One can vote multiple times just by clicking multiple times.
One can use the same claim as condition and event, and then weird things happen with the bounds and posterior probability
Confusing aspects
I voted on a claim and it made a claim in the “related claims” list go red. I clicked on the red claim, and… apparently… something with the bounds? This badly needs explanatory text!
Obvious enhancements
REDACTED. (I was about to start writing this section, but this is just a prototype and you have, no doubt, thought of everything I was going to suggest. But if you do decide to go ahead with developing this—which I encourage!—then I have many thoughts on design, features, etc.)
I voted on a claim and it made a claim in the “related claims” list go red. I clicked on the red claim, and… apparently… something with the bounds? This badly needs explanatory text!
Bounds on conditional probabilities are checked and if violated, the claim turns red. There are two inequalities checked. First P(A∪B)≤1 which translates into P(A|B)≥P(A)+P(B)−1P(B) . And second P(A∩B)≤P(A) which translates into P(A|B)≤P(A)P(B) . Currently the first rule is violated, but only because in the code I wrote “<” instead of “≤”.
The bounds suggest how to correct the conditional probability to solve the incoherence. The condition and the event can also be voted on to solve it, but it’s hard to figure out which way they should be changed. On the other hand, maybe there should be no suggestions, and you should sit down and honestly figure out which of the three probabilities is wrong.
Feedback on the prototype:
Bugs
One can vote multiple times just by clicking multiple times.
One can use the same claim as condition and event, and then weird things happen with the bounds and posterior probability
Confusing aspects
I voted on a claim and it made a claim in the “related claims” list go red. I clicked on the red claim, and… apparently… something with the bounds? This badly needs explanatory text!
Obvious enhancements
REDACTED. (I was about to start writing this section, but this is just a prototype and you have, no doubt, thought of everything I was going to suggest. But if you do decide to go ahead with developing this—which I encourage!—then I have many thoughts on design, features, etc.)
Bounds on conditional probabilities are checked and if violated, the claim turns red. There are two inequalities checked. First P(A∪B)≤1 which translates into P(A|B)≥P(A)+P(B)−1P(B) . And second P(A∩B)≤P(A) which translates into P(A|B)≤P(A)P(B) . Currently the first rule is violated, but only because in the code I wrote “<” instead of “≤”.
The bounds suggest how to correct the conditional probability to solve the incoherence. The condition and the event can also be voted on to solve it, but it’s hard to figure out which way they should be changed. On the other hand, maybe there should be no suggestions, and you should sit down and honestly figure out which of the three probabilities is wrong.