Thanks Julia, much appreciated. more to come. I want to do more on Bayes theorem. It is a somewhat difficult topic, but very important in the world of statistics, and I think it is going to "gain steam" in the near future.
Thank you very much for such an interesting case and great explanation of the topic! :) Just a little remark on the board, I believe there should be one more '0' after the decimal for probability of murder of 2 kids = 0.0000046.
Thanks for watching. indeed, 30/650K was what I showed, and multiplying by 1/10 moves it over one place as you said. Thanks for correction and have a great day. John
But… isn’t it like saying everyone charged with a rare crime without other evidence is innocent as any given person is statistically unlikely to have committed it?
well. this gets a little tricky. the rareness of the crime can be evidence itself. that is one reason circumstantical evidence can hold up in court. the whole idea is that for those circumstances to have happened would be "too rare" to have happened by chance
I don’t think so, since if the probabilities in this case would had been inverted the argument for convicting would be as strong as it was for acquittal without any other evidence
@@lemao7010 I am not sure if you are disagreeing with me or the person I responded to. it seems you concur with what I said-- in a nutshell, one could argue that she was guilty because of rare evidence, so to speak, but by the same token one could argue she was not guilty due to different rare evidence.... without any other evidence being introduced. not 100 percent sure what you mean by inverted......
Thaanks! I'm glad I found your channel! Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us! 😄
Thanks Julia, much appreciated. more to come. I want to do more on Bayes theorem. It is a somewhat difficult topic, but very important in the world of statistics, and I think it is going to "gain steam" in the near future.
Loved it ❤️🙌. Keep making more of such videos.
Thank you very much. Please tell your friends. I need more subscriptions. :-) I am going to do a few more on Bayes. It is such a powerful theorem.
Fantastic explanation John
Thank You
Thank you very much for such an interesting case and great explanation of the topic! :)
Just a little remark on the board, I believe there should be one more '0' after the decimal for probability of murder of 2 kids = 0.0000046.
Thanks for watching. indeed, 30/650K was what I showed, and multiplying by 1/10 moves it over one place as you said. Thanks for correction and have a great day. John
Great TH-cam!
Thank you very much
Volume is too low😢😢
Thank yoiu.. will keep that in mind for future
But… isn’t it like saying everyone charged with a rare crime without other evidence is innocent as any given person is statistically unlikely to have committed it?
well. this gets a little tricky. the rareness of the crime can be evidence itself. that is one reason circumstantical evidence can hold up in court. the whole idea is that for those circumstances to have happened would be "too rare" to have happened by chance
I don’t think so, since if the probabilities in this case would had been inverted the argument for convicting would be as strong as it was for acquittal without any other evidence
@@lemao7010 I am not sure if you are disagreeing with me or the person I responded to. it seems you concur with what I said-- in a nutshell, one could argue that she was guilty because of rare evidence, so to speak, but by the same token one could argue she was not guilty due to different rare evidence.... without any other evidence being introduced. not 100 percent sure what you mean by inverted......