The actual formula is in the paper. I explained the process that it is obtained from. The formula for the posterior looks quite abstruse, required me to explain more notation and ultimately doesn’t give any particular useful intuitions on its face so I omitted it. You can also find it in my code.
The title advertises a quantum version of Bayes’ rule, but so far as I can tell the actual post never explicitly presents one. Am I missing something?
I think the title is fine. The post mostly reads, “if you want a quantum analogue, here’s the path to take”.
The actual formula is in the paper. I explained the process that it is obtained from. The formula for the posterior looks quite abstruse, required me to explain more notation and ultimately doesn’t give any particular useful intuitions on its face so I omitted it. You can also find it in my code.
Fair enough! I think the article would be improved by making this a bit more explicit somehow.
That’s all right, thanks for the feedback—I’ve added a section with the formula proper!