This and this might be the kind of thing you’re looking for.
Though the conflict really only applies in the artificial context of a math problem. Frequentialism is more like a special case of Bayesianism where you’re making certain assumptions about your priors, sometimes specifically stated in the problem, for ease of calculation. For instance, in a Frequentialist analysis of coin flips, you might ignore all your prior information about coins, and assume the coin is fair.
thanks, that’s what I was looking for. would it be correct to say that in the frequentist interpretation your confidence interval narrows as your trials approach infinity?
This and this might be the kind of thing you’re looking for.
Though the conflict really only applies in the artificial context of a math problem. Frequentialism is more like a special case of Bayesianism where you’re making certain assumptions about your priors, sometimes specifically stated in the problem, for ease of calculation. For instance, in a Frequentialist analysis of coin flips, you might ignore all your prior information about coins, and assume the coin is fair.
thanks, that’s what I was looking for. would it be correct to say that in the frequentist interpretation your confidence interval narrows as your trials approach infinity?
That is a highly desired property of Frequentist methods, but it’s not guaranteed by any means.