Thanks so much for writing this! I’d like to at some point work my way through the book, but so far it’s seemed like too big a commitment to rise to the top of my todo list. It’s really great to have something shorter that summarizes it in some detail.
A point of confusion:
...the rules we derive should be “numerically sorted as expected,” so if A is evidence of B, then A∣B should be larger than A, if we choose ∣ to mean “information about”
I’m not sure how to read that. What does ‘A information about B’ mean? I initially guessed that you meant | as it’s usually used in Bayesian probability (ie something like ‘given that’), but if that were the case than the statement would be backward (ie if A is evidence of B, then B | A should be larger than A, not the reverse.
By the time it appears in your discussion of Chapter 2 (‘let us find AB | C’) it seems to have the usual meaning.
I’d love to get clarification, and it might be worth clarifying in the text.
Thanks so much for writing this! I’d like to at some point work my way through the book, but so far it’s seemed like too big a commitment to rise to the top of my todo list. It’s really great to have something shorter that summarizes it in some detail.
A point of confusion:
I’m not sure how to read that. What does ‘A information about B’ mean? I initially guessed that you meant
|as it’s usually used in Bayesian probability (ie something like ‘given that’), but if that were the case than the statement would be backward (ie if A is evidence of B, then B | A should be larger than A, not the reverse.By the time it appears in your discussion of Chapter 2 (‘let us find AB | C’) it seems to have the usual meaning.
I’d love to get clarification, and it might be worth clarifying in the text.
Thanks again!