(New page: <center><font size="4"></font> <font size="4">Questions and Comments for: ''' Derivation of Bayes' Rule from Bayes' Theorem ''' </fon...) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Write comments here | Write comments here | ||
| + | [Review by Aziza Satkhozhina]: | ||
| + | |||
| + | A very good lecture that shows how simple probability theorems could be applied to derive the Bayes Theorem. You also showed how to classify data using Bayes theorem. The pace was very good, not slow, not fast. Explanations are simple and clear. People with limited knowledge of probability would probably be able to follow your explanation. I have several comments about the video though. The paper in the video looks greenish. Also, sometimes, only part of the paper was visible on the video. The camera was too close to the table perhaps. And last, when you wrote down posterior = prior*likelihood/estimation. I think the denominator should be Evidence. I've never heard of estimation term used in the Bayes Rule, evidence is more common in my opinion. Overall, good job! | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Back to [[Derivation of Bayes' Rule from Bayes' Theorem | Derivation of Bayes' Rule from Bayes' Theorem | Back to [[Derivation of Bayes' Rule from Bayes' Theorem | Derivation of Bayes' Rule from Bayes' Theorem | ||
]] | ]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:58, 4 May 2014
Questions and Comments for: Derivation of Bayes' Rule from Bayes' Theorem
A slecture by Nadra Guizani
Please leave me comment below if you have any questions, if you notice any errors or if you would like to discuss a topic further.
Write comments here
[Review by Aziza Satkhozhina]:
A very good lecture that shows how simple probability theorems could be applied to derive the Bayes Theorem. You also showed how to classify data using Bayes theorem. The pace was very good, not slow, not fast. Explanations are simple and clear. People with limited knowledge of probability would probably be able to follow your explanation. I have several comments about the video though. The paper in the video looks greenish. Also, sometimes, only part of the paper was visible on the video. The camera was too close to the table perhaps. And last, when you wrote down posterior = prior*likelihood/estimation. I think the denominator should be Evidence. I've never heard of estimation term used in the Bayes Rule, evidence is more common in my opinion. Overall, good job!
