<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>MCMC on Chen Kai Blog</title><link>https://www.chenk.top/en/tags/mcmc/</link><description>Recent content in MCMC on Chen Kai Blog</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 09:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.chenk.top/en/tags/mcmc/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Probability and Statistics (8): Bayesian Statistics — Priors, Posteriors, and Why Frequentists Argue</title><link>https://www.chenk.top/en/probability-statistics/08-bayesian-thinking/</link><pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.chenk.top/en/probability-statistics/08-bayesian-thinking/</guid><description>&lt;p>Two statisticians walk into a bar. One says: &amp;ldquo;The probability of rain tomorrow is 30%.&amp;rdquo; The other replies: &amp;ldquo;Probability is a long-run frequency. Since tomorrow only happens once, that statement is meaningless.&amp;rdquo; The first one says: &amp;ldquo;It quantifies my uncertainty about a unique event.&amp;rdquo; They proceed to argue for the rest of the evening.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>This, roughly, is the Bayesian-frequentist debate. It&amp;rsquo;s not about who&amp;rsquo;s right — both frameworks are mathematically consistent. It&amp;rsquo;s about what &amp;ldquo;probability&amp;rdquo; means and how that interpretation shapes the tools you use. Having worked through six articles of largely frequentist reasoning, we now develop the Bayesian perspective: parameters are random, data update our beliefs, and uncertainty is quantified through distributions rather than confidence intervals.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>