(sadly I seem to be unable to propose edits directly) The proof involved deriving three equalities:
1. P(Hj)/P(Hk) * P(e0|Hj)/P(e0|Hk) = P(e0∧HJ)/P(e0∧Hk) so far so good. This derives directly from the definition of conditional probability, P(Y)*... (read more)
What a nice explainer this has been so far! I do think the proof given for Bayes' rule in odds form has room for improvement. Not sure if it shows up in every 'path', so I'll link the specific url I visited here: https://www.lesswrong.com/w/bayes-rule-odds-form?pathId=61b&lens=introduction-to-bayes-rule-odds-form
(sadly I seem to be unable to propose edits directly)
The proof involved deriving three equalities:
1.
P(Hj)/P(Hk) * P(e0|Hj)/P(e0|Hk) = P(e0∧HJ)/P(e0∧Hk)
so far so good. This derives directly from the definition of conditional probability, P(Y)*... (read more)