Timeline for Likelihood and Prior density scales
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 2021 at 13:36 | comment | added | whuber♦ | @Tim On the contrary, they would have comparable heights. Otherwise, normalization can't even make sense: since both plots have identical areas in identical units and span identical horizontal axes in identical units, their heights are comparable, too, and are in identical units. | |
| Jul 6, 2021 at 13:11 | comment | added | Tim | @whuber not sure what you are trying to say. They wouldn't have comparable height on the plot, even if properly normalized. Sure, the difference won't be that extreme, but they won't be the same. Depends on what you mean by "comparing" them and the point of the visualization. | |
| Jul 6, 2021 at 11:41 | comment | added | whuber♦ | The first reason is misleading: densities do have units of measurement and, when these likelihoods are properly normalized, the densities can legitimately be compared. Only the second reason (lack of a normalizing constant) is a valid explanation. | |
| Jul 6, 2021 at 5:16 | history | edited | Tim | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jul 5, 2021 at 15:33 | vote | accept | Zlo | ||
| Jul 5, 2021 at 15:33 | comment | added | Zlo | Thanks! Yes, I know that normalisation is not needed for sampling, was just wondering in this particular analytical case. I've realised that if I divide the likelihood function by $\Gamma(N_1 + 1, N_0+1)$ it scales it appropriately. I guess it simply transforms the likelihood into a Beta distribution? | |
| Jul 5, 2021 at 15:08 | history | answered | Tim | CC BY-SA 4.0 |