- #1

- 713

- 23

Does this make sense in a frequentist approach since if i do the real experiment once and got 4 then the probability (statistics a posteriori) for 4 is 1 which is a dumb counterexample.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter jk22
- Start date

- #1

- 713

- 23

Does this make sense in a frequentist approach since if i do the real experiment once and got 4 then the probability (statistics a posteriori) for 4 is 1 which is a dumb counterexample.

- #2

- 808

- 10

- #3

bhobba

Mentor

- 9,699

- 2,777

The frequentest approach the way its sometimes presented in beginning texts at the high school level is incorrect - its circular. What is probability - the ratio of a large number of trials. Why does it work - the law of large numbers - and around it goes.

The correct basis is the Kolmogorov axioms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_axioms

From that you can prove the law of large numbers.

When you apply it you need to make a few reasonableness assumptions such as a very small probability can for all practical purposes be taken as zero. You then apply the law of large numbers to events and say there is conceptually a very large number of trials where the outcomes are in proportion to the probability. The issue is the law of large numbers converges almost assuredly meaning for a very large, but finite number of trials, there is a small probability it will not be in proportion. But that's where the reasonableness assumption comes in - the very small probability of this being the case is taken as zero.

If you want to pursue it further the QM forum is not the place to do it - there is a specific sub-forum devoted to discussing probability. That said any good book on probability such as the classic by Feller will explain it:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471257087/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thanks

Bill

The correct basis is the Kolmogorov axioms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_axioms

From that you can prove the law of large numbers.

When you apply it you need to make a few reasonableness assumptions such as a very small probability can for all practical purposes be taken as zero. You then apply the law of large numbers to events and say there is conceptually a very large number of trials where the outcomes are in proportion to the probability. The issue is the law of large numbers converges almost assuredly meaning for a very large, but finite number of trials, there is a small probability it will not be in proportion. But that's where the reasonableness assumption comes in - the very small probability of this being the case is taken as zero.

If you want to pursue it further the QM forum is not the place to do it - there is a specific sub-forum devoted to discussing probability. That said any good book on probability such as the classic by Feller will explain it:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471257087/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thanks

Bill

Last edited by a moderator:

- #4

bhobba

Mentor

- 9,699

- 2,777

That's why these days the frequentest approach is based on the Kolmogorov axioms. The probability exists regardless of what trials you do. To experimentally determine it you need to conduct a large number of trials, so large that for all practical purposes it will give the correct probability ie you have decided on a very small probability you will take as being zero.

Thanks

Bill

- #5

- 713

- 23

- #6

bhobba

Mentor

- 9,699

- 2,777

Of course it would. The probabilities of QM are defined by the Kolmogerov axioms - not by circular frequent reasoning.

Thanks

Bill

Share: