Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[prob_meaning] MAINT: migrate toms edits in 48354de #17

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 20, 2024
Merged

[prob_meaning] MAINT: migrate toms edits in 48354de #17

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 3 additions & 5 deletions lectures/prob_meaning.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -710,15 +710,13 @@ Typically, the functional form of the likelihood function determines the functio

A natural question to ask is why should a person's personal prior about a parameter $\theta$ be restricted to be described by a conjugate prior?

Why not some other functional form that more sincerely describes the person's beliefs.
Why not some other functional form that more sincerely describes the person's beliefs?

To be argumentative, one could ask, why should the form of the likelihood function have *anything* to say about my
personal beliefs about $\theta$?
To be argumentative, one could ask, why should the form of the likelihood function have *anything* to say about my personal beliefs about $\theta$?

A dignified response to that question is, well, it shouldn't, but if you want to compute a posterior easily you'll just be happier if your prior is conjugate to your likelihood.

Otherwise, your posterior won't have a convenient analytical form and you'll be in the situation of wanting to
apply the Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques deployed in {doc}`this quantecon lecture <bayes_nonconj>`.
Otherwise, your posterior won't have a convenient analytical form and you'll be in the situation of wanting to apply the Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques deployed in {doc}`this quantecon lecture <bayes_nonconj>`.

We also apply these powerful methods to approximating Bayesian posteriors for non-conjugate priors in
{doc}`this quantecon lecture <ar1_bayes>` and {doc}`this quantecon lecture <ar1_turningpts>`
Loading