I don’t have the book you’re referring to. Are you essentially going to walk through a solution for this [pdf], or at least to talk about point #10?
This is a Bayesian problem; the Frequentist answer is the same, just more convoluted because they have to say things like “in 95% of similar situations, the estimate of a and b are within d of the real position of the lighthouse”. Alternately, a Frequentist, while always ignorant when starting a problem, never begins wrong. In this case, if the chose prior was very unsuitable, the Frequentist more quickly converges to a correct answer.
I don’t have the book you’re referring to. Are you essentially going to walk through a solution for this [pdf], or at least to talk about point #10?
This is a Bayesian problem; the Frequentist answer is the same, just more convoluted because they have to say things like “in 95% of similar situations, the estimate of a and b are within d of the real position of the lighthouse”. Alternately, a Frequentist, while always ignorant when starting a problem, never begins wrong. In this case, if the chose prior was very unsuitable, the Frequentist more quickly converges to a correct answer.
Yes, that was the plan.
I thought Frequentists would not be willing to cede such, but insist that any problem has a perfectly good Frequentist solution.
I want to see not just the Frequentist solution, but the derivation of the solution.