalent
> to a conditional statement P(p1|p2) = P(p1).
that should have been P(p1|p2) != P(p1). Received on Sat Jun 10 2006 - 10:04:23 CEST