Timeline for Unknown number of colours Bernoulli Urn
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2021 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackStats/status/1468324457928400901 | ||
| Oct 17, 2021 at 16:11 | history | edited | kjetil b halvorsen♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 3, 2015 at 23:02 | comment | added | Red | I was interested in this question for purely academic reasons, i.e. because it entertained me to think about it. | |
| Aug 2, 2015 at 22:06 | comment | added | kjetil b halvorsen♦ | One interpretation of your question leads to stats.stackexchange.com/questions/87494/… as a related question. | |
| Aug 2, 2015 at 22:00 | comment | added | kjetil b halvorsen♦ | Maybe you could tell us why you are interested in this question, from where it came, then maybe we can advance some more. It might (or might not) have some aspects common with the problem of an unknown binomial $N$, where some bayesian approaches has the problem that the prior info still influences in the limit of infinite data. As presently stated the Q is very broad, so try to specialize it. | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 17:37 | comment | added | Red | Okay so I read about the paradox and I'm not sure how it relates to this. In the paradox case I was indifferent to either gamble, the pairs had the same expected value on MaxEnt, but even so that doesn't really relate to a problem that is strictly about figuring the prior and the posterior out in the first place. | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 14:55 | comment | added | whuber♦ | May you should not use a prior at all! Read about the Ellsberg Paradox. | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 13:28 | history | edited | Red | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 26 characters in body
|
| Dec 6, 2013 at 13:28 | comment | added | Red | I apologise, I thought it was clear. I'll edit the question. | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 10:18 | comment | added | Glen_b | But how can I tell you to use an uninformative prior, unless you said you wanted one? | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 9:27 | comment | added | Red | So there is no way to calculate an objective/uninformative prior, then? And that still doesn't answer the question about how to calculate the posterior. | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 8:55 | comment | added | Glen_b | With all information, the priors would still be subjective - the additional information would inform your priors. | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 7:59 | comment | added | Red | And if the part I describe is exactly the totality of the situation I'm in? Also, how about the posteriors, how do I compute them? | |
| Dec 6, 2013 at 5:57 | comment | added | Glen_b | "what my priors should be" -- we can't tell you your own priors. You tell us what your prior distribution over the k's are; this will depend in the exact details of the situation you're in (not just the part you describe). | |
| Dec 5, 2013 at 23:54 | history | asked | Red | CC BY-SA 3.0 |