# Talk:Bayesian inference

WikiProject Statistics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
 C Class
 High Importance
Field:  Probability and statistics
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.

## Rationality

All this stuff about Bayesian inference being the model of rationality is ignorant nonsense.

I clarified this more than a year ago, with in-line cites to the highest quality most reliable sources, and the clarification remains in the article, which I suppose was intolerable.

I don't understand how people can write an article that is shown to be patent nonsense by the later discussion in the same article. 17:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has now been changed, but I would mention that nowhere did previously it state that Bayesian inference was "the" model of rationality. The previous lead read "how the degree of belief in a proposition might change due to evidence." and that it is "a model of rational reasoning". Later on, we have "The philosophy of Bayesian probability claims". None of these suggest that Bayes' theorem is the sole theory of rationality. It was simply keeping the information relevant to the article, rather than expanding on other possible theories and techniques. Maybe the issue is that this simply was not sufficiently emphasised. Gnathan87 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Before my edits, the article's lede asserted uniqueness of Bayesian updating as the rational system. 21:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
What the article said is that the philosophy of Bayesian probability asserts that this method of updating is the rational one. The distinction seems clear to me. Removing citation needed tag, obviously it is rational in the sense that sophisticated reason underlies the decision.73.2.136.228 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

## Updating

In the end I can only find arguments of why Bayesian updating is not the only rational rule, but I am still left wondering what bayesian updating actually is. Could anyone please fill the section with appropriate content? Thanks Elferdo (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

## Section "Multiple observations" - conditional independence vs independence

In the current version (17 Jun 2016), the section "Multiple observations" requires "a sequence of independent and identically distributed observations" while the key to combine multiple observations is conditional independence as confirmed two lines below by the equation ${\displaystyle P(\mathbf {E} \mid M)=\prod _{k}{P(e_{k}\mid M)}}$. Please notice that ${\displaystyle (E_{i}\perp \!\!\!\perp E_{j})\mid M}$ neither implies nor is implied by ${\displaystyle (E_{i}\perp \!\!\!\perp E_{j})}$. --155.245.65.27 (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bayesian inference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 04:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

## Examples: contrast with frequentist approach

For the 'Examples', I think it would be useful to contrast this approach with a frequentist approach. This would be especially interesting if the frequentist approach used a different formula, yielded a different result, or was not calculable. Conversely, for the current 'Probability of a hypothesis' example I am thinking there is negligible difference to a frequentist approach.
—DIV (120.17.126.118 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC))