|
| Nicole
JinnTo:
Micha
|
|
 |
|
 |
Nicole JinnTo: Michael Lew: You say, if it really yidels a function of evidence in the data then it should be commensurable with a likelihood function. That assumption is problematic (to me) because I do *not* think that the notion of evidence should be captured by a measure, whether it is likelihoods or posterior probabilities, or anything along similar lines. In fact, an *adequate* notion of evidence, if there is one, goes *beyond* the formalisms.It *may* be the case in that particular situation that severity is one minus the integral of the likelihood function (I would need to re-read the section you referred to); but even if that relationship (between severity and likelihoods) holds in that particular case, there is *no* way, in my opinion, to *generalize* that relation to all cases! Besides, I do *not* see how computing the integral of the likelihood would be of interest why would one want to compute such an integral?
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Atsushi
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
16 december 2014, 15:35:52
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
62.210.78.179
|
|
|
|
