[–] esafak 8mo ago ↗ DS theory has never been popular. Even Bayesianism (cf. "Bayesian nonparametrics" two decades ago) took a back seat after LLMs came out. DS theory, with its greater computational complexity, is therefore even less attractive.
[–] csense 8mo ago ↗ I don't understand what the notation means.For example when the author says:P(Q ⊆ X | ∀ x ∈ Q (x = 1))This is equivalent to P(Q ⊆ X | Q = {1}), which further simplifies to P(1∈X).This seems to be a type error (isn't X supposed to be a set of binary variables?), and also an awfully cumbersome way to write P(1∈X).Anyone have some idea what the article is trying to say?
[–] mturmon 8mo ago ↗ This reminds me of `PrSAT`, a satisfier for probabilistic statements. ("Does a distribution exist that satisfies the following constraints?").See: https://fitelson.org/PrSAT/, and the linked paper: https://fitelson.org/pm.pdfThe paper starts off slow, but have patience to read up to section 4, Applications, which is kind of surprising.
4 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 27.9 ms ] threadFor example when the author says:
P(Q ⊆ X | ∀ x ∈ Q (x = 1))
This is equivalent to P(Q ⊆ X | Q = {1}), which further simplifies to P(1∈X).
This seems to be a type error (isn't X supposed to be a set of binary variables?), and also an awfully cumbersome way to write P(1∈X).
Anyone have some idea what the article is trying to say?
See: https://fitelson.org/PrSAT/, and the linked paper: https://fitelson.org/pm.pdf
The paper starts off slow, but have patience to read up to section 4, Applications, which is kind of surprising.