Timeline for Erroneous expression for Metropolis-Hastings acceptance ratio in a paper
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2020 at 17:04 | comment | added | 0xbadf00d | @Aksakal We need the other direction since otherwise the claimed equality only holds on a subset. (I know that this result is not important for the paper, but it's important in my application.) | |
| Feb 13, 2020 at 15:32 | comment | added | Aksakal | @0xbadf00d, why do you need it in other direction? as I wrote, this result is not important for the paper anyways | |
| Feb 13, 2020 at 5:06 | comment | added | 0xbadf00d | @Aksakal Yes, but this yields only one implication. What about the other direction? | |
| Feb 12, 2020 at 15:09 | comment | added | Aksakal | @0xbadf00d, $\rho(x)>0\implies p(y,x)>0\implies\bar r(y,x)>0$, see the statement on Assumption 1 on p.8 of the paper | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 7:41 | comment | added | 0xbadf00d | Thank you for your answer. Your last displayed equation is my equation $(2)$. My problem is that I don't understand why this equation holds, since we not have the equivalence $\overline\rho(y,x)>0\Leftrightarrow\rho(x)p(x,y)>0$. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 19:20 | history | edited | Aksakal | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 129 characters in body
|
| Feb 10, 2020 at 19:14 | history | answered | Aksakal | CC BY-SA 4.0 |