|
|
|
|
|
|
by loup-vaillant
2565 days ago
|
|
|
> given that MCMC is certainly harder than least-squares, it seems difficult to argue that using Bayesian statistics is easier. Actually, I am not saying Bayesian statistics are easier to use. I was saying they looked easier to understand. Though I must point out that "Bayesian" may be the wrong word here. What truly makes sense to me is Probability Theory, which Edwin T. Jaynes describes pretty well. (That does not make me any more capable at applying MCMC, which I don't even know of. Searching… Ah, Markov Chain Monte Carlo, yeah that's not easy. Plus, this sounds like an approximation of probability theory… not that we have anything better, mind you: I know that applying probability theory directly is often computationally intractable.) |
|
|