Talk:Minimum message length
|
|
This is complete nonsense -- blanking. User:194.51.2.34
- Care to correct the two references, then, since you claim to understand it better? One is in philosophy of science. The other is on a talk page. User:142.177.94.99
I was removing only your usage, which is idiosyncratic -- the material is well-covered at Occam's razor and the AIT article. 194.51.2.34 13:30, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Should it be redirected to one of them, then? -- Oliver P. 13:35, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Yes. This sat obviously for a long time without being filled, so I just backfilled it when I noticed. I have no opinion about the material here, and maybe oversimplified it since I didn't care. By all means redirect it. Just don't leave links sitting open or blank pages. User:142.177.94.99
Well, actually, leaving links sitting open is what the Wikipedia is all about! It's a wiki, you see. It's how we attract new content on new subjects. :) Now, where should it be redirected to...? -- Oliver P. 14:09, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- To Occam's Razor, if it is indeed a restatement of that principle. The issue raised with MML is also an issue with OC - all else is never equal, and, one can't ignore the foundations of measurement which gave rise to the data, bits, signal. User:142.177.94.99
- I'm very late to that discussion. But a key point about MML is that it can compare when things are not equal. --crt 11:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I notice the link to the Needham & Dowe article links to Ockham's Razor, but does not link to the wiki page Occam's Razor. Perhaps it should do that instead, with a possible extra link at OR? And is that article the best in-print counterargument to anti-parsimony claims? --crt 11:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Posterior?
"Therefore the posterior is always a probability, not a probability density."
What is a posterior? In this case, I know it isn't the common sense of a buttock. --Damian Yerrick 03:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)