Skip to content

Commit ceaf858

Browse files
Tom's edits of exchangeable.md lecture March 29
1 parent 7b70785 commit ceaf858

File tree

1 file changed

+10
-10
lines changed

1 file changed

+10
-10
lines changed

lectures/exchangeable.md

Lines changed: 10 additions & 10 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -141,10 +141,10 @@ which states that the **conditional density** on the left side does not equal th
141141
But in the special IID case,
142142

143143
$$
144-
p(W_t | W_{t-1}, \ldots, W_0) = p(W_t)
144+
p(W_t | W_{t-1}, \ldots, W_0) = p(W_t) ,
145145
$$
146146

147-
and partial history $W_{t-1}, \ldots, W_0$ contains no information about the probability of $W_t$.
147+
so that the partial history $W_{t-1}, \ldots, W_0$ contains no information about the probability of $W_t$.
148148

149149
So in the IID case, there is **nothing to learn** about the densities of future random variables from past random variables.
150150

@@ -176,13 +176,13 @@ $G$.
176176
We could say that *objectively*, meaning *after* nature has chosen either $F$ or $G$, the probability that the data are generated as draws from $F$ is either $0$
177177
or $1$.
178178

179-
We now drop into this setting a partially informed decision maker who knows
179+
We now drop into this setting a partially informed decision maker who
180180

181-
- both $F$ and $G$, but
181+
- knows both $F$ and $G$, but
182182

183-
- not the $F$ or $G$ that nature drew once-and-for-all at $t = -1$
183+
- does not know whether at $t = -1$ nature had drawn $F$ or whether nature had drawn $G$ once-and-for-all
184184

185-
So our decision maker does not know which of the two distributions nature selected.
185+
Thus, although our decision maker knows $F$ and knows $G$, he does not know which of these two known distributions nature had selected to draw from.
186186

187187
The decision maker describes his ignorance with a **subjective probability**
188188
$\tilde \pi$ and reasons as if nature had selected $F$ with probability
@@ -259,12 +259,11 @@ This means that random variable $W_0$ contains information about random variab
259259

260260
So there is something to learn from the past about the future.
261261

262-
But what and how?
263262

264263
## Exchangeability
265264

266265
While the sequence $W_0, W_1, \ldots$ is not IID, it can be verified that it is
267-
**exchangeable**, which means that the ``re-ordered'' joint distributions $h(W_0, W_1)$ and $h(W_1, W_0)$
266+
**exchangeable**, which means that the joint distributions $h(W_0, W_1)$ and $h(W_1, W_0)$ of the ''re-ordered'' sequences
268267
satisfy
269268

270269
$$
@@ -280,13 +279,14 @@ appear are altered.
280279
Equation {eq}`eq_definetti` represents our instance of an exchangeable joint density over a sequence of random
281280
variables as a **mixture** of two IID joint densities over a sequence of random variables.
282281

283-
For a Bayesian statistician, the mixing parameter $\tilde \pi \in (0,1)$ has a special interpretation
284-
as a subjective **prior probability** that nature selected probability distribution $F$.
282+
A Bayesian statistician interprets the mixing parameter $\tilde \pi \in (0,1)$ as a decision maker's subjective belief -- the decision maker's **prior probability** -- that nature had selected probability distribution $F$.
285283

284+
```{note}
286285
DeFinetti {cite}`definetti` established a related representation of an exchangeable process created by mixing
287286
sequences of IID Bernoulli random variables with parameter $\theta \in (0,1)$ and mixing probability density $\pi(\theta)$
288287
that a Bayesian statistician would interpret as a prior over the unknown
289288
Bernoulli parameter $\theta$.
289+
```
290290

291291
## Bayes' Law
292292

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)