We could call this meta-probability, although that’s not a standard term.
Then why use it instead of learning the standard terms and using those? This might sound like pedantic, but it matters because this kind of thing leads to proliferation of unnecessary jargon and sometimes reinventing the wheel.
Are we talking about conditional probability? Joint probability?
Also, a minor nitpick about your next-to-last figure: given what’s said about the boxes, it’s not two bell curves centered at 0 and 0.9. It should be a point mass (vertical line) at 0 and a bell curve centered at 0.9.
Then why use it instead of learning the standard terms and using those? This might sound like pedantic, but it matters because this kind of thing leads to proliferation of unnecessary jargon and sometimes reinventing the wheel.
Are we talking about conditional probability? Joint probability?
Also, a minor nitpick about your next-to-last figure: given what’s said about the boxes, it’s not two bell curves centered at 0 and 0.9. It should be a point mass (vertical line) at 0 and a bell curve centered at 0.9.
The standard term is A_p, which seemed unnecessarily obscure.
Re the figure, see the discussion here.
(Sorry to be slow to reply to this; I got busy and didn’t check my LW inbox for more than a month.)