I guess I just don’t understand the difference between bayesianism and
frequentism. If I had seen your discussion of limiting relative
frequency somewhere else, I would have called it frequentist.
I think I’ll go back to borrowing bits and pieces. (Thank you for some
nice ones.)
The key difference is that a frequentist would not admit the legitimacy of a distribution for f—the data are random, so they get a distribution, but f is fixed, although unknown. Bayesians say that quantities that are fixed but unknown get probability distributions that encode the information we have about them.
I guess I just don’t understand the difference between bayesianism and frequentism. If I had seen your discussion of limiting relative frequency somewhere else, I would have called it frequentist.
I think I’ll go back to borrowing bits and pieces. (Thank you for some nice ones.)
The key difference is that a frequentist would not admit the legitimacy of a distribution for f—the data are random, so they get a distribution, but f is fixed, although unknown. Bayesians say that quantities that are fixed but unknown get probability distributions that encode the information we have about them.