Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26006155-20200107155350/@comment-26006155-20200205161457

TheHumanAmbassador wrote: Once again, the working version of the comment is here. Then there's the second iteration of the formula.

In an attempt to simplify things, I gave you this formula:

$$P=\frac{AB}{AB+CD}$$

Where A is defined as the prior probability of the hypothesis being true, B is defined as the probability of seeing the evidence if the hypothesis is true, C is defined as the prior probability of the hypothesis being false, and D is defined as the prior probability of seeing the evidence if the hypothesis is false.

I then asked which one is easier for you to understand.

Which one is easier to understand? The easier one is the one I'll use here, because they both work the exact same way and mean the exact same thing. I get that you can used Baye's Theorem to calculate probabilities in a tightly controlled environement. Such as calculating the possiblity of drawing another face card in a 52-card deck after having already drawn a King.

What I don't see at all, is how you expect to represent the likelyhood of my personality analsys of Ocean/Cutesy/Merc/You being correct, with this formula.

This isn't a problem that yields neat integer values to plug into the equation. It's based on four years of personality observations and profiling.