5.3, due on October 25
The definition of independents for entire sets is eye-opening, because initially I didn't understand why all subcollections needed to be tested. The unexamples made it much clearer, but I got a little confused with the example given about Bernoulli trials. I understand the results (like how P(E_1 intersect E_2) is p^2) but I don't follow the calculations involved in getting there.
I had never heard of the prosecutor's fallacy, but it makes total sense and I have totally fallen into it myself. I'll definitely notice from now on when someone makes that fallacy in their arguments.
I've usually noticed selection bias in news reports and other information, but now that I know the actual definition and name and it'll be easier to spot and tell my friends. :P
I had never heard of the prosecutor's fallacy, but it makes total sense and I have totally fallen into it myself. I'll definitely notice from now on when someone makes that fallacy in their arguments.
I've usually noticed selection bias in news reports and other information, but now that I know the actual definition and name and it'll be easier to spot and tell my friends. :P
Comments
Post a Comment