From the summary:
the model is saying that there are a whole bunch of different places where some model is saying
The model is saying that some model is saying? Is this how this sentence was meant to read, or is there one model too many in there?
by Eric Rogstad Jul 10 2016
From the summary:
the model is saying that there are a whole bunch of different places where some model is saying
The model is saying that some model is saying? Is this how this sentence was meant to read, or is there one model too many in there?
Comments
Eric Rogstad
Can we just replace the following:
with this:
?
Nate Soares
No. edited for clarity, see if that helps.
Eric Rogstad
Hmm…
1) It seems weird to say that the model claims that there are a bunch of other models/events. It's saying that within some class, a certain result happens a certain fraction of the time, so it only relies on there being multiple events implicitly.
2) It doesn't seem necessary to claim that there are a "whole bunch" of other models/events -- there only have to be as many as the denominator of the probability stated as a reduced fraction, right?
3) I'm confused about the claim that there are other models. The rest of the text on the page seems to require that there is a class of events for the frequentist interpretation. If I flip a coin a bunch of times, under the frequentist interpretation, do I have a different model for each flip?