Where did you get your ideas of statistics, may I ask? The “what frequentists do” and “what bayesians do” isn’t even part of mathematics, in the mathematics you learn the formulae, where those come from, and actually see how either works. Can’t teach that in a post, you’ll need several years studying.
You learn “what frequentists do” and “what bayesians do” predominantly from people whom can’t actually do any interesting math and instead resort to some sort of confused meta for amusement.
The frequentism is seeing the probability as the limit of infinitely many trials. Nothing more, nothing less. You can do trials on Turing machine if you wish. If you read LessWrong you’d be thinking frequentism is some blatant rejection of the Bayes rule or something. The LessWrong seem to be predominantly focussed on meta of claiming itself to be less wrong than someone else, usually wrongly.
Reasoning “over Turing machines” and thence getting the same results (or even using the same tools) as Bayesians.
Where did you get your ideas of statistics, may I ask? The “what frequentists do” and “what bayesians do” isn’t even part of mathematics, in the mathematics you learn the formulae, where those come from, and actually see how either works. Can’t teach that in a post, you’ll need several years studying.
You learn “what frequentists do” and “what bayesians do” predominantly from people whom can’t actually do any interesting math and instead resort to some sort of confused meta for amusement.
Also: nobody actually uses Solomonoff induction, it’s uncomputable.
The frequentism is seeing the probability as the limit of infinitely many trials. Nothing more, nothing less. You can do trials on Turing machine if you wish. If you read LessWrong you’d be thinking frequentism is some blatant rejection of the Bayes rule or something. The LessWrong seem to be predominantly focussed on meta of claiming itself to be less wrong than someone else, usually wrongly.