![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
IMHO these points of view are not opposing each other ? Ericd
For the most part, this is a 'religous' issue (in the computing/usenet sense). The closer two groups, the more intolerable the differences between them appear. While the philosophical differences between Jaynes and de Finetti seem minor to the outsider, they differ markedly in technical detail and rationale, but probably less in ultimate utility, Jaynes also rejects much frequentist orthdoxy, but concedes that it is mostly the dark corners that give trouble - for the rest, it is the justification that is wrong. (FWIW i believe Jaynes to be the most right so far.) 193.116.20.220 12:38 20 May 2003 (UTC)
This article is problematic.
The name of this article, "Statistical probability", suggests that it will discuss a specific interpretation of probability (as with "epistemic", "aleatory", "personal", etc) but in fact this article is just a list of interpretations, and as such it's redundant with other articles that have the same list, such as Bayesian probability and Frequency probability.
To be specific about inaccuracies:
Given the difficulties, my suggestion is to identify the content unique to this article and merge that into one of the other articles, perhaps probability or better still, probability interpretations. Comments? Wile E. Heresiarch 16:00, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Given the above old discussion, and no real progress, I am convertting this article to a redirect to "frequency probability". I am leaving this in category "statistical terminology" only, for the time being. Melcombe ( talk) 09:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
IMHO these points of view are not opposing each other ? Ericd
For the most part, this is a 'religous' issue (in the computing/usenet sense). The closer two groups, the more intolerable the differences between them appear. While the philosophical differences between Jaynes and de Finetti seem minor to the outsider, they differ markedly in technical detail and rationale, but probably less in ultimate utility, Jaynes also rejects much frequentist orthdoxy, but concedes that it is mostly the dark corners that give trouble - for the rest, it is the justification that is wrong. (FWIW i believe Jaynes to be the most right so far.) 193.116.20.220 12:38 20 May 2003 (UTC)
This article is problematic.
The name of this article, "Statistical probability", suggests that it will discuss a specific interpretation of probability (as with "epistemic", "aleatory", "personal", etc) but in fact this article is just a list of interpretations, and as such it's redundant with other articles that have the same list, such as Bayesian probability and Frequency probability.
To be specific about inaccuracies:
Given the difficulties, my suggestion is to identify the content unique to this article and merge that into one of the other articles, perhaps probability or better still, probability interpretations. Comments? Wile E. Heresiarch 16:00, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Given the above old discussion, and no real progress, I am convertting this article to a redirect to "frequency probability". I am leaving this in category "statistical terminology" only, for the time being. Melcombe ( talk) 09:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)