I edited the Bayes Theorem / Bayesianism tag. There was a bracketed statement (something like [needs more]) next to the description of Bayesianism. At the time the description of “Bayesianism” was just:
Bayesianism is the broader philosophy inspired by the theorem.
I kept that text in there for now. It is accurate but seems misleading to me. Bayesianism is not primarily about Bayes Theorem at all. Which brings me to my main point:
1. Should the Bayes Theorem / Bayesianism tag be split up into two tags?
It is conceptually awkward to lump these two things together.
Bayes’ Theorem is a theorem in probability theory. It holds true whether you are a Bayesian, a Frequentist, or most anything else.
Bayesianism is an interpretation of probability theory. It holds that probability is subjective. So these two are very different things.
As a consequence of this belief, Bayesians are more interested in applying Bayes’ Theorem (while frequentists prefer other techniques such as p-values for similar purposes). But Bayes’ Theorem has little to do with Bayesian philosophy. Indeed, Bayesians need not accept Bayes’ Law as an update rule.
On the other hand, I expect this to never be a problem in practice.
2. It’s “Bayes’ Theorem”
The last name of the man is Bayes. It’s his theorem, so it’s possessive. Standard written English adds an apostrophe at the end of words ending in s to make them possessive.
OTOH, who cares, writing Bayes’ Theorem is annoying.
Should the tag name be edited?
For now I’ve made sure the usage in the tag description is correct, without editing the tag name.
I find the “A / B” to be fairly ugly in tag naming, and think that even “A (and B)” is more attractive.
My guess is that we should just go with Bayesianism, because it feels more general? Like, if it’s a wiki page later, the page on Bayesianism would naturally have a section on Bayes’ Theorem that explains it.
I introduced the ‘/’ convention in naming and think it 1) looks fine, 2) is very necessary to lump adjacent-enough concepts or things with two likely names into a single tag. Parentheses for the second thing would also likely imply it it lesser even more than being second already does.
I edited the Bayes Theorem / Bayesianism tag. There was a bracketed statement (something like [needs more]) next to the description of Bayesianism. At the time the description of “Bayesianism” was just:
I kept that text in there for now. It is accurate but seems misleading to me. Bayesianism is not primarily about Bayes Theorem at all. Which brings me to my main point:
1. Should the Bayes Theorem / Bayesianism tag be split up into two tags?
It is conceptually awkward to lump these two things together.
Bayes’ Theorem is a theorem in probability theory. It holds true whether you are a Bayesian, a Frequentist, or most anything else.
Bayesianism is an interpretation of probability theory. It holds that probability is subjective. So these two are very different things.
As a consequence of this belief, Bayesians are more interested in applying Bayes’ Theorem (while frequentists prefer other techniques such as p-values for similar purposes). But Bayes’ Theorem has little to do with Bayesian philosophy. Indeed, Bayesians need not accept Bayes’ Law as an update rule.
On the other hand, I expect this to never be a problem in practice.
2. It’s “Bayes’ Theorem”
The last name of the man is Bayes. It’s his theorem, so it’s possessive. Standard written English adds an apostrophe at the end of words ending in s to make them possessive.
OTOH, who cares, writing Bayes’ Theorem is annoying.
Should the tag name be edited?
For now I’ve made sure the usage in the tag description is correct, without editing the tag name.
I find the “A / B” to be fairly ugly in tag naming, and think that even “A (and B)” is more attractive.
My guess is that we should just go with Bayesianism, because it feels more general? Like, if it’s a wiki page later, the page on Bayesianism would naturally have a section on Bayes’ Theorem that explains it.
I introduced the ‘/’ convention in naming and think it 1) looks fine, 2) is very necessary to lump adjacent-enough concepts or things with two likely names into a single tag. Parentheses for the second thing would also likely imply it it lesser even more than being second already does.
FWIW I vote for “Bayes’ Theorem” over “Bayes Theorem”.
Changed it.